6F PRINC^
C^^OGICAL StV^^^' ^
BV 811 .F35
Fairchild, Ashel Green,
1795-1864
scripture baptism
SCRIPTUEE BAPTISM,
MODE AND SUBJECTS
BY ASHBEL G. FAIRCHILD, D. D., AUTHOR OF THE *' GREAT SUPPER/
PHILADELPHIA:
PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION,
NO. 821 CHESTNUT STREET.
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1858, by
JAMES DUNLAP, Treas.,
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.
CONTENTS.
PART I.
ON THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
CHAPTER I.
PAGE
Our Position Defined — Offensive Position of the Baptists — The Question Stated — Baptism with the Holy Ghost and with Fire — Immersion in AVind — " Baptized into one Body" — The Baptism before Dinner — Baptism of Table-couches — Christ's Bloody Baptism — Overwhelm — " Divers Washings" — Noah in the Ark — Baptism in the Cloud and Sea 9
CHAPTER H.
Evasion of Immersionists — Judith baptized at a Fountain — The Greek Fathers — Kataduo, to PLUNGE — Authority of the Pagan Classics — Greek of the N. T. a peculiar idiom — Technical religious terms — Bapto — The Lexicons — Ancient versions — Tingo 28
CHAPTER HI.
Baptism at rivers — John at Jordan and ^non — "Much water" — ''In Jordan" — John's baptism superseded — Jesus baptized by John — " Out of the water " — Pictorial representations — Why
Jesus was baptized 48
(3)
CONTENTS. •
CHAPTER IV.
PAGK
Inconsistency of Immersionists — Baptism of the three thousand — Curious experiment — The facili- ties for dipping — Change of clothing — Baptism of the eunuch — " Into the water" — " Out of the water" — The eunuch not immersed .
CHAPTER y.
Baptism of Saul of Tarsus — Anastas — Washing away sins — Baptism of Cornelius — Peter's idea of baptism — Baptism of the jailer — Symbolical import of baptism — " Buried by baptism" — *' One baptism" — Allusions in Scripture to affu- sion— Sprinkling is cleansing — Peter's inkling for water — Opinions of men . . . .84
CHAPTER YI.
History of Immersion — Its origin— Dipping of per sons naked — Immersion and Baptism different rites — Existing traces of the distinction among the Armenians, Greeks, and Abyssinians . . 105
PART II.
ON THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
CHAPTER I.
History of Infant Baptism — The Greeks, Arme- nians, Nestorians, Syrians, Abyssinians, Wal- denscs — The Petrobrussians — The Pelagian con- troversy— Council of Carthage — 'i'estimony of Origeu, TertuUian, Irenajus . . . .119
CONTENTS. 5
CHAPTER II.
PAGE
Family Baptisms — Apostolic Rule of Baptism — Family of Cornelius, of Lydia, of the jailer — Model Missionary Report — Baptisms at Corinth — Family of Stephanas — Oikos and Oiha — Christ and the Sadducees 140
CHAPTER III.
Christ's instructions to his disciples — Infants brought to Christ — •■' Of such, toiouton, the kingdom of heaven" — The command to baptize — Matheteuo — Peter's understanding of the commission — « The promise" 162
CHAPTER IV.
Sameness of the Jewish and Christian Churches — No new organization by the apostles — The first Christian Church unbaptized — The olive tree — Testimony of facts — An unjust imputation — Nature of Infant Membership — Import of Cir- cumcision 180
CHAPTER Y.
A Direct Warrant Needless — Female Communion — Objections Answered — Baptism not Inappli- cable to Infants — Infant Communion — Advan- tages of Infant Baptism 196
1*
PART I. ON THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
SCRIPTURE BAPTISM.
CHAPTER I.
Our Position Defined — Offensive Position of the Baptists — The Question Stated — Baptism with the Holy Ghost and with Fire — Immersion in Wind — " Baptized into one Body" — The Baptism before Dinner — Bap- tism of Table-couches — Christ's Bloody Baptism — Overwhelm — " Divers Washings" — Noah in the Ark — Baptism in the Cloud and Sea.
It is well known that there is some di- versity of opinion and practice in regard to the mode of christian baptism. The far greater part of evangelical christians, amount- ing to more than nine-tenths of the whole, content themselves with a simple application of water by pouring or sprinkling, as the most scriptural and significant mode. On the other hand, a large and respectable divi- sion of the Protestant church insist upon a dipping of the whole body, as essential to the validity of the ordinance. Another smaller division as warmly contend that the baptism is not valid, unless the dipping is thrice repeated.
(9)
10 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
OUR POSITION DEFINED.
For ourselves, we regard the mode of bap- tism as a matter of small importance in itself. Neither the quantity of water nor the act of baptism can influence the state of our hearts, or determine our condition in the sight of God. Very little injury, therefore, would result from the diversity of practice existing, provided that none would lay par- ticular stress upon their own peculiar mode. The same remark is applicable to the cele^ bration of the sacramental supper. We be- lieve, indeed, that the participation of a small portion of the elements of bread and wine, at any convenient hour of the day, if done in the exercise of faith and love, is a sufficient compliance with the Saviour's dying command. Yet if some christian de- nomination should think it their duty to as- semble after night, and make use of a larger quantity of the bread and wine, in remem- brance of Christ, than is customary with others, their error might be regarded as com- paratively harmless, so long as they attached no importance to it. If, however, they should begin to make their little peculiarity the "principal and favourite theme of public and private discussion — claim to be the only people on earth who yield obedience to Christ's dying injunction — hold up to ridi- cule the idea that a crumb of bread and a taste of wine, taken at noon day, should be
OFFENSIVE POSITION OF THE BAPTISTS. 11
deemed a supper; and proceed to denounce all others as guilty of open disobedience to Christ, and therefore unworthy of the com- munion of saints — what would we say of such christians ? We would say that their error, though unimportant in itself^ had now become a most mischievous and dangerous one, against which every faithful watchman should sound the alarm.
DECISION OF THE APOSTLE PAUL.
In this view of the matter we are amply sustained by a declaration of Paul, uttered on a very similar occasion. Circumcision, under the gospel dispensation, he deemed a matter of no consequence whatever, in itself considered. "Neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love." Yet when the Galatians, led astray by false teachers, attached great importance to that rite, as essential to their acceptance with God, the apostle denounced and opposed the error as a delusive and dangerous one. He even declared, that if any of them should be circumcised, holding such views, "Christ should profit them nothing." Gal. v. 2.
OFFENSIVE POSITION OF THE BAPTISTS.
Let us now apply the foregoing illustra- tions. Our Baptist brethren deem it their
12 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
duty to be baptized by immersion. If they would be content to follow their own con- victions of duty, leaving to others the un- disturbed enjoyment of theirs, little if any harm would be done. Unfortunately, they are not disposed to pursue a course so emi- nently charitable and peaceful. They lay very great stress on immersion, and seek every occasion to magnify its importance. Immersion is the most prominent topic in their public discourses, as it is the chief burden of their tracts, books, and news- paper publications. They appear to value themselves on having submitted to immer- sion, and publicly claim to be the only bap- tized christians in the land. At the same time they speak reproachfully of others, as living in a state of disobedience to Christ, attended with danger to their souls. They shut out from their communion all persons who, however sound in the faith, or eminent for piety, have not adopted their peculiar opinions ; accounting all such unworthy of the fellowship of christians.
We rejoice to know that among them are very many truly excellent persons who, in several respects, are ornaments to the chris- tian profession ; but, alas ! a bad system has ensnared them. On the whole, taking the most charitable view which the case will admit, we cannot doubt that the position as- sumed by our Baptist brethren is attended with immense mischief. Among the many
THE QUESTION STATED. 13
thousands who listen to their instructions, may there not be multitudes who receive the impression that immersibn is the great es- sential to salvation — the safest passport to heaven ? Are we not under a necessity to combat positions attended with so much mis- chief to the church, as well as danger to im- mortal souls ?
THE QUESTIOIf STATED.
Since then this discussion is forced upon us by our brethren, let us have the point in dispute fairly understood. The Baptists assert that the Lord Jesus has commanded immersion ; and that, consequently, all who have not been immersed are living in open disobedience to his authority. Here we join issue with these brethren and say, If Christ has really commanded us to be immersed — if the duty is so important that the neglect of it is attended with such serious conse- quences, then we ought to find the command very clearly and plainly expressed in the scriptures. And will they allege that this is the case? Can they point out a passage in which the duty of immersion is explicitly taught? I am certain that they cannot pro- duce one."^
* That the duty of immersion is not clearly taught in the scriptures seems to be indirectly admitted by a large body of the most zealous immersionists among us ; for they are expending tens of thousands of dollars in get-
14 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
**But," say our Baptist brethren, "the very word baptize signifies immerse^ and nothing else, so tha't the command to baptize is a command to immerse." I answer, if this be so, let it be clearly shown. Let these brethren, at least, prove that immerse is the primary meaning of the word in the scrip- tures ; and let them prove this, not by the opinions of men — not by the traditions of the elders, but by the Bible itself. This they will find it easy to do if truth be on their side. Happily for us, the meaning of the word baptize^ as used by the sacred writers, may be tested by any reader of the New Testament, whether learned or unlearned.
THE BAPTISM WITH THE HOLY GHOST AND WITH FIKE.
For example : let us take the words of John the Baptist, found in Matt. iii. 11. " I, indeed, baptize you with water unto repent- ance : but he [Christ] . . . shall baptize you
ting up a new version of the Bible, with sucli alterations from the old as shall make it teach ]5aptist opinions clearly and explicitly. I'his is a very important conces- sion on their part. It proves that in their own judgment the duty of immersion is not clearly taught in our pre- sent scriptures ; for if it be already plain there, why wish to make alterations?
The fact that two or three persons of other denomina- tions have been prevailed on by largo pecuniary induce- rients, to assist in mamifacturing a IJuptist Bible, is no alleviatioa of the case.
WITH THE HOLY GHOST AND FIRE. 15
with the Holy Ghost and with fire." And let me ask, What did John mean by the term hajptize f Did he mean dip or plunge ? Did he intend to say, " He shall dip or plunge you into the Holy Ghost and into the fire ?" Common sense answers, No. Again, let me ask. How and when was this notable pro- phecy of the forerunner fulfilled ? Our Saviour referred to it just before the day of Pentecost, when about to ascend to heaven ; and commanded his disciples, "that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly bap- tized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence." Acts i. 4, 5. Accordingly, at the Pentecostal feast a few days after, this promise of the Father was literally fulfilled. But how ? Were the apostles dipped or plunged into the Holy Ghost and into the fire? On the contrary, if we examine the account of the transaction in Acts ii, we shall find Peter declaring that therein was fulfilled the word of the Lord by the prophet Joel, saying, " I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh," verse 17. Again, speaking of the risen and exalted Saviour, he says, " He hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear," verse 33. I ask further. How were the disciples baptized with fire ? Were they immersed in fire ? No, but cloven tongues, like as of fire, sat upon them, verse 3.
16 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
IMMERSION IN WIND.
Some Baptist writers, with more fancy than judgment, have argued that the disci- ples were actually immersed on this occasion, and in what, pray ? Why, in wind 1 But look at the language of the record in Acts ii. 2. "And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a mighty, rushing wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting." Here we perceive that there was no wind in the case, but only a sound ; and the sound was like that of a mighty, rushing wind, and the sound filled the house. Thus it appears that the argument of our brethren is nothing but sound. It is not even as substantial as wind. We may add that the apostle Peter, on a subsequent occasion, makes striking reference to this baptism of the Holy Ghost. He says, "As I began to speak, the Holy Ghost /HZ on them, as it di4 on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." Acts xi. 15, 16.
Here, then, is an instance of a baptism without an immersion ; for according to the apostle Peter, the Spirit was poured out^ or fell rqjon the disciples. And it proves, be- yond a doubt, that the* word baptize, in the New Testament, does not signify immerse ; and, of course, the command to baptize is not a command to immerse.
BAPTIZED INTO ONE BODY. 17
The idea of immersion in the Holy Ghost is repugnant to all scriptural notions of the subject. The sacred writers everywhere speak of the Holy Spirit as j^oured out^ shed dozvn, or falling upon the subjects of his gracious influences. Thus, Paul speaks of the " washing of regeneration, and the re- newing of the Holy Ghost," as ^^ shed on us [we are not dipped therein] abundantly through Jesus Christ."^
We set out with a determination to try the assertions of our opponents, by a test available alike to all : namely, scripture usage. In pursuance of our design we now refer the reader to 1 Cor. xii. 13, where Paul, speaking of the union of believers with Christ, says, " By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body." Does he mean to
* Dr. Carson (p. 107) admits that the baptism " with the Holy Ghost and with fire" was " a real baptism." If so, then, there may be a real baptism without an im- mersion. The same author (p. 105) charges his Pedo- baptist opponents with attempting to represent, by sym- bols, the mode of the Spirit's operation. Now the facts of the case are these. The scriptures tell us that on the day of Pentecost the apostles were baptized, and that thai with which they were baptized was " poured out," " shed forth," " fell," and " sat upon" them. Hence Pedobap- tists fairly conclude that the baptism was not by immer- sion ; and they make no representations of the Spirit's operations except in the very words which that divine Spirit has dictated. 2*
18 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
say, " we are all dipped into one body ?" Far from it. His idea is, by the influence of the Holy Spirit, symbolized in water- baptism, the Corinthian believers had be- come united to Christ and to one another. The idea of immersion is excluded. To re- present the believing members of Christ as dipped into ids body, would be as absurd as to represent legs and arms as dipped into a human body.
The same apostle says, " Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death ?" Rom. vi. 3. What will the Baptist Bible Union make of this passage, in their forth-coming version ? Will they render it, " So many of us as were immersed into Jesus Christ were immersed into his death */" If so, they will certainly violate common sense. And yet they can hardly avoid that alternative, for they say that bap- tize always means to immerse.
But here our opponents will ask : " Do you then say that the word means to sprinkle^ and that it should be so translated in the above passages ?" I answer, No. We have never asserted, nor are we bound to prove, that the Greek word iiavrVsoi (k/^)/;/zo) specifically means to sprinkle. We believe it is correctly ren- dered baptize^ and that no other word would convey its precise meaning. The sole ques- tion before us is, Does the word baptize^ in scripture usage, signify immerse ? If it does
BAPTISM PRACTISED BEFORE EATING. 19
not, then the command to baptize is not a command to immerse. Let this be borne in mind.
THE BAPTISM PRACTISED BEFORE EATING.
Let US now turn to Luke xi. 37,-38, where we are told that a certain Pharisee, who had invited Jesus to dine with him, " marvelled that he had not first luashed before dinner." Here the word washed is in the original Greek i^aTzriaeri {ebaptisthe)^ the First Aorist Passive of the verb paTrraoj {haptizo) TO bap- tize. So then the Pharisee is here said to marvel that Jesus had 7iot been baptized before dinner. But did he wonder that Jesus had not been immersed before dinner ? Yes, say the Baptists. They are compelled to resort to the extravagant assumption that the Phari- sees immersed themselves before meals, and that this custom was so prevalent in the time of our Saviour, that a person who did not c'omply with it excited wonder by his singu- larity ! They are obliged to suppose that every Jew in town and country, even amid the long and parching droughts of summer, had convenient pools or running streams near his dwelling, in which he and his family might dip themselves before eating! To such desperate extremes are they forced by their position, that Panri^^w {haptizo) always means to immerse.
But what kind of washing was that prac- tised by the Pharisees before meals? and did
20 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
they dip themselves ? "What says the in- spired record ? Says the evangelist Mark, " For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders." Chap. vii. 3. This makes the matter plain. There was no immersion at all in the case, but simply a washing of the hands in compliance with tradition ; and that was done among the Jews by pouring water on them, and not by dip- ping the hands in water. See 2 Kings iii. 11. This wetting of the hands is styled, by the sacred writer, a hajotiziiig of the person. As the Saviour did not comply with the tra- dition, this gave occasion to the Pharisee to marvel that he had not first been bajitized be- fore dinner. It is plain, therefore, that a person is baptized in the scripture sense of the word, though the water has been applied to but a small part of his body."^
THE BAPTISM AFTER BEING AT THE MARKET.
In Mark vii. 4, we have another example of the scripture use of the word /?a7rrr;« {hap- tizo). " And when they come from the market, except they wash they eat not." Here the word luash is in the original ffanriawwai {baptisontai), from the verb (ia^rri^oy [baptizo,) TO
*" Rabbi Akiba, when in prison he had not water enoiigli to drink, ordered it to be poured on his liands, sayinjj^, It is better to die with thirst tlian transgress the truditious of the elders." — Fuole's Synopsis.
THE BAPTISM OF TABLE- COUCHES. 21
BAPTIZE. Being found in the First Aorist Subjunctive Middle, tlie verb has a reflex signification, so that the strict grammatical meaning of the passage is, " except they have haptized themselves they eat not."^
We have already seen that this baptizing of themselves consisted in the v/ashing of the hands. There was probably a more par- ticular and thorough washing of the hauds, when they came from the market than on other occasions.
THE BAPTISM OF TABLE-COUCHES.
In the latter clause of the verse last quoted, we are informed that " many other things there be, which they (the Jews) have received to hold, as the washing of cups and pots, brazen vessels and tables." Here, again, the
■^ Mr. Alex, Campbell, in his version of the Xew Tes- tament, gives the following as a translation of Mark vii. 3, 4. " For the Pharisees, and indeed all the Jews who observed the tradition of the elders, eat not, except they have washed their hands by pouring a little water on them, and if they be come from the market, by dip- ping them." This, instead of being a translation, is a scandalous perversion of scripture. The phrase, " by pouring a little water on them," has not one syllalDle in the original Greek to correspond with it. Then the phrase, " they eat not," occurs twice in the Greek, but only once in this pretended translation. Again : the Greek words, lav iifj /JaTrnVwi/rat [ean me baptisontqi) , he renders, " by dippmg them,^' thus adding the words by and them, not found in the original, and ignoring the eX' istence of the Greek words £aj/ [ean] and i^n {me) I
22 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
original word translated ivasliing is (iairriffjioiy^ ihaptismous) BAPTISMS. The word rendered tables is it\ivai {hlinai\ which, as all admit, denotes the couches on which the Jews re- clined at their meals. The beds on which they slept, were indeed small and light, and easily carried about. But these table-couches' consisted of a large frame of wood covered with mats or cushions, made as high as their tables, and of sufficient size to admit three persons to recline on them at full length. Here, then, we have the ha2otism of tcible- couches^ and the question is, How was it per- formed ? As it was merely traditional, the mode of it cannot be determined by the Mosaic law. But can any one suppose that every Jew, in summer and winter, in con- formity to tradition, was obliged to take these heavy articles of furniture to a pool or river, quite distant from his dwelling, per- haps, and plunge them under water ? The idea is perfectly ridiculous. This baptizing of tables was done simply with a wet cloth or sponge filled with water ; and we see again that the word haptism^ as used by Mark, does not mean immersion.
THE saviour's BLOODY BAPTISM.
Alluding to his final sufferings, Christ said to his disciples, " I have a baptism to be baptized with ; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished." Luke xii. 50. See,
THE saviour's BLOODY BAPTISM. 23
also, Matt. xx. 22, 23. The language here used applies with great force to his agony in the garden, when " his sweat was, as it were, great drops of blood," as also to the dreadful wounds inflicted on him, by which his sacred body was all stained with blood. Here none but the wildest imagination can perceive anything like an immersion. I may add that all the early christian writers were accustomed to speak of the martyrs, as " baptized with their own blood." They certainly did not mean immersed in their own blood.
Our Baptist friends, of course, try to make out an immersion in this case. They say that the word baptizCj as applied to the Sa- viour's sufferings, has the sense of overvjhelm. But the idea conveyed by that word is materially different from that of dipping. When a person is dipped, he is plunged downward upon and into some element ; but where he is overwhelmed, the element comes down over and upon him. Even the root wlielm is used in this sense by the old poet, Spenser.
*' They, by commandment of Diana, there Her whelmed with stones."
They did not plunge her into or among the stones, but threw the stones upon her. Still more definitely does the compound word over-whelm denote the descent of mat- ters u;pon an object from a higher station or
24 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
place. "When we speak of caravans in the desert as ovenvhelmed with shov/ers of sand, or of towns overwhelmed with the ashes of a volcano, we do not mean that the caravans are dipped in sand, or that the towns are plunged into the ashes. So far as we can see therefore, though Luke xii. 80 should be rendered, " I have an overwhelming to be overwhelmed with," it would not aid the cause of immersion.
DIVEES BAPTISMS.
In Heb. ix. 10, the sacred writer, speaking of the ceremonial law, says, " Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers wash- ings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them ■until the time of reformation." The word rendei'ed washings, is (iairrianois (haptismois) BAPTISMS. And here let me invite atten- tion to three things which help to illustrate the meaning of the word in this connection.
1. The inspired writer uses the word bap- tisms to express all the various personal purifications required by the Jewish law, among which there were many sprinklings.
2. In no instance did the law require a personal immersion. The utmost that was enjoined upon the unclean was, that he ivash^ or bathe his flesh in water. In every instance in which this injunction occurs, the term corresponding to tvash and bathe is vm " rahatz,''^ the generic Hebrew word for wash-
NOAH SAVED BY WATER. 25
ing. Rahatz never has the specific sense of dipping, the word for that purpose being '?3a " tabaV It is also important to observe that the usual mode of bathing in Eastern countries is not by immersion, but by pour- ing or dashing water on the body, as all tra- vellers assure us."^
3. The only examples of these " divers baptisms," adduced by the sacred writer, are sprinklings. " For," says he, " if the ' blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ," &c., verses 13, 14. See also verses 19, 21. So plain is it that, according to the writer of this Epistle, sprinkling is baptism.
NOAH SAVED BY WATER.
Our Baptist friends lay great stress on the salvation of Noah and his family by water. 1 Pet. iii. 20, 21. " Eight souls were saved
^ See Stephens's Travels, Lieut. Lynch's Expedition, Prime's Travels. See also Homer's Odyssey, Book X. The difficulty, if not impracticability, of immersion in most cases in which the law required bathing, will be obvious to any one who will examine the law of defilement by contact, found in Lev. xi. 31 — 46. During the greater part of the year, but few of the Jews could have ac- cess to '' running streams," of a size suitable for immer- sion. And if the unclean person should dip himself in any vessel, not only the water, but the vessel itself would be'defiled, and the latter must undergo a purification in water. 3
26 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
by water. The like figure whereiinto even baptism doth also now save us." The apos- tle's idea is this : as Noah was saved from destruction by the water which bore up the ark on its bosom, so now the thing signified by the water of baptism saves us from eternal perdition. But Noah was not immersed. He rode secure above the raging flood. He was also sheltered from the descending rains. "Where then do we find any example of im- mersion ? Nowhere, except in the destruc- tion of the unbelieving world, who were plunged beneath the waves.
THE BAPTISM IN THE CLOUD AND IN THE SEA.
We are told, in 1 Cor. x. 1, 2, that the Israelites " were all baptized unto Moses, in the cloud and in the sea." But how were they baptized ? By immersion ? Did Paul mean to say that they were dipped or plunged into the sea ? Assuredly not ; for Moses informs us that they " went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground." Pharaoh's ungodly host were indeed im- mersed with a vengeance; but they were not baptized. "And the waters returned and covered the chariots and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh." Ex. xiv. 28. Some light is thrown upon the baptism of the Is- raelites by Asaph's sublime and beautiful description of the passage of the lied Sea :
IN THE CLOUD AND IX THE SEA. 27
" The waters saw thee, 0 God ; the waters saw thee ; they were afraid ; the depths also were troubled. The clouds poured out water." Ps. Ixxvii. 15 — 20. It seems then, that they were sprinkled or perfused with rain from the cloud, and with the spray of the sea foaming around them.
How do our Baptist friends make out an immersion here ? Do they say that the Is- raelites were plunged into the sea ? No ; but they say that there was a wall of water on each side of them, and a cloud above, before, and behind them ; and tbus they were bap- tized without a drop touching them ! Are they not sensible of the absolute ridiculous- ness of the conceit ? Will they say that a man can be truly baptized by walking be- tween two hogsheads of water in a cloudy day ?^
I shall merely add, that admitting, as our opponents do, that this baptism was a type of christian baptism, they ought, by no means, to refuse that ordinance to little children, since the Israelites were " all bap- tized." infants as well as adults.
* Dr. Carson, (p. 413,) speaking of Moses in the Red Sea, says, " Yes, and he got a dry dip. And could not a person literally covered with oil-cloth get a dry im- mersion in water?" I may add that w^eak and sickly persons might be submerged in a diving-bell, or in one of '• Francis's metallic life-cars," but would our brethren admit that to be valid baptism ?
28 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
CHAPTER II.
Evasion of Immersionists — Judith baptized at a Foun- tain— The Greek Fathers — Kataduo, to plunge — Authority of the Pagan Classics — Greek of the N. T. a pecuhar idiom — Technical religious terms — Bapto — The Lexicons — Ancient versions — Tmgo.
Our Baptist brethren, as we have already observed, insist that the word panrt^co (baptizo,) always means to dip or immerse. In the pre- vious chapter, we undertook to try their as- sertion by scripture and common sense, tests which are available alike to all. The mean- ing of words, which often occur in a book, may commonly be determined by the con- nection in which they stand. In this way we have made it apparent, from several ex- amples, that the word hcqdizo^ as used by the sacred writers, cannot have the sense of dip- ping. Particularly, we have shown
1. That the baptism with the Iloly Ghost and with fire, was not a dipping in the Holy Ghost and in the fire.
2. That the baptism practised by the Pharisees before meals, was not a dipping of themselves.
USELESS EVASION OF IMMEKSIONISTS. 29
3. That the baptism of table- couches, was not a plunging of those articles under water.
4. That of the "divers washings" of the Mosaic law, styled, by the sacred writer, Z^o^)- tisms, not one required an immersion of the person, and the greater part of them were performed by sprmkling.
5. That the baptism of the Israelites in the Eed Sea, was not a dipping in the cloud and the sea.
USELESS EVASION OF IMMERSIONISTS.
Pressed with arguments like these, our Baptist brethren are compelled to shift their ground. They af&rm that the word paTrri^cj {baptizo\ in most of the instances referred to, is used figuratively, and therefore has not its customary meaning. Strange, indeed ! Wherever it suits their purpose, they will have it to mean dijp ; but where such a ren- dering would shock common sense, they de- cide that the word is used figuratively ! But even this subterfuge will not avail them, for in figurative expressions, words always retain their proper signification ; and if they do not, they possess no force or beauty. Thus, when we say, " The clouds pour out water," and " The sun sinks in the western wave," the idea of pouring, in the one case, and that of sinking, in the other, is brought distinctly before the mind. If, therefore, the word bap- tize^ as used by the sacred writers in figurative expressions, does not convey the idea of dip- 3*
30 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
ping, the natural inference is, that it has no such signification in any part of their writings.
We always prefer to test the meaning of a scripture word, where it can be done, by scripture itself. This is undoubtedly the safest and surest method to arrive at the truth. Our Baptist friends, however, refer us to uninspired Greek authors, as umpires in this controversy. Let us see, then, whether these authors will sustain their position.
JUDITH BAPTIZED AT A FOUNTAIN".
The authors of the Apocrypha were Jews, and we may therefore expect to find them using religious terms in pretty much the same sense as did the writers of the New Testament. They employ the word 0anri;oi ihaptizo) in just two instances, in both of which it is applied to a religious ceremony. The first is where it is related of Judith that " she went out in the night, into the valley of Bethulia, and washed herself e0a7rri;crff (ebaptizeto) in a fountain of water by the camp." A literal translation from the Greek would be, " She baptized herself in the camp, at a fountain of water." Judith xii. 7.* This ceremony, as appears from the context,
* The words of the orif^inal are, Kal ipairri^ero tv rif iTapt^0o\^ cTTi rfji TrrjY'is tov tijaroj {kdi cbaptizeto €71 tc paveni' bole epi tes peges lou kudatos.)
AFTER TOUCHING A DEAD BODY. 31
she deemed necessary as a preparation for prayer. The fountain at which she baptized herself was in possession of the Assyrian soldiers ; for we are told in chapter vii. verse 3, that " they camped in the valley, near unto Bethulia, by the fountain." And verse 7 of the same chapter states that they set garrisons over the fountains. Now can any one suppose that this refined, high-born lady, even with the appliance of the stone trough suggested by Dr. Carson, would dis- robe in the presence of the soldiers, and im- merse herself? Believe it who can ! She simply washed her face, hands, and feet, and for her assistance therein required the at- tendance of her maid. Rabbi Maimonides, whom the Jews esteem inferior only to Moses, gives the following account : " A man must wash his hands up to the elbow, and after that pray. They do not make clean for prayer but the hands only, in the rest of prayers, except the morning prayer. But before the morning prayer, a man washes his face, his hands, and his feet, and after that prays." — Burder^s Or. Customs,
THE BAPTISM AFTER TOUCHING A DEAD BODY.
The word panri^o} (ha2:)tizo) occurs also in Ecclesiasticus xxxiv. 25. " He that washeth himself (^aTrn^oiitvoi {hai^tizomenos) after the touching of a dead body, if he touch it again,
32 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
what availeth his washing f"* \ovTpov {loutron). Here the word bcq^tizo is used in the sense of washing, pairri;onevos {ha2:)tizomenos) being explained by loutron. The allusion is to the law for the purification of those who were defiled by touching a dead body. Numb. xix. 16-20. Yerses 19 and 20 read thus :
"And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day ; and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, and wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at even. But the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut oft' from among the con- gregation, because he hath defiled the sanc- tuary of the Lord : the water of separation hath not been sprinkled upon him."
It is certain that sprinkling was an essen- tial part of this hajotism ; and we have shown that an immersion of the whole per- son was in no instance required by the law. The word translated hathe in the above pas- sage is vnT (rahatz,) which never specifically means dip. Where it is said of Joseph that he washed his face, and of his brethren that they washed their feet, and of Ahab's servants that they washed his chariot, and in a multi- tude of other instances, the word used is rahatz. On the whole it is apparent that what the son of Sirach styled a haptizing^ was not a dipping^ but a ceremonial clean- sing, the most important part of which was
WRITINGS OF THE GREEK FATHERS. 33
sprinkling. Accordingly the unclean per- son, who neglected to comply with the law, was threatened with excision ; not because he had not bathed, but " because the water of separation had not been sprinkled upon him."
WRITINGS OF THE GREEK FATHERS.
The Greek christians of the first centu- ries would naturally follow the New Testa- ment writers in their use of religious terms. It may therefore be well to inquire whether they always use the word Panri^cj {baptizo) in the sense of dipping.
Clement of Alexandria, the most re- nowned christian writer of the second cen- tury, has the following :
" And this, it would seem, is the image of baptism, panrianaTog {baptismatos\ which from Moses has been handed down by the poets ; after this manner. Penelope,
* In waters washed, and clad in vestments pure,' goes forth to prayer. But Telemachus, ' Laving his hands in the gray sea, to Pallas prayed.'
*' This was the custom of the Jews, that they also should be often baptized on their couch." £Ti KoirjiPaT:ri;£cr9ai {epi Icoite haptizesthai) — Sirow.at. lib. 4. I leave it to the reader to judge whether this writer meant immersed on their couch."^
* Dr. Carson is greatly troubled with this extract.
34 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
Origen, another Greek writer, celebrated for his talents and learning, uses the word (3a7TTi;(o (bajotizo) to describe the pouring of the water upon the wood, by order of Elijah. His language is as follows :
" IIow came you to think that Elias, when he should come, would baptize, who did not in AhaVs time baptize the wood upon the altar, which was to be washed before it was burnt by the Lord's appearing in fire ? But he ordered the priests to do that ; not once only, but says. Do it the second time, and they did it the second time : and Do it the third time ; and they did it the third time. He, therefore, that did not himself baptize then, but assigned that work to others, how was he likely to baptize, when he, according to Malachi's prophecy, should come ?" Com- ment on John.
This writer says that Elijah assigned to the priests the work of baptizing the wood ; and how was the baptizing done? The sacred historian says, " And he put the
His far fetched interpretation of im koWij {cpi koitc) wiiich he renders -post concubitm, never entered the mind of the refined and accomplished writer. ITervetiis savs that the remark of Clemen! relates to the tal)le-conch, and refers us to Mark vii. 4. Xenophon, in his Memorabilia, uses Koirri [koite] for table-conch. There are numerous exam- pk'S of £ri {ep}) governinfi: a Dative, and having the sense of upmi, in, and at ; as Ilom. Iliad. I. 88, ini xOovl [epi chihoni), " on the ground."' Acts ii. 26, (^' ^Xti^. [ep* elpuli), " in hope ;" Acts iii. 10, ItI t!) wpaU Trv\i]{cpi te Horaia pule), " at the Beautiful gate."
WRITINGS OF THE GREEK FATHERS. 85
wood in order, and cut the bullock in pieces, and laid it on the wood, and said, Fill four barrels with water, and pour it on the burnt sacrifice and on the wood," &c. ; 1 Kings xviii. 33. Here again, dipping is quite out of the question.
The same writer, having quoted the lan- guage of our Saviour, " I have a baptism to be baptized with," &c., remarks : " You see therefore that he calls the shedding of his blood a baptism." — Horn. 7, on Judges vi.
John Damascenus : — "John (Baptist) was baptized {ebaptizeto) by placing his hand on the head of his divine Master, and by his own blood."— Yol. I. p. 261, Paris, 1712.
Again, this writer speaks of " the baptism 0a7rri<jfxa [haptismo) by blood and martyrdom by which Christ was baptized iffaizTiWo (ebap- tizeto) for us," — Ibid.
Athanasius mentions eight several bap- tisms, of which one is the baptism of Moses in the sea, another is the ceremonial clean- sing practised by the Jews, and another is the baptism of tears.
Gregory Nazianzen : — "I know of a fourth baptism, that by martyrdom and blood ; and I know of a fifth, that of tears."
If these learned fathers understood their OAvn mother tongue, then the purifications practised by the Jews in bed, the pouring of water upon the altar, the flowing of tears over the face, and of blood over the body, are all correctly expressed by the Greek
86 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
words, ^anriw (ba2')tiz6) and HanTiana (baptisma.) And yet our Baptist brethren assert that these words always imply dipping ; and on the strength of that assertion, proceed to un- church nine tenths of Protestant Christen- dom !
KATAAYJl (kafaduo) TO PLUNGE.
Another important fact may be noticed in this connection. The Greek christians, so soon as immersion came to be generally prac- tised, felt the need of a word which would defi- nitely express that particular mode of bap- tism. BaTrrtV {haptizo) would uot answer their purpose, because in common usage it was applied to any kind of religious washing, however partial. Accordingly they adopted the word Kara^vw {kataduo) and its derivatives to express an immersion in water. We give a few examples :
Basil : — " By three immersions ti^ rpiax Kara- hvatdi {en trisi hatadusesi) and by the like number of invocations, the great mystery of baptism is completed." — De Spirit, c. 15.
John Damascenus : — " Baptism is a type of the death of Christ; for by tliree immer- sions KaraivaMv (kataduseon,) baptism signi- fies," &c., Orthod. Fid. IV. 10.
PiiOTius: — "To immerse Karaivfrai (kotadn- sai) a child three times in the bath, and to draw him out airain, dvaiiaat (^avadnsai), this shows the death," — &c., Quest, apud AtJien. Qu. 94.
AUTHORITY OF THE PAGAN CLASSICS. 37
Cyril of Jerusalem : — "Plunge them down Kara6v£Tt {hatadnete) thrice into the water, and raise them up again." — See Stuart on Bap- tism.
Now if these Greek writers believed that /SaTrH^o) (baptizo) expressed definitely the act of immersion, why did they select other words to express that action, and employ Panrtw {hap- tizo) in cases where there was no immersion ?
AUTHORITY OF THE PAGAN CLASSICS.
Baptist writers assert that the Greek clas- sical authors used the word /JaTri^co {haptizo) in- variably in the sense of dip ; and further that the apostles wrote in classical Greek, and must therefore have used the word in that precise sense.
These brethren are very apt to assert what they cannot prove. No ripe Biblical scholar at this day will admit that the New Testament is written in classical Greek. The idiom is Hebrew, and though the words are Greek, they are very often employed in senses quite unknown to classical antiquity. Of this fact, many hundred examples might be produced. Indeed all the Jews who wrote in Greek (except Josephus who wrote professedly for the Gentiles, and affected a classical style) used Hebrew idioms, and em- ployed words in senses quite opposed to classical usage. In this particular the apos- tles seem to have followed those writers of 4
38 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
their nation who preceded them. They wrote in what may be called Jewish Greeks and deviated almost as far from classic purity as American German varies from the language of Goethe and Schiller. Origen, Chrysostom, and other Greek Fathers admit the charge of homeliness urged in their day against the style of the apostles, and turn
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK A PECULIAR IDIOM.
Dr. George Campbell, a decided immer- sionist in theory, and a high authority with the Baptists, speaking of the language of the New Testament, remarks :
" But with the greatest justice, it is denom- inated a peculiar idiom, being not only Hebrew and Chaldaic phrases put in Greek words, but even single Greek words used in senses in which they never occur in the writings of profane authors, and which can be learnt only from the extent of significa- tion given to some Hebrew or Chaldaic word, corresponding to the Greek in its primitive and most ordinary sense." Prelim. Diss. I. Part I. Sec. 15.
The same distinguished critic again re- marks :
"Though the words, therefore, are Greek, Jewish erudition is of more service than
* Orig. Pbiloc. c. IV. Chrys. Horn. 3 in 1 Cor. i.
N. T. GREEK A PECULIAR IDIOM. 89
Grecian, for bringing us to the true accepta- tion of them in the sacred writings. Would you know the full import of the words ay(a(7//oj (Jiagiasmos) for example, and StKaiotjvvrj {dikaiosune,) in the New Testament ? It will be in vain to rummage the classics. Turn to the pages of the Old Testament. Examine the extent given to the signification of the Hebrew roots, tpip kadash, and p^y tsadak,^^ &c.
" Classical use both in Greek and in Latin is not only, in this study, sometimes un- available, but may even mislead. The sacred use and the classical are often very differ ent^ Prelim. Diss. I. Pai't II. Sec. 1 and 2.
Ernesti, as published by Professor Stuart, testifies as follows :
" We deny without hesitation that the diction of the New Testament is pure Greek, and contend that it is modelled after the Hebrew, not only in single words, phrases, and figures of speech, but in the general texture of the language.
" Many parts of the New Testament can be explained in no other way than by means of the Hebrew. Moreover, in many pas- sages there would arise an absurd and ridicu- lous meaning if they should be interpreted according to a pure Greek idiom, as appears from the examples produced by Werenfels," &c. — Ernesti pp. 56, 57.
" Classical usage," says Professor Stuart, "can never be very certain in respect to the meaning of a word in the New Testament.
40 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
Who does not know that a multitude of Greek words have received their colourins^ and particular meaning from the Hebrew, and not from the Greek classics ? Do etos (theos) God, oipavds {puranos) HEAVEN, mipi
(sarx) FLESH, TTiffrif (j^istcs) FAITH, 6iKatO(rvi>n
(cUkawsune) RIGHTEOUSNESS, and other words almost without number, exhibit meanings which conform to the Greek classics, or which in several respects can even be illus- trated by them? Not at all. Then, how can you be over-confident in the application of the classical meaning of PaTrriw {bajotizo) where the word is employed in relation to a rite that is purely christian ? Such a confi- dence is indeed too common ; but it is not the more rational, nor the more becoming, on that account."
TECHNICAL KELIGIOUS TERMS.
It is, moreover, to be observed that the pagan Greeks never used PanTi;a) (ba2:itizo) with reference to religious washings, but always with reference to the common affairs of life. On the other hand, the Jewish writers (except Josephus, who wrote only for the pagans) never applied the word to the common affairs of life, but always to re- ligious washings. Now, it is well known tliat words liavc one meaning as applied to common matters, and anotlier quite different meaning as applied to matters of religion.
SCRIPTURE ITS OWN INTERPRETER. 41
The English word communicate^ for instance, in common usage signifies ^o^mpar^ to others; in a religions sense it nieans to partake of the Lord's Supper. Take another example. The word conversation^ in its common ac- ceptation, TUQSins familiar discourse; in reli- gion, it signifies conduct, deportment. The same general remark will apply to all lan- guages and religions. Now, as the apostles always used the word haptizo in a religious sense, it follows that its use by the heathen writers is not a safe guide to its meaning in the JSTew Testament.
SCRIPTURE ITS OWN INTERPRETER.
How, then, it will be asked, are we to as- certain the meaning of religious terms in the scriptures ? I answer. Chiefly by scripture itself. Take, for example, the word srmvov y- {deipnon) SUPPER, found in 1 Cor. xi. 20. This word, in its classical acceptation, signi- fies a full meal, taken for bodily nourish- ment. But is that the meaning here ? By looking at the connection we find, on the contrary, that it means the participation of a small portion of bread and wine, in remem- brance of Christ. So, also, with the word haptizo. We have already produced several instances in the New Testament where, from the connection in which it stands, it is plain that it cannot signify to dip. We freely admit that the word, in the heathen classics, 4*
42 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
does usually signify to immerse^ or rather to sink to the bottom. But this is not always the case, as will appear from a few examples.
Plutarch, speaking of a Roman general who was wounded in battle, says, " He set up a trophy, on which, having baptized his hand, paTrricas r'nv x^^pa {bcqAiscis ten cheira), he wrote this inscription," &;c. He did not dip his hand in blood, but only moistened his fingers with it, in order to write.
Hippocrates directs a patient, if his blister plaster should be too painful, '' to baptize it with breast-milk or Egyptian ointment.'' He did not mean that it should be immersed in breast-milk.
Thais, the courtezan, is spoken of as " having baptized panriaaaa (haptisasa) Alex- ander with much wine." Cono. Narrat. bO. Surely she did not immerse him in a cask of wine.
Enough has been said to show the rash- ness of those who affirm that the Greek clas- sical authors always used hcq^tizo in the sense of dipping^ that the apostles wrote in classical Greek, and that they used the word in the classical sense. We have seen that all these assertions are equally groundless ; and yet, upon so airy a foundation, the Baptists build their assumption that immersion is essential to valid baptism, and boast that they are the only baptized christians, and the only worthy communicants on earth !
THE WORD BAHTfl. 43
THE WORD BAHTil {Bajpto)
This word is the root of haptizo. It is often referred to by Baptist writers, as af- fording evidence of the meaning of haptizo. But it is never once applied to the ordinance of christian baptism, and therefore has no necessary connection with the present discus- sion. It may however be agreeable to the reader to see some examples of the use of the word.
It occurs in Eev. xix. 13. " And he was clothed with a vesture pePafinhov (hebammenon) with blood." Origen, in quoting the sub- stance of this passage, uses the word cppavTicixhov (errhantismenon) SPRINKLED, as expressive of the meaning in this place. Did he not un- derstand his mother tongue? It is also re- markable that the Baptist Bible Union, in the specimen of the new version they have given the world, render the words, " stained with blood."
I will just add two other examples taken from the Septuagint version of the book of Daniel. The one is found in chapter iv. 33, and the other in chapter v. 21. In both places the same language occurs, viz: "his body ipdipri (ehaphe) with the dew of heaven." Common sense will determine whether by immersion or sprinkling.*
* Although the term bapto is never applied to the ordiuance of baptism, the reader may be curious to see
44 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
THE LEXICONS.
In support of their position, that haptizo means to dip^ our opponents betake them- selves to the lexicons, or dictionaries of the Greek language. We shall see, however, that though the lexicons, for the most part, simply give the meanings of words in clas- sical authors, and as applied in a sense not religious, they will by no means sustain the immersionists. Indeed Dr. Carson, the very Goliath of the party, after asserting that haptizo " always means to dip," confesses that " all the lexicographers and commentators are against him in that opinion." On Bapt. p. 55.
The following authors of lexicons, among other definitions of haptizo^ give wash and cleanse:
Scapula, Hedericus, Stephanus, Schreve-
some examples of its use iu ckissical authors ; and we subjoin a few.
Aristotle, speaking of a berry, says, '' When rubbed, M (iaiTTu {baptei) the hand." De Anim.
Aristophanes, referring to a comedian, says, he " was paiTTd^ici'os [haptomenos) of a frog-colour." Equites. 523.
'• It {baptei) the hair." Diosc. Lib. I.
" Some say, 0 Nicylla, that you /i.iTrrcn/ (baptein) your hair." Epig. Coll. Bent, cum Callim. Loud. 1741. p. 139.
" The lake c/?d7rr£ro [cbapteto) with his purple blood." Horn. Batrom. 218.
Let any one make the word mean dip, m these exam- ples if he cau.
THE LEXICONS. 45
lius, Parkliurst, Suidas, Schleusner, Grove, Evving, Bretschneider, Wall, Stockius, Eob- iuson, and Greenfield.
Sl'IDAS, one of the oldest of them, gives moisten (madefacio) among the meanings of the word.
Schleusner gives immerse (immergo) as one of its meanings, but then adds, " In this sense, however, it is never used in the New Testament, although it is so used rather fre- quently in Greek authors." He then adds the following meanings : to wash (lavo), to imbue (imbuo), to pour forth (profundo).
Greville Ewing, besides the usual senses, gives the following : " I cover partially with water, I wet." The same author assigns the following definition to hapto^ viz: " To wet by affusion, effusion, perfusion, by sprink- ling, daubing, friction, or immersion."
The learned Gases, a member of the Greek church, in his large lexicon of ancient Greek, defines haptizo by I^p^xo^ {brecho\ ^ovo (Jouo), and dvTXecj {cintleo) ; to wet or moisten^ to ivash^ to draw water. This lexicon is said to be gen- erally used by the modern Greeks.
No lexicon can be produced which does not give wash as a prominent meaning of haptizo ; and washing, as every one knows, is not the same thing as dipping. If a person tells us that when he arose in the morning, he washed himself, we do not take him to mean that he immersed himself. If we order a child to wash his face, we will not think
46 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
of punishing him if he does not dip his face in the water. If this be true in regard to ordinary washings, much more is it true in respect to a religious washing, which is not designed for " the putting away of the filth of the flesh," but for an emblem or sign of inward purity, and which may, therefore, be properly performed by the application of a small quantity of water.
" But if the Saviour did not command dip- ping, why did not the apostles, instead of baptizo, use the word Xovw (fowo), which means to ivash, without respect to mode?" I an- swer, the reasons are obvious, aovo) {Louo) was a word which was constantly applied to ordinary washings. Bapiizo^ on the con- trary, had long been employed by the Jews in a sacred sense, to express washings of a religious kind. There was an obvious pro- priety therefore in the selection of that word to designate a religious ordinance.
ANCIENT VERSIONS.
Some Baptist authors present us with a formidable array of versions of the New Testament, which they claim as favouring the mode by dipping. But a strict exami- nation will make it appear, that of all the most ancient and esteemed versions, fifteen or twenty in number, there is not one that decides in favour of immersion. The old Italic and Vulgate, made while the Greek and
ANCIENT VEESIONS. 47
Latin were yet living languages, instead of rendering haptizo by immergo^ TO IMMEKSE, simply transfer the word — a plain proof that it was not understood as meaning to di}:).^ Of the others, while some transfer the word, others translate it by a word which signifies to wash or cleanse; and one, the Armenian, by a term which means to bathe. And ac- cording to Dr. Carson himself, "No man who understands English will say that the word dip, and the word bathe, signify the same thing." Page 60. In fact, the usual mode of bathing in Eastern countries, as al- ready observed, is not by immersion in wa- ter, but by applying water to the body.
* It is useless to allege the fact that some of the Latin Fathers used the word tingo, to designate the ordinance of baptism ; for that word is variously used. 1'hus Ovid has — tingere corpijs aqua, sparsa, " to sprinkle the body with water." Fast. I v. 790 ; and Horace — tingere pocults, " to soak with wine." Carm. Lib. lY. Ode XII. 23 ; and — mero tinget pavimentum, " stain the floor with wine." Carm. Lib. II. Ode XIV. 27. And Martial has — tingit cittern, " paints his skin."
48 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
CHAPTER III.
Baptism at rivers — John at Jordan and JEnon — " Much water" — '' In Jordan" — John's baptism superseded — Jesus baptized by John — " Out of the water" — Pic- torial representations — Why Jesus was baptized.
In tlie course of this discussion, we have suffered ourselves to be led over a wide aud diversified field of argument. We are now glad to return to the holy scriptures as the only infallible guide in matters of duty. Here lies the great strength of the Pedo- baptist cause. And if we have at any time referred to other authorities, it has been in accommodation to the course pursued by our opponents.
These brethren confidently appeal to the in- stances of baptism recorded in the New Tes- tament, as afibrding infallible proof that im- mersion was the primitive mode. "Surely," say they, " immersion was practised in the apostolic age, because we read of their bap- tizing at rivers." But who, I ask, is said to have baptized at a river ? No one but John the Baptist, and even he only for a short period, for we soon find him removed to
JOHN BAPTIZING AT JORDAN. 49
jEnon — John iii. 23. I shall show, in the proper place, that we are not to pattern after John's baptism, but after that of Christ. But admitting, for argument's sake, that we are to follow John, where is the proof that he immersed his disciples ?
JOHN BAPTIZING AT JOEDAN.
Our opponents say that he chose the Jor- dan as the scene of his pious labours, because that river afforded deep water, suitable for dipping. But if, as they allege, the city of Jerusalem was so well supplied with water, that three thousand persons could easily be immersed in a few hours ; and if, moreover, every Jew throughout the length and breadth of the land had convenient streams, or pools, in which to dip himself and his table-couch before every meal — where, according to their own showing, was the necessity of John going to Jordan to immerse ? We think we can furnish a much more satisfactory ex- planation of the matter. John made his ap- pearance among the Jews, in fulfilment of the prophecy, that he should be " the voice of one crying in the wilderness." The wild- erness of Judea, and, indeed, the greater part of that country, is well known to be poorly supplied with water. There are few streams of any consequence ; and these are dried up during the greater part of the season, so that the necessary supplies for the people, 5
&9 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
and for their flocks and herds, must be ob- tained from wells and reservoirs, dug at great expense. Hence the difficulty between Abraham and Abiraelech about wells — Gen. xxi. 25. And hence the disputes between Isaac's servants and the men of Gerar, who said, " The water is ours." Gen. xxvi. 18-22. The Jordan ran along the border of the wilderness ; and John very naturally chose the banks of that river as the scene of his labours, in order that the immense multitudes that resorted to him might obtain plentiful supplies of water for themselves and for their beasts of burden. Even in this well- watered country, in selecting the ground for camp-meetings, and other great assemblages of people, accommodations of that kind are made a prominent object. And it is within the knowledge of the writer, that during the great drought of 1854, our Baptist brethren themselves chose a particular locality for a grand Sabbath-school celebration, with special reference to a plentiful supply of wholesome water. And yet no immersion was to take place on the occasion. But what are all the crowds that assemble at the largest camp-meetings, and public celebra- tions, compared with the multitudes that continually thronged around the forerunner of our Lord ? Is it at all surprising, that he should take his station, for a time, on the banks of the Jordan, and that the sacred writer should mention the fact, without any reference to immersion ?
51
JOHN" BAPTIZING AT ^NON.
This account of the matter is confirmed by the fact, that John so soon removed from Jordan to JEnon — John iii. 28. Eusebius and Jerome, as quoted b}'' Calmet, say that this pkice was " eight miles from Scythopolis, South, near Shalim and Jordan." The name {Ainon or Ainuon) signifies the spring of Yon^ or the dove's sjrmig^ and was most prob- ably selected by John, as affording plenty of wholesome water for the multitudes, at a season when the water of Jordan was less pure. For surely if deep water for immer- sion was his object, he would not leave a large river, and betake himself to dipping the Jews in a spring.*
Our opponents insist that JEnon must have been chosen on account of facilities for dipping, because we read that " there was much water there." This language, in their opinion, implies a far greater quantity of water than could have been required by the largest assemblages of people, for their sub-
* Mr. C. Taylor thinks that the fountain of Elisha, near Jericho, is the iEiion of scripture. Dr. Barclay thinks he has discovered it in the Wady Farah, six miles north-east from Jerusalem. The spring he describes ebbs and flows every six minutes. City of the Great King, pp. 569, 570.
52 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
sistence, for their daily purifications, and for the animals on which they were conveyed. *' Much water," Greek ti<5aro noWa {hudata polla^) in their imagination, is transformed into a mighty roaring flood, like the Tigris or Euphrates. Unfortunately for them, no such large collection of waters can be found in the wilderness of Judea. The same mode of expression is used in Ezek. xix. 10, to de- note the little rills which nourish the grow- ing plants. Israel is there compared to a vine, "fruitful and full of branches, by reason of many ivatersy Heb. mim rahim, LXX. voaroi TToWoi, {liudcitos poUou). Can the vine flourish in the midst of " mighty floods ?"
If John's object in resorting to JSnon was dipping, the language used by the sacred writer seems somewhat strange; for "much water" may yet be too shallow for immer- sion. To suit the construction of the Bap- tists, the Evangelist should have said, " John was baptizing at ^Enon, because there was deep water there."
It is urged moreover that John baptized the people in Jordan. But that does not prove that he immersed them. It is quite common for persons to go into a river with- out going under the water. But, say the Baptist brethren, to baptize in Jordan cer-
JEKUSALEM AND JUDEA BAPTIZED. 53
tainly means to plunge into the waters of Jordan. Is it so indeed ? Then when the Scripture says, "John did baptize in the wilderness," (Mark i. 4,) the meaning is, " John did plunge them into the sands of the wilderness !" And when it is said that he was " baptizing in Bethabara, beyond Jordan," we are to understand that he was dipping the people into or under a town!! The Israelites were baptized in the sea ; and were they plunged into the sea ? On a memorable occasion God commanded the priests, saying, " When ye are come to the brink of the water of Jordan, ye shall stand still in Jordan." Josh. iii. 8. So plain is it, that in scripture usage the phrase in Jordan often means no more than at the brink of the river."^
JERUSALEM AND ALL JUDEA BAPTIZED.
There is an insuperable difficulty attend- ing the supposition that John immersed. He exercised his ministry for a period not exceeding eighteen months ; and yet, during that short period, " there went out unto him
* We would laugh at a person who should infer that Cincinnati is a floating city, because described as sit- uated on the Ohio river. Equally futile is the inference in favour of immersion drawn from the phrase " in Jor- dan.'^ The Greek word h [en) here translated in, is rendered ten different ways in the Gospel of Matthew alone ; namely, on, with, by, for, among, at, through, unto, because of, and in, 5*
54 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him." — Mark i. 5. Another Evangelist says, " There went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were bap- tized of him in Jordan." Matt. iii. 5, 6. That distinguished Baptist, the Kev. Eobert Hall, speaking of John, says, " The number of his converts was prodigious. The sub- mission to his institute appears to have been almost national." The strong language of the scripture seems to imply that a majority of the Jewish people were baptized, and that the ordinance was administered by John himself. If we suppose only a million of the Jews to have received the ordinance at his hands, and that for a whole year he did nothing but baptize, the proportion for each day would be more than 2,700. No human being could immerse the fourth part of that number daily for seven days in succession. Nor could any man live, standing month after month up to his waist in water. To obviate this last difficulty, Dr. Carson sup- poses that John managed to immerse his converts without wetting himself. His words are these : " Tliere is no reason to be- lieve that John the Baptist went into the water in baptizing. He chose some place on the edge of the Jordaji, that admitted the immersion of the person baptized, wliile the baptizer remained on the shore," p. 131. This, indeed, relieves one difficulty, but it creates
55
another fully as great. John, standing on a steep bluff' of the river, could easily thrust down the Jews into deep water; but how could he draw them out again ?"^ And yet that is one essential part of baptism by im- mersion. What machinery of pulleys, cranes or sweeps did he use for that purpose? Or did he plunge them down and let them get out as best they could? Dr. Carson's sug- gestion is about as ingenious as that of the worthy Baptist preacher, who supposed that the converts of John might have taken their station in the Jordan by hundreds at a time, and then, at the word of command, dipped themselves in the water. Thus, many thou- sands could easily be immersed in a single day.
John's baptism superseded by that of
CHRIST.
After all, the mode in which John admin- istered baptism is of small importance to us. We are not under obligation to copy his baptism, but that of Christ. These two
•^ Some years ago, the writer heard of an attempt by a preacher to immerse a candidate in the river Cheat, without wetting himself. There was no difficulty in getting the candidate under the water, but in the strug- gle attending the effort to draw him out, the baptizer and the baptized were both plunged headlong into the river. This was previous to the invention and use of the " vulcanized india rubber baptismal pants/' now ad- vertised in the Baptist newspapers.
58 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
institutions diflfer in several important parti- culars.
1. Jolin's baptism was intended for the Jews only. Christ's was intended for all nations; agreeably to the prediction that he should "sprinkle many nations." Isa. lii. 15.
2. John's baptism was designed to prepare the way for the manifestation of Christ, at a period when John himself did not know him. John i. 13. Christ's baptism required a settled belief in him as a divine Saviour who had suffered death, risen again, and ascended to the Father.
8. John's baptism was not given in the name of the Lord Jesus, nor in that of the Holy Ghost. Christ's baptism was adminis- tered in all three of the sacred names.
THE REBAPTIZING AT EPHESUS.
But this question is set at rest by the ac- count given us of the rebaptism of certain persons at Ephesus, who had already sub- mitted to the baptism of John, see Acts xix. 1 — 6. These persons having assured Paul that they had " not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost," he asks, " Unto what then were ye baptized '/" The very question implied that tliere had been more than one institution of baptism, and Paul would know whether they had received John's or Christ's. Accordingly they an- swered, " Unto John's baptism." This solved
JESUS BAPTIZED BY JOHN. 57
the difficulty, for John did not baptize in the name of the Trinity. He "verily bap- tized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him who should come after hira^ that is, on Christ Jesus." After this brief explana- tion, Paul caused them to be baptized " in the name of the Lord Jesus." For John's baptism being no longer in force, they could not be received as regularly baptized mem- bers, till they submitted to the new ordinance appointed by Christ.
JESUS BAPTIZED BY JOHN.
Our Baptist friends assert with their usual confidence that Jesus was immersed by John. If we ask for the proof, they reply that Jesus was baptized in Jordan. We beg their pardon, but do not regard that circumstance as sufficient evidence that he was immersed. He may have descended the high banks of Jordan, or trod into the edge of the stream, without being plunged into it. This will appear not unlikely, if we consider that the inhabitants of Eastern countries, instead of shoes and stockings, wear a sandal of wood or leather, covering no more than the sole of the foot ; and in a hot climate, like that of Judea, they might, on a thousand occa- sions, step into a stream without any thought of going under the water.
58 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. " OUT OF THE WATER."
But, say the Baptists, Jesus " went up straightway out of the water, (Matt. iii. 16,) which surely means that he went up from under the water."^ Here again we must dif- fer from these brethren. The language of the original will not justify their construc- tion. The word a^:»o, translated out of pri- marily signifies /roTTi, It occurs in the Gos- pel by Matthew one hundred and nine times, and is rendered just sixty-five times from
* Dr. George Campbell seems to couDtenanee the notioa that the phrase " went up out of the water," implies aa emersion out of, or from under the water. His language, often quoted by the Baptists, is as follows, " Accord- ingly, the baptized are said dvajSaivuv [anabainein) to arise, to emerge, or ascend, v. 16, arrd rov -uJaroj {apo tou hudatos), and Acts viii. 39, Ik tov vSarog [ek tou hiulatos), from or out of the water." Notes on Matt. How often are men betrayed into error by attachment to a theory ! Look at the following passages in which the very same verb and preposition occur in the Greek.
Luke ii. 4. " And Joseph also ivent up from Gali- lee." Did he " emerge" from under the soil of Galilee or the city of Nazareth ?
Song iii. 6. " Who is she, coming tip from the wilder- ness ?" Did the spouse " emerge or ascend" from under the sands of the desert ?
Gen. xvii. 22. " And God went up from Abraham."
John xi. .5.5. "And many wc»^ oi// o/" the country vp to Jernsal(;m. Did they " emerge" out of the earth like the fabled offspring of the serpent's teeth ?
Acts viii, 39 — " Both Philip and the eunuch came tip out of the water." Did the liajitizer and the baptized both " emerge" from under the water ? See also liev. vii. 2.
OUT OF THE WATER. 59
and only ten times out of.^ Its usual mean- ing would doabtless have been given it in Matt. iii. 16, but for the strong leaning of the translators to immersion. We saj not this to censure them. They were learned and conscientious men ; and the version they have given us is probably, as a whole, the best in any language. It is not perfect, just because they were men. That they should discover no small bias in favour of immer- sion will not be surprising, if we reflect that the church of England, previous to her im- perfect reformation from Popery, had uni- formly adhered to the trine immersion. Even after her separation from Eome, her first lit- urgy in 1547 enjoined the trine immersion ; and that mode of baptism continued to be practised till 250 years ago, when it was gradually laid aside. It was about this period that our version of the Bible was produced, and it favours the Baptists quite as much as they ought to desire.
But there is another strong objection to the construction which the Baptists give to the phrase " went up out of the water."
* Of the ten instances in Matthew in which apo is ren- dered out of, six are cases in which ek is prefixed to the foregoing verb. This apparently gives to apo the force of ek twice repeated — a subject which will be noticed in the next chapter. The four remaining passages are, chap. iii. 16, — " went up straightway out of the water," viii. 34, — " would depart out q/' their coasts," xiv. 13, — " followed him out of the cities," and verse 29, — " Peter was come down out of the ship."
60 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
They know very well that, in administering baptism in their peculiar mode, there are two distinct acts performed by the baptizer, each of which is essential to the idea of dipping. The one is putting the person under water, and the other is taking him out again. I repeat, that unless both these operations are performed by the baptizer, there is no dip- ping in the case. Now it is plain, that Jesus *' went up out of the water " by his own act — not by that of John. Consequently, he was not dipped by John. To suit the Bap- tist theory, the Evangelist should have said, " And Jesus, when he was baptized, was drawn up^ or lifted out of the water."
ANCIENT PICTORIAL REPRESENTATIONS.
The views already expressed are amply confirmed by many ancient pictures, repre- senting the baptism of the Saviour. The subject seems to have been a favourite one with the christian artists, who lived in the ages succeeding the apostles. And it is a striking fact, that among all the works of that kind which have been transmitted to us, not one represents this baptism as taking place by immersion. On the contrary, they all, with singular uniformity, represent John as pouring or sprinkling water upon the head of Christ, who is standing in the water of Jordan. Most of these pictures were made at a period when immersion had become the
ANCIENT PICTORIAL REPRESENTATIONS. 61
prevailing practice in the church, and, con- sequently, must be regarded as unwilling testimony, rendered by immersionists them- selves, to historical truth.
Mr. C. Taylor, editor of Calmet's Diction- ary, in his Ai^ostolic Baptism^ has furnished copies of a number of these ancient pictures. I will briefly notice a few of them.
One is copied from the centre-piece of the dome of the Baptistery at Kavenna, which was built and decorated in the year 454. John the Baptist is drawn standing on the brink of the Jordan, holding a vessel from which he ])ours water on the head of Christ, who is standing in the water. Over his head is the descending dove, a symbol of the Holy Ghost.
Another is a picture in mosaic, taken from the church of Cosmedin, in Kavenna. The edifice is known to have been erected in the year 401. John the Baptist is represented as standing on a rock which overhangs the Jordan, clad in a hairy garment. In his left hand is a crooked staff', and in his right a shell, from which he pours water upon the Redeemer, who is standing below him in the water. Above his head is the descend- ing dove.
A third is taken from the church in the Yia Ostiensis, at Rome. It is executed in brass, the figures being partly in relief, and partly engraved. The positions occupied by John and the Saviour are the same as in the 6
$8 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
Other pictures. The baptism is by affusion. The picture is evidently the work of Greek artists, and is regarded by learned anti- quaries as very ancient. The inscriptions are in Greek, with the motto BAPTICEC.
A fourth is copied from the walls of an ancient Baptistery, found in the Catacombs of Pontianus, near Eome. These extensive Catacombs were originally quarries which furnished the christians with a secure retreat in the ages of persecution. In these subter- ranean regions, thousands sought for safety, celebrated their worship, and buried their dead. The Baptistery is about six feet square, cut in the solid rock. On the wall above, is a rude picture of the baptism of Christ. Again, John stands on the bank of the river, and pours water on the head of Christ. The figures of the lamb and of the single angel are considered evidences of great antiquity. Below is a cross on which are suspended the Greek letters, Alpha and Omega. It is susceptible of proof that this Baptistery was in use in the first and second centuries.
These pictorial representations prove that from the earliest times, before the rise of Popery, and even after immersion had be- come generally practised, both Greeks and Latins believed that Christ was baptized by affusion.^
•* We have introduced the subject of these pictorial
WHY JESUS WAS BAPTIZED. 63
WHY JESUS WAS BAPTIZED.
Our opponents talk much and declaim loudly about following the Lord Jesus in his baptism. In the most impassioned language, they exhort their hearers " to follow their Saviour to Jordan — down into the water, into his liquid grave." Well would it be if these brethren were as eager to persuade men to follow Christ in his love to God and man, in his purity of heart and life, his hu- mility, patience, meekness, his diligence in doing good, and his decided opposition to formalism. But, alas ! when they speak of following Christ, the water seems to swallow up all but one idea — that of being immersed. As might be looked for, many of their hearers are ready to conclude that they have followed Christ far enough if they have been
representations, partly to meet the common objection of our Baptist brethren, that sprinkling owes its origin to Popery. We may add, that authors, who wrote before the existence of Popery, believed that John baptized by pouring. Aurelius Prudeutius, A. D. 390, referring to John's baptism, sayi^, perfiuiit fluvio, " he poured water, or perfused them in the river." Pauliuus of Nola, a few years later, says, *' He [John] washes away the sins of believers, mfiisis lymphis — by pouring on water." Bernard, speaking of the baptism of our Saviour by John, says, Infundit aquam capiti Creatoris creatura — '' The creature pours water on the head of the Creator." Lactantius says, " Christ received baptism, that he might save the Gentiles by baptism ; that is, pur/Jici roris per' fusione — by perfusion of the purifying dew." — Pond on
64 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
put under the water. By way of correcting this serious error, a little investigation will show that Christ was
NOT BAPTIZED AS AN EXAMPLE FOR US.
1. He was not baptized with " John's bap- tism," for that was the baptism of repent- ance, and our Lord had no sin to repent of.
2. He did not receive " believers' baptism," for that would be to believe on himself, whereas he was the great object of faith.
3. He was not baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for then he would have been baptized in his own name.
4. He was not baptized till he was thirty years of age.
So, then, he did not receive John's bap- tism, nor believers' baptism, nor christian baptism, nor was he baptized till he was thirty years of age. How, then, can it be said that he was baptized as an example for us ? Is there a single passage of God's word which countenances that idea? Not one. Then let us hear the true reason of his baptism from his own lips. John, not understanding his design at first, was un- willing to baptize him, saying, " I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?" Matt. iii. 14. Jesus then unfolded to him the end he had in view, saying, "Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us (i. e. John and himself) to fuljil all ri(jhteousnessP
NOT BAPTIZED AS AN EXAMPLE. 65
John now acquiesced, for he perceived that Christ was about to enter upon his ministry, and that it was requisite that he should be consecrated to the work, by the agency of his forerunner, and by the anointing of the Spirit. " Righteousness'^ means conformity to a law. And to what law did Christ and John conform in this instance? Not to the moral, but the ceremonial law. To explain the transaction, we must recur to the law for the consecration of priests, which is in these words, " And thou shalt bring Aaron and his sons unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and wash them with water. And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments, and anoint him, and sanctify him." Exod. xl. 12, 18. Now, these Aaronic priests, in their official character, were types of Christ, and it was necessary that all the types should receive their fulfilment in him.
First. As the priests were introduced into their office at the age of thirty years, so Christ delayed entering upon his ministry till he had reached that age.
Secondly. As the priests were set apart to their office by the washing of water, so by the application of water was Christ in- troduced into his priestly office, which was the basis of his other two offices.
Thirdly. As the priests, at their consecra- tion, were anointed with the holy oil, so Christ, at his baptism, was anointed with the Holy Ghost descending upon him in the form of a dove. 6*
66 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
Sucli is the only satisfactory account that can be given of this baptism. It was in- cumbent on John and Clirist to fulfil those precepts of the law which foreshadowed the Messiah's consecration to his office. Imme- diately after his baptism, and in the first re- corded sermon he preached, Jesus made dis- tinct reference to his recent consecration to his work. " The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor." Luke iv. 16 — 21.
From the foregoing remarks it appears that those who talk of following Christ in his baptism, know not what they say. Neither in his being circumcised, nor in his observance of the passover, nor in his keep- ing of the seventh day, nor in his baptism, was he an example for us. Let us imitate him in all those moral excellences which shone so brightly in his character ; but let us beware of attempting to follow him into his priestly office.
INCONSISTENCY OF IMMERSIONISTS. 67
CHAPTER ly.
Inconsistency of immersionists — Baptism of the three thousand — Curious experiment — The facilities for dip- ping— Change of clothing — Baptism of the eunuch — " Into the water" — " Out of the water" — The eunuch not immersed.
We have seen that the baptism of John is not the model to which we are to con- form at the present day. The baptism de- signed for all nations, and now binding on the church, was instituted by Christ after his death and resurrection. He then commanded his disciples to " teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." John's bap- tism, having accomplished the end for which it had been appointed, was now superseded by that of Christ, which was to continue in force to the end of the world. If, therefore, we would ascertain the proper mode of christian baptism, we must refer to those in- stances in which it was administered by the apostles after the death of Christ. Nearly all the recorded instances of that kind are found in the Acts of the Apostles. These we
68 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
shall consider in the proper order ; but first we must call attention to a
SINGULAR INCONSISTENCY OF IMMERSIONISTS.
They dwell with great emphasis on John's baptism, hold it up as the model for the christian church, and strongly insist that he resorted to Jordan and ^non because he could not elsewhere find facilities for dip- ping. Yet when we refer them to the fact that the apostles never met with any diffi- culty in administering baptism in any local- ity, " Oh, very true," say they, " for wherever man has fixed his abode there is at all times a sufficiency of water for immersion."
We cannot reconcile these conflicting statements. If John was compelled to go all the way to Jordan and iEnon to baptize, will our brethren tell us why the apostles were under no such necessity ? According to our theory, indeed, the reason is quite obvious. They did not, like the Baptist, as- semble round them vast crowds to remain with them for days together, and requiring large supplies of water for ordinary uses. And hence they were never obliged to go out of their way for water. There is no in- stance on record in which they had occasion to leave the place of worship to find water for baptism. Tliey seem to have baptized all their numerous converts on the very spot where they preached to them — three thou-
THKEE THOUSAND BAPTIZED. 69
sand at one time, and five thousand at an- other, in the midst of a crowded city — Cor- nelius in his own house — the Ethiopian in a desert — the Philippian jailer in the prison at midnight — Saul in his private room at Damascus ; besides great multitudes in Sam- aria, Corinth, and other cities. Now we think our immersion ist friends are bound to show how it happened that the apostles found plenty of water for baptism in so many different places, where John could not be accommodated. Did the river Jordan, or the springs of ^non, miraculously follow them in all their journeyings ?
According to the Baptists, there were very few places where John could get water enough for baptizing, whilst the apostles could find enough anywhere. If this be true, the apostles did not baptize in the same manner as John ; and if John practised dip- ping, the apostles did not. On the other hand, if John, like the apostles, coald easily administer his baptism anywhere, then he did not go away to Jordan and JSnon to find water for baptizing, but for other pur- poses.
I proceed now to consider the case of the
THREE THOUSAND, BAPTIZED IN JERUSALEM.
This is the first instance of the adminis- tration of christian baptism by the apostles. See Acts ii. 41; "Then they that gladly
^ THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
received his word were baptized, and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." Where is the evi- dence that these persons were immersed? There is none whatever ; on the contrary, the immersion of this vast multitude, in the circumstances, was quite impracticable. It was nine o'clock when Peter began his ser- mon, and when that was ended, the congre- gations were further exhorted " with many other words," verse 40. Much time also must have been occupied in the examination of three thousand candidates; and if the apostles were genuine Baptists, they must have taken a vote of the whole church on the reception of each individual. Thus a very small part of the day remained for the administration of the ordinance. And is it credible that, during that short period, the apostles could each have immersed two hun- dred and fifty candidates ? As to the seventy disciples, when Christ sent them forth, he had not instituted his baptism ; nor did he ever commission them to baptize. Moreover, their commission to preach had now expired. It is plain that the apostles were the only persons who ministered on the occasion ; for Peter is represented as standing up (to preach) '•'• with the eleven;'''' verse 14; and the convicted multitude sought direction, not from the seventy, but from "Peter and the rest of the apostles," saying, " What shall we do ?" verse 37.
EXPEEIMENT IN BAPTISTHENICS. 71
CURIOUS EXPERIMENT IN BAPTISTHENICS.
The Baptist brethren claim that the apos- tles could easily have immersed their three thousand converts in the time allowed them, and undertake to test the matter by actual experiment. Among others, a worthy Bap- tist preacher of our acquaintance, having on hand some forty-three candidates for baptism, resolved to make trial of the speed with which he could put them all in succession under the water. Though it is certain there was no wager in the case, yet the good man was stimulated to do his utmost, by a desire to obtain a triumph over the Pedobaptists. For this end all needful arrangements were made. Laymen were appointed to bring the candidates down to the water's edge. Others led them into deep water, where the minister plunged them under, repeating the usual words, and then handed them over to another set of lay assistants, who led them back to the shore. Persons were also stationed on the bank, with watch in hand, to note the time consumed.' The result was, that the whole forty-three were immersed in just thirty-one minutes ; though the preacher, who was an uncommonly stout, athletic per- son, seemed quite exhausted by his effort. It was claimed, however, that at this rate, the apostles could have immersed two hun- dred and fifty persons each, in the space of three hours. On this singular experiment I have to make two observations :
72 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
First. The respected brother contrived to shuffle off upon others more than the half of his appropriate ministerial duty. To baptize^ in his acceptation of the term, is to immerse the entire person of the candidate in water, and take him out again. All this must be done by a regularly ordained minister. But, in the present instance, laymen took in the candidates and immersed them up to the waist. The minister did no more than dip their head and shoulders, and then lay per- sons took them out of the water. Thus, not one of the forty-three received more than a half-dipping from the hands of the preacher. If I were a strict immersionist, I would pro- test against the admission of those baptisms as valid. Such a "clipping off of the ordinance" might end in pouring or sprink- ling.
Secondly. Supposing that the apostles could operate with the same speed as our Baptist brother — that is to say, could im- merse forty persons each, in the first half hour — it does not follow that they could each immerse forty in the next ftalf hour, much less forty in each of four more successive half hours. A person may be found who ■will run on foot four miles in half an hour. Does it follow that he can continue at that gait, so as to accomplish twenty-four miles in three consecutive hours?
Tlie truth is, tliat no twelve men can be found who will immerse, with due decorum
THE FACILITIES FOR DIPPING. 73
and solemnity, three thousand persons in six, or even in nine hours.
THE FACILITIES FOR DIPPINa.
But supposing the apostles to have pos- sessed the physical endurance of a Samson, where could they find twelve convenient places for dipping? There was no river within forty miles of the city, and Kedron is a mere winter stream, almost always dry. True, there were within the area of the tem- ple immense subterranean reservoirs sup- plied by aqueducts ; and so there were cis- terns underneath many private dwellings ; but these could be no more available for immersion than a common well. As to the brazen sea and lavers of the temple, the apostles could not have gain.ed possession of those sacred utensils, without driving oft* by force the whole body of the priests who had them in charge. Then though there were large pools or tanks in or near the city, they were no't so constructed as to allow a number of persons at the same time to make use of them for the immersion of others.* Nor is there the slightest hint that
* Dr. Barclay, who is a Baptist, seems to have proved that what has heretofore been taken for the pool of Bethesda, is nothing more than an immense moat, con- structed as a defence to the fortress of Antonia. It is still more than fifty feet deep- City of the Great King, pp. 321, 323. 7
74 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
the multitude moved one step from the place for water. This omission the Baptists can- not easily explain. With them the proces- sion from the church to the river is a material part of the ceremony.
CHANGE OF CLOTHING. '
There is still another difficulty attending the supposition that these three thousand were immersed. They had been drawn to- gether by the report of a wonderful miracle, had not foreseen what would take place, and were altogether unprepared for such an emer- gency. They would hardly be immersed ia a state of nudity ; nor would men and women be immersed in their clothes, and then in crowds wend their way through the streets, their garments dripping with water, and ad- hering to their bodies ; thus setting common decency at defiance. Where then did they obtain the necessary garments? Could the apostles furnish them adapted to both sexes, and to every stature ? Or did each candi- date run back to his dwelling to bring his baptismal suit? Why is tlie scripture so silent on the subject? Was it an unimpor- tant circumstance? Oar Baptist brethren make the changing of the clothes a very im- portant part of the business. Matters appa- rently less important are recorded in the scriptures. Thus tlie murderers of Stephen are said to have " laid down their clothes."
BAPTISM OF THE ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH. 75
It is also mentioned that Christ, on one oc- casion, " laid aside his garments," and " that he took them again." And when the mag- istrates of Philippi were about to scourge Paul and Silas, it is recorded that "they rent off their clothes." Why then have we not the slightest intimation of a change of garments by the multitudes baptized in Je- rusalem and other cities ?*
BAPTISM OF THE ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH.
This interesting case is recorded in Acts viii. 26—40. In verses 88 and 39, our En- glish version has the following :
" And he commanded the chariot to stand still : and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip," &c.
This is the sheet anchor of the immersion- ists. Everywhere, and on all occasions, they refer us to it, as proof positive in favour of
* It is remarkable that so soon as immersion makes its appearance in the history of the church, we meet with express mention of the disrobing of the candidates. Thus : " Basil rose up with fear and trembling, un- dressed himself, putting off the old man, and went down praying into the water." Robinson's Hist, of Bapt. Ch. XV. Yet among all the baptisms recorded in the New Testament, there is not one in which the sliglitest hint is afibrded that any change of garments took place.
76' THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
dipping. They do not like to say, indeed, that going down into the water, here, means going under the water ; for then it would follow that the baptizer and the baptized were both plunged. But why, say they, is it recorded that the parties went down irito the water, unless one of them was immersed ? Says Dr. Carson, " Had I no more conscience than Satan himself, I could not, as a scholar, attempt to expel immersion from this ac- count." p. 128.
In spite of the harsh denunciations of Dr. Carson, I shall proceed to inquire, with the utmost freedom, whether there is any im- mersion in the account.
In all disputes about a scripture word or phrase, the final appeal is to the inspired original. Let us then inquire, with all can- dour and sincerity, whether the language of the original implies that the parties went into and came out of the water.
In prosecuting this inquiry, we must claim the indulgence of the reader, if we introduce a number of Greek terms and phrases, as this cannot well be avoided. At the same time, we hope so to manage the discussion as to enable even the unlearned to judge of the force and -value of the argument.
Every writer has some peculiarities of style. We shall, therefore, confine our re-
77
ferences to the Acts of the Apostles ; and here our inquiry shall be, In what sense does the writer of that book commonly use the iden- tical terms he employs in describing the bap- tism of the eunuch ? Our translators make him say that the parties went into the water. But, does he really say so? We think not. The Greek word ek {eis\ translated into, oc- curs just eleven times in the very same chapter. And it is translated into but once out of the eleven ; and that once is where it is said " they both went down into the water." Here is an astounding fact ! In verse 3d, we read, " committed them {eis) to prison ;" in verse 25, " returned {eis) to Jerusalem ;" and in verse 40, " came {eis) to Cesarea ;" and so in other places. Our translators appear to have leaned so strongly to immersion, that, in the case of the eunuch, they departed widely from their customary rendering of words.
There is another fact of much importance in this connection. When the Greek writers wished to express definitely the idea of going into, they usually doubled the preposition eis. That is, they placed it before the noun, and also prefixed it to the verb. In the Acts of the Apostles there are thirty-one in- stances of this kind.* Not so in the account
* We subjoin a few examples of the double eis.
Acts iii. 2, sla-n-opsvoficvcov eig to Itpov [eisporeuomenmi eis to lueron) — " them that entered into the temple" — ix. 6, ♦^ go into the city" — ix. 8, " brought him into Damascus" 7*
n THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
of the eunuch's baptism : but a single eis is employed. The words are Karipnoav cig to v6wp (katebesan eis to liudor). Now if the sacred writer meant to say into the water, it is strange that he should not employ his usual language to convey that idea.
Bat there is another fact still more decisive in the case. The preposition eis occurs single in the Acts of the Apostles two hun- dred and sixty-four times, and is rendered into only sixty-one times. And then of these sixty-one times, there are full twenty- six in which the word might very properly be rendered to or toiuard; as in chapter xviii. 18, " sailed thence (eis) into Syria," and xxvii. 1, " should sail (eis) into Italy." Indeed Mr. Alex. Campbell, in his version of the New Testament, renders eis TO in a number of places where our common version has ijito. On the whole, then, the evidence from this single source is as seven or eight to one against the supposition that the inspired writer intended to say that Philip and the eunuch went into the water.*
— xviii. 19, " entered into the synan^ogue" — xxi. 28, " brought Greeks into tiie temple" — xxi. 37, " to be led into the castle."
* It may be alleged that in the phrase, KarkPn^av tij rd rJcjp [katchemn eis to Itudor), the preposition Kara [kata) prefixed to the verb, gives eis the force of i7itO' Let us try it.
Acts xxvi. 14, KaraTTcadvTuyv £«V rffv y'> (katapcsonton eis ten gen), " fallen to the earth" — xxvii. 40, kutcIxov eis rdv
79
It is farther suggested by the Baptists, that Philip and the eunuch " came up out of the water," and therefore must have been in the water. The question now is, Does the inspired original say so?
The word translated out of is u (ek). And it is a well known fact that the Greek writers, when they wished, by the force of the words, to express the idea of going out of usually doubled the preposition ek, plac- ing it before the noun, and prefixing it also to the verb. In the Acts of the Apostles, there are no fewer than twenty examples of this kind.* Now in the account of the
aiYiaXou [kateichon eis ton aigialon), ** made toward the shore."
To fall into the earth and to sail into the shore does not make very good sense.
Still it may be urged that there is something in the word katebesan which, combined with eis, takes Philip and the eunuch irito the water. Let us then examine a few passages in which the very same combination occurs.
Acts viii. 26, Kara/3 aivovaau and 'lepovaaXiJiJi eig 'Ta<av
[katabainousan apo Hierousalem eis Gazan), " that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza" — xvi. 8, " came down to Troas" — xviii. 22, " went down to Antioch" — xxv. 6, " went down to Cesarea."
No one who understands language would speak of travelling out of Jerusalem into Jericho ; because the idea meant to be conveyed is, that of motion from one point to another ; and the same terms are employed ■whether the traveller enters into the heart of the city, or stops in the suburbs.
* We give a few examples of the double ek.
Acts vii. 3, B^eXde Ik t/jj yijj aov {Exelthe ek tes ges sou,)
80 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
eunuch's baptism but a single eh occurs, d'A3mav EK Toi} vSaros (anebesccn ek tou hudatos) ; and if the sacred historian really meant to say, ^'' out o/the water," it is perfectly unaccount- able that he should omit to express himself in the definite manner customary with him in such cases.
On this point we have still stronger evi- dence. The word eh occurs single in the Acts of the Apostles sixty-four times ; and we are astonished to find that it is translated out ©/"only five times, and one of the five is where our version has it, " they were come up out of the water." And can that be the precise idea which, judging from his lan- guage in other cases, the sacred writer in- tended to convey ? The evidence to the con- trary is overpowering."^
But why, it is asked, did the parties leave the chariot, and go down to the water, if no immersion took place? I answer, It was
" Get thee out of thy country" — xiii. 42, " gone out of the synagogue" — xix. 16, "fled out of that house" — xxvii. 30, " to cast anchors out of the foreship." * We give a few examples o{ ek single.
Acts ii. 2, lyivtro m^voi Ik tov ovpavov lixog [c^cneio aphtlO
ek tou ournnou ecJios) " Ruddcnly there came a sound /?om heaven" — xiii. 34, " raised him up from the dead" — xiv. 8, " a cripple /ro?/2 his mother's womb" — xxvii. 34. " a hair fall from the head" — xviii. 2. *' to depart fro7n Rome."
'J'hus a slight examination will show that our trans- lators, in rendering ek ton hudatos out of tue water, give an unusual sense to ek.
THE ETHIOPIAN NOT IMMERSED. 81
no tedious journey. Yery likely they had not five steps to take ; and it was quite natu- ral that they should go down to the edge of the water, so that the baptizer might take up some in his hands, and apply it to the subject, who probably assumed a kneeling posture on the shore.
The sacred historian adds, that the Ethio- pian ^'went on his way rejoicing." And in what ? Not, as alleged by immersionists, in his baptism, for in that Simon Magus might have rejoiced too. But he had now found *' Him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write."
THE ETHIOPIAN NOT IMMERSED.
It is, on several accounts, highly improbable that the Ethiopian was plunged. Philip fell in his company on that part of the route from Jerusalem to Gaza, " which is desert,'^ verse 26. There, surrounded by arid wastes and scorching sands, he explained to him a remarkable prophecy, respecting Christ. That prophecy, commencing near the close of the 52d chapter of Isaiah, and continued through the 53d, foretold, among other things, that Christ should " sprinkle many nations."*
^ Baptist writers object that sprinkling is not men- tioned in the Greek translation of this verse by the seventy. But it certainly is in the Hebrew. See Alexander on Isaiah. There is no reason to suppose that the eunuch was not reading the inspired original. As to the por- tion of the prophecy quoted in verses 32 and 33, it does not exactly agree with the Greek of the seventy.
82 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
This prediction, doubtless, gave occasion to Philip to speak of Christ's parting command, "Go teach all nations^ baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy (jhost." As they continued their jour- ney, they unexpectedly came u])on "aceitain water," and the new convert requested, and received baptism. This could hardly have taken place at a river, or even at a small stream ; for neither the term jiotamos^ deno- ting the former, nor cUtirnarrhos^ denoting the latter, is used by the sacred writer. He says " they came unto n (ifJw/i (ti Jcudor,) lit- erally some water. Neither Jerome nor Sandys could find any considerable stream, or body of water, in all that region ; though they discovered a fountain issuing from the foot of a hill, the waters of which were lost in the sands. Ilicron de Loc. Ilch. and Sa7i- dys' Travels. Here, or at a pool formed in the desert by a sudden rain, the baptism may have taken place.^'
I beg pardon of the reader, for detaining liim so long in the desert. But it seemed necessary, in order to overthrow a main pillar of that mischievous system, which makes a mere form of more importance than
* Dr. Rol)inson locates the bccik; of tlie eumicirs bap- tism at a point in tlie Wady-ol-llassy, some miles from (j.'wa. J)r. Jiarcliiy saw no " (l(!S('rt" on llio way, l)ut a fertile! and poj)uI()US couufry. alioinidinpf with wells and ppriiifTS. Jle seems not to have pinsued the direct route from Jerusalem to (J a/a.
THE ETHIOPIAN NOT IMMERSED. 83
faith or holiness, and casts out, among heath- ens and publicans, nine-tenths of the mem- bers of Christ's mystical body. May the time soon come when that system, with all its inherent evils, shall be immersed^ like lead in the mighty waters, to rise no more for ever !
84 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
CHAPTER V.
Baptism of Saul of Tarsus — Anastas — Wasliinf? away sins — Baptism of Cornelius — Peter's idea of baptism — Baptism of the jailer — Symbolical import of baptism — " Buried by baptism" — " One baptism" — Allusions in Scripture to afi'usion — Sprinkling is cleansing — Peter's inkling for water — Opinions of men.
Escaping from the desert, and shaping our course to the north-east, at length we reach the luxuriant plain of Damascus, one of the " four Paradises" of Eastern poetry. Entering the oldest city in the world, and passing along the street called Straight, we come to the house of Judas, where we find
SAUL OF TARSUS.
Ananias comes in, and puts his hands on him; and what follows? "He received sight forthwith, and arose and was baptized." — Acts ix. 18. Ananias had said to him, *' And now, why tarriest thou ? Arise and be baptized." Cliap. xxii. 16. The language of tlie original is very expressive: dvaarHi i/3urrTiaen (cmccstas ehcq)ththe\ " rising, or stand-
ANASTAS, RISING OR STANDING UP. 85
ing up, he was baptized." And so in the parallel passage, dvaara? (ianncai (auastas bap- tisai), "rising up be baptized."
And it is fairly implied that Saul received baptism immediately, on rising from his couch, and without leaving the spot. Our Baptist friends suppose there is something like an ellipsis, or omission of some w^ords in the sentence, to be supplied by the reader; and that the meaning of Ananias was, " Kise up, and go out to a river or pool^ and there be baptized." Let us see if the usage of the sacred writers will justify this construction.
ANASTAS (ANASTAS), RISING OR STANDING UP.
The participle avmras (anastas) is used by Luke in his Gospel, seventeen times, and in the Acts of the Apostles eighteen times. It also occurs twice in Matthew and eight times in Mark ; making forty-five instances in the whole ISTew Testament. Having carefully examined all the passages in which it is found, I am prepared to assert with confi- dence that there is not the slightest ground for the Baptist hypothesis. In not one of the forty-five instances can important words, supposed to be implied and therefore omitted, be thrust in between the participle and the following verb. Here are some examples.
Acts V. 6, "And the young men arose ava(TravTCi (anastantes) wound him up and car- ried him out" — xi. 28, " And there stood up 8
86 THE MODE OF BAPTISM".
(anastas) one of them named Agabus, and signified" — xiii. 16, " Then Paul stood up [anastas) and, beckoning with the hand, said."
Luke vi. 8, "Kise up {a7iastas) and stand forth in the midst" — xxii. 46, " Eise [anas- tantes) and pray, lest ye enter into tempta- tion."
It will readily be seen that the action, ex- pressed by the verb, follows the rising up immediately and on the spot, leaving no in- terval to be filled up by the reader. On the other hand, whenever the object of the actor is not attained without leaving the place, that fact is always expressly mentioned ; as in the following passages :
Acts ix. 11, "Arise {anastas) and go into the street which is called Straight, and in- quire"— ix. 39, " Then Peter arose (anastas) and went with them" — x. 20, "Arise (anastas) and get thee down and go with them."
Luke XV. 18, " I will arise (anastas) and go to my father, and will say unto him" — xxiv. 12, " Then arose (anastas) Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre ; and stooping down, he be- held the linen clothes," &c.
Thus, in every instance in which anastas is used, if the purpose of the actor in rising vp is not attained without going elsewhere, his going elsewhere is expressly mentioned. There is no room for the insertion of omitted words. And it is as clear as noon -day, that when Ananias said, "Arise and be bap- tized," he meant that Saul should stand up
WASHING AWAY SINS. 87
and be baptized at once, without leaving bis chamber.
What Baptist preacher would say to a person in a private house, or at the church, " Kise up and be baptized?" In such case, would not every one expect the baptism to take place by affusion? An immersionist would say, "Kise up and go out with me to the riveTj and be baptized."
WASHING AWAY SINS.
" But," say our good brethren, " does not Ananias add, 'be baptized, and wash away thy sins T This surely calls for more water than is implied in pouring or sprinkling." I answer. Dipping a person with all his clothes on, is no more a washing of the per- son than sprinkling is ; nor will it more ef- fectually cleanse from sin. What Ananias meant was, that Saul should attend to the visible sign of the washing away of his sins, baptism being the emblem, or sign, of s])irit- ual cleansing. But/zoit' was it to be signified? Why, sprinlding is the standard among em- blematical washings ; for God himself says, " I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean." — Ezek. xxxvi. 25. It is also said of the Eedeemer, that he hath " washed us from our sins in (or with) his own blood." — Rev. i. 5. And how ? Peter answers, by " s'prinlding of the blood of Jesus Christ."--! Pet. i. 2.
88 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
BAPTISM OF CORNELIUS.
We now pass to Cesarea, a sea-port on the Mediterranean, and the political capital of Judea, under the Komans. Here, a Centu- rion, previously instructed by Peter, was baptized in the faith of Christ. This was the first Gentile admitted to the christian church ; and Julian the Apostate, who ac- knowledged but two eminent converts from Paganism to Christianity, named him as one of them. For the record of his baptism, see Acts X. 44-48.
" The Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word." "Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we ?"
Peter's meaning is, " Can any one object to the baptism of these Gentiles, who have received the same effusion of the Spirit as ourselves ?" Still, the form of his expres- sion discloses to us the existing mode of baptism. "Can any msiXi forhid luaterP This plainly implies, that the water was brought in and applied to the subject ; not the subject taken to the water. When Christ, speaking of little children, says, '■^forbid them not," (Luke xviii. 16,) his meaning is, "for- bid them not to he hrouglit to me ;" for the context declares that they were being " brought to him," at the time. So when Peter says, " Can any man forbid water ?"
Peter's idea of baptism. 89
Lis meaning is, " Can any one forbid water to be brought and applied in baptism to these Gentiles?" Had he been an immersionist, he would doubtless have said, " Can any man forbid these Gentiles going down with us at once to the sea shore," &c.
How singular would it sound if a Baptist preacher, taking the vote of his church on the reception of a candidate, should say, " Brethren, can any of you forbid water for the baptism of this person ?" A stranger present would certainly take him for a Pedo- baptist. The immersionists do not speak of forbidding water to a person, but of for- bidding a person being put under water, if they think him not a proper subject.
Peter's idea of baptism.
In giving an account of this baptism to the apostles and brethren at Jerusalem, Peter makes the following remarkable state- ment : " And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost."— Acts xi. 15, 16.
Something occurred which forcibly re- minded Peter of baptism. And what was it? It was the falling or outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the assembly. But if he was an immersionist, how could that put him in
90 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
mind of baptism ? Our Baptist friends say tbat there is no sort of resemblance between the two. Nothing short of 2i plunge under would put them in mind of baptism. But Peter was no immersionist.
BAPTISM OF LYDIA.
Leaving Cesarea, and taking ship, we steer to the north-west; and after sailing near a thousand miles, we land at ISTeapolis, and pass thence to Philippi, in Macedonia. Here, when Paul visited the place, were a few Jews, but no organized synagogue. There was, however, a place resorted to for prayer, in the outskirts of the town, by the river side. Here Paul's preaching was blessed to the conversion of Lydia of Thya- tira. The sacred historian tells us, in few words, that " she was baptized, and her household." — Acts xvi. 15. It is not stated whether this took place at the river, or else- where ; that matter being left entirely to conjecture.
BAPTISM OF THE JAILER.
From the hospitable dwelling of Lydia, we pass round to the prison of Philippi. Here, confined in the inner ward, their feet made fast in the stocks, and their backs bleeding from recent scourging, are two of the most disinterested servants of Christ the world
BAPTISM OF THE JAILEE. 91
ever saw. And what bad they done ? Their successful labours had given offence to some Pagan citizens of Philippi, at whose instiga- tion they were cruelly beaten, and ignomini- ously thrust into prison. The particulars are recorded in Acts xvi. 19 — 40. The reader is already familiar with them, and they need not here be repeated. That the jailer's baptism took place within the walls of the prison, is evident from the circum- stances narrated. Yet our opponents allege that the apostles must have taken him out to a river for that purpose, because, in verse 30, we are told that the jailer " brought them out ;" and then, in verse 34, that " he brought them into his house." But they forget that the apostles were thrust into the inner prison. From thence the jailer " brought them out" into the outer prison, where he washed their stripes and received baptism. Thence he " brought them into his house ;" which, according to usage, was under the same roof, and constituted a part of the edifice.^ The supposition that they took the jailer and all his family to the river, is attended with insuperable difficulties. It was midnight. The river was quite out of the city, verse 13. By the laws of the
* The apostles spake the word to all that were in the jailer's oUia [oikia) premises, including the_ other prisoners. Afterwards the jailer brought them into his oIko^ [oikos] FAMILY APARTMENTS, a distiuctiou which is not preserved in our English version.
92 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
country, the jailer would have been con- demned to death had he allowed the prisoners to leave the prison. And, if the baptism was to be by immersion, why could it not have been deferred till the following day ? How often do our Baptist brethren, for con- venience' sake, delay an immersion for days and weeks together! Or, supposing that the apostles had attempted to leave the prison, they would have been stopped by the guard at the gates ; and had they succeeded in gain- ing the streets, they would have been ar- rested by the watchmen of the city.
But their language and conduct on the following day prove, beyond a doubt, that they had not left the prison. When the magistrates sent, saying, " Let these men go," they declined going, saying, "Let them come themselves and fetch us out." Could these holy men, without the grossest duplicity and hypocrisy, have uttered this language, after having the night previous stolen out of the city to a river ?
BAPTISM IN" CISTERNS.
Some Baptist authors suggest that perhaps there were cisterns in or about the prison, and that in one of these the jailer was im- mersed. But how can a person be dipped in such a place with any degree of decorum? Have the Baptist friends ever tried the ex- periment? True, nothing would be easier
SYMBOLICAL IMPORT OF BAPTISM. 93
than to plunge the jailer with his wife and children, down into a cistern ; but how would they be got out again, unless there was at hand some such apparatus as was resorted to for extricating Jeremiah from the dungeon ? — Jer. xxxviii. 12.
I will just add that Chrysostom, of the fourth century, had no difficulty in deciding where the jailer was baptized. " Doubt not, beloved," says he, " for the grace of God is perfect. The place is no obstacle, whether you baptize here, or in a ship, or on the road. Philip baptized on a road, Paul in prison." — Horn, de Regress.
SYMBOLICAL IMPORT OF BAPTISM.
The two sacraments of the New Testa- ment have each a distinct symbolical mean- ing. In the one, the application of water signifies purity of heart. In the other, the death of Christ is shown forth. Our Baptist brethren strangely confound the two ordi- nances, as though they were alike in their meaning. Baptism, say they, is designed to convey an allusion to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ ; and therefore the candidate should be buried in water. But what resemblance can they point out between things so entirely different ? Christ's death was by crucifixion. Nor was he buried after the manner of this country, in a grave dug in the earth, and covered with
94 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
mould ; but in a sepulchre, cut in the per- pendicular face of the solid rock. Into this little apartment his lifeless body was con- veyed through a small door, which was then closed up with a great stone. Here it was left till the morning of the third day, when the stone was rolled back, and the Saviour reappeared among the living. Now let me ask, In what respects can immersion properly represent such a death, burial, and resur- rection ? What resemblance is there be- tween laying a dead body in a little room, excavated in the side of a hill, closing the entrance with a rock, and leaving it there three days — I say, what resemblance is there between this, and suddenly plunging a person under water and lifting him out again ? The similitude is little better than that of the blind man, who supposed that the light of the sun was like the noise of a cannon. It is to no purpose that our brethren urge that Jonah, in the belly of the great fish, bore a likeness to Christ in his burial ; for the only point of resemblance to which the Saviour refers in Matt. xii. 40, is duration ; namely, *• three days and three nights," the very point in which immersion most signally lails.
" BURIED WITH CHRIST BY BAPTISM."
But, say our opponents, we must be buried by baptism. Be it so ; but how, and with what baptism ? Let an inspired apostle answer.
BURIED WITH CHRIST BY BAPTISM. 95
Eom. vi : 1 — 6. " What shall we say then ? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound ? God forbid ; how shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 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 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."
Here the apostle notices a common objec- tion made against the doctrine of justification by faith ; namely, that it encouraged men to sin, because grace abounded. He replies to it, by showing that a complete spiritual union exists between Christ and believers ; and that this union affords the best possible security for their continuance in holiness. Thus the objection is satisfactorily disposed of. But if we suppose that the apostle is here speaking of a burial in water, we make him argue most inconclusively ; for we make him say, that notwithstanding the freeness of divine grace, believers are secured against sinful compliances by the circumstance that they were once buried
96 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
in water ! This is worse than no answer to the objection, for it leads at once to the monstrous dogma of baptismal regene- ration.
Besides, if we suppose a literal burial by dipping to be here intended, we must also suppose a literal crucifixion, and a literal death ; and so be chpped to death. By the way it is a curious fact that a Baptist missionary in Calcutta once made a version of the New Testament, in modern Arme- nian, in which he translated baptize by a word which signifies to droion ; e. ^., " Go teach all nations, drowning them in the name of the Father, &c." This is certainly dipping to death with a witness. The fact is stated on the authority of a returned mis- sionary. See Baher on Baj^tism, j). 79.
"BAPTIZED INTO JESUS CHRIST."
But the apostle, in the passage under con- sideration, is not speaking of an external ordinance, but of the baptism of the Spirit, by which we are united to Christ, and be- come one with him in his death, burial, and resurrection. He does not affirm that all who were baptized m the name of Christ, were baptized into his death. lie asserts this of tliose only who were " baptized into Jesus Christ ;" a description implying in- finitely more than mere water baptism. The whole Church to whom he was writing,
" BAPTIZED INTO JESUS CHRIST." 97
had doubtless been baptized in the name of Christ ; but it did not follow that they were all baptized into his death, and therefore he discriminates. "aSo many of us^^'' says he, " as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death." To be baptized into Christ is to become a living member of his mystical body by the baptism of the Spirit ; for says the apostle, " By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body." — 1 Cor. xii. 13.
We are now prepared to understand the meaning of Paul, in the passage under dis- cussion. He argues that the doctrine of justification by grace cannot lead to licen- tiousness, because the justified believer is united to Christ by the baptism of the Spirit, and is, therefore, one with him iu his death, burial, and resurrection. " So many" as had received the spiritual bap- tism were crucified, dead, and buried, as to their former life, and had risen again to a new life of holiness ; just as Christ died, was buried, and rose again to a new and more exalted state of existence. The same general remarks will apply to Colossians ii. 10 — 12. " And ye are complete in him who is the head of all principality and power ; in whom, also, ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in put- ting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ ; buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are 9
98 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
risen with him through the faith of the ope- ration of God, who hath raised him from the dead."
Ilere, again, the apostle describes the properties of a saving union with Christ, by which believers are made one with him, in his circumcision, death, burial, and re- surrection. They are thus "complete in him." The circumcision received by the Colossians was spiritual ; for it was " made without hands," and consisted in " putting off the body of the sins of the flesh." Of course, then, the baptism mentioned is spiritual. It is attended by a resurrection to a life of faith. Says the apostle, '' Where- ^?^," that is, in this baptism, "ye are risen again through the faith of the operation of God." Can this possibly apply to an exter- nal ordinance ? Simon Magus was duly bap- tized with water. And did he, therefore, rise to a new and holy life, "through the faith of the operation of God ?" Here, again, we see that the Baptist interpretation of the phrase, " buried in baptism," leads inevita- bly to baptismal regeneration — a doctrine already avowed by a large class of immer- sionists, but daily contradicted by the un- godly lives of thousands who have submitted to the external ordinance.
" ONE BAPTISM." 99
In Eph. iv : 3 — 5, Paul writes thus : *' Endeavouring to keep the unity of tlie Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling ; one Lord, one faith, one haptismy
The Baptist brethren assume that the apostle is here speaking of water-baptism, and that his meaning is, " one Lord, one faith, one dipping P But this is begging the question. We have already shown that scripture baptism does not at all imply dip- ping. " But," say they, " as there is one baptism, then, if immersion is right, pour- ing or sprinkling is wrong, and is no bap- tism." I answer, so might the Dunker brethren say, "If we are right in dipping three times, then dipping but once is wrong, and is no baptism at all." So might Epis- copalians say, " There is but one Church of Christ, and if we are right in having diocesan bishops, those who are without them are wrong, and are no Church of Christ." So might the Roman Catholics say, " There is one ordinance of marriage, and if we are right in using the Popish ceremony, all others are wrong and have no valid mar- riages among them !"
The Baptist friends have a wonderful facility in finding water where we can find none. We see none in the passage under
100 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
consideration. The apostle is discussing the sublime doctrine of the christian unities, and it were amazing if, while soaring among such lofty themes, he should suddenly drop down to the water. We think, therefore, that it will agree better with the context to suppose that by the "one baptism," he means the baptism of the Spirit. In this view, his words may be paraphrased thus : " One Lord Jesus Christ in whom ye be- lieve, one faith by which ye are saved, one work of the Holy Spirit by which ye are baptized into one body." — See 1 Cor. xii. 13.
ALLUSIONS TO BAPTISM BY AFFUSION.
In 1 John V. 8, we read thus : " There are three that bear witness on earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood ; and these three agree in one." The Holy Ghost the Sanctifier, the water of baptism, and the blood of Christ symbolized by the sacra- mental cup, are here intended by the sacred writer. The Spirit is poured out, the blood of Christ was shed ; and, to complete the agreement, the water of baptism must be poured, or shed, upon the subject.
In Titus iii. 5, 6, Paul says: "Accord- ing to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour." The
SPEINKLING IS CLEANSING. 101
phrase, " washing of regeneration," though it signifies the new birth, contains an allusion to the water of baptism as its external symbol. And this " washing," let it be observed, is shed ; in the Greek, titxtev {ex- echeeri) poured OUT on us ; thus showing that baptism by affusion was practised in the apostle's days.
It was foretold of Christ that he should " sprinkle many nations." — Isa. lii. 15. This, though relating to the purifying efficacy of the blood and of the Spirit of Christ, like many other passages, comprehends the sign with the thing signified. It was literally ful- filled when Christ commanded his disciples to baptize " all nations."
SPKINKLING IS CLEANSING.
Heb. X. 22 — " Let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith ; having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." Here the apostle speaks, ^irs^, of the purification of the heart and conscience by the Holy Spirit ; and, secondly, of the sign correspond- ing therewith, namely, the external washing of baptismal water, sprinkled on the body. Our Baptist brethren say, indeed, that sprink- ling is no washing. I answer, neither is dip- ping a person with his clothes on, a washing of his body, in a literal sense of the word. 9*
102 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
If a man puts bis gloves on, and then dips
his hands in water, is that a washing of his hands ? Sprinkling, we aver, under both dispensations, has held the chief place as a symbol of purification ; and to say that it is not cleansing, is to contradict God himself, who says, " I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean." — Ezek. xxxvi. 25. It is placed by Paul among "divers washings." — Heb. ix. 10 and 13. And it is by the sprinkling of his blood that the Ke- deemer has '• washed us from our sins." But, say the Baptists, when Paul speaks of the body being washed, he means the i6'AoZdZ)oc?2// and so the whole person must be washed. But did the Saviour mean his whole body, when he declared of the woman of Bethany, that she had anointed his body for its burial? She had merely poured the ointment on his head. — Mark xiv. 3-8.
Peter's inkling for water.
" What good," asks the immersion ist, " can a little water do you ?" In reply, I ask him. What good can much water do you ? Nay ; what good can a mouthful of bread and a sup of wine, in the sacramental feast, do a person ? The quantity of the element used is just as important in the one ordinance as in the other. Let us guard against the error Peter once committed. — John xiii. 8-10.
THE OPINIONS OF LEARNED MEN. 103
When Jesus said to him, " If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me," Peter, like many in our day, took up the idea, that it was the external washing that was to do him good ; and hence he thought, the more water the better. He said, " Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head." But Jesus reproved his carnal views, saying, " He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit."
THE OPINIONS OF LEAKNED MEN.
Most of the writers on the Baptist side of the controversy, when they find themselves hard pressed with scripture arguments, take refuge in human authority. Some of their treatises contain little more than extracts, not unfrequently garbled, from authors whose opinions were more or less favourable to immersion. But if the question is to be determined by the sufi'rages of learned men ; for every one they can produce in favour of immersion, we can name ten against it. "We are not desirous of settling matters of faith and practice in this way. Men of learning are eminently serviceable in throwing light on the meaning of scripture, but their mere opinions have no binding authority. Any unlettered man, who is favoured with good, strong sense, with the evidence fairly be- fore him, is as likely to render a righteous
104 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
verdict in the premises as the most profound scholar*
* Baptist writers and public speakers are in the habit of asserting that the Westminster Assembly of Divines decided iu favour of sprinkling by only one of a ma- jority— a gross misstatement ! According to Dr. Light- foot, a leading member of that Assembly, the question was, " Sprinkling being granted, whether dipping should be tolerated with it." On this the vote stood twenty- four to twenty-five. — Pittman and LightfooVs Works, vol. xiii. p. 300.
HISTORY OF IMMERSION. 105
CHAPTER VI.
History of Immersion — Its origin — Dipping of persons naked — Immersion and Baptism different rites — Exist- ing traces of the distinction among the Armenians, . Greeks, and Abyssiuians.
HISTORY OF IMMERSION".
Baptist writers fondly assert that immer- sion was practised in the church at a very early period. But the truth is, no authen- tic account can be produced of its existence during the first two hundred years after Christ. On the other hand, there is a well- attested case of baptism by affusion in the second century. Nicephorus, in the " Magde- burg Centuries," relates that a Jew, travelling through a desert in company with some christians, was converted ; and being taken sick, requested baptism. Having no water, they sprinkled him with sand, {conspersere) He unexpectedly recovered, and was taken to Alexandria, and his case laid before the Greek bishop, who decided that "the Jew
106 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
was baptized, provided only that he should anew be perfused, or sprinkled with water," {aqua denuo jperfunderetur) — Cent. II., c. 6, p. 110.
Tertullian, who flourished during the reigns of Severus and Caracalla, in the be- ginning of the third century, is the first who makes any distinct mention of immersion. And then it is found in very bad company ; for it is associated with the doctrine that baptism cleanses from sin. To what extent immersion was practised in that century, we have not the means of knowing. At all events, it was far from being the exclusive mode. We are told of Laurentius baptizing a soldier, and having a pitcher of water brought for that purpose ; also of five mar- tyrs of Samosata sending from the prison for a presbyter, requesting him to bring a vessel of water and baptize tliem. WalVs Hist, of Bai^t. and Asseman. Act. Mart.
AFFUSION COEXISTING WITH IMMERSION.
Even after immersion had become the pre- vailing practice in the church, baptism by aftusion alone was still regarded as valid. On one occasion, Cyprian and the sixty-six bishops who were with him, were consulted on the question, whether those who had been baptized on sick beds by affusion only, ought to be re-baptized if they recovered. His decision was, " that the water of aspersion
ORIGIN OF IMMERSION. 107
is purification ; from which it appears that sprinkling is sufficient, instead of immersion ; and whensoever it is done, if there be a sound faith on the part of the giver and re- ceiver, it is perfect and complete." This seems to have been the unanimous sentim.ent of the ancient church ; so that the Baptists of modern times are the only body of chris- tians that ever existed, who, on the assumption that immersion is essential to baptism, have excluded all others from their communion. The Eev. Kobert Hall, the greatest light that church ever produced, says of his close communion brethren, that " in withholding the signs from those who are in possession of the thing signified, in refusing to commu- nicate the symbols of the great sacrifice to those who are equally with themselves sprinkled by its blood, and sharers of its efficacy, in dividing the regenerate into two classes, believers and communicants, and confining the church to the narrow limits of a sect, they have violated more maxims of antiquity^ and receded further from the example of the apostles^ than any class of christians on record^ On Communion^ pp. 74, 75.
ORIGIN OF IMMERSION.
" But how came immersion into use at so early a period, if it was not the apostolic mode?" The answer is not difficult. A very large proportion of the first converts
108 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
to Christianity were Jews, many of whom retained a strong attachment to the Mosaic ritual. — See Acts xv. That ritual compre- hended " divers washings," which seem to be referred to in Heb. vi. 2, where the sacred writer specifies " the doctrine of baptisms'* as one of the subjects of dispute among the Hebrew converts. They were, moreover, familiar with the custom of the Jewish church, to require the proselytes from Pagan- ism to be thoroughly washed, previously to being circumcised. With all their violent prejudice in favour of the ancient ritual, it is not surprising that in some churches, where their influence was paramount, they should insist that the converts from heathenism should be cleansed from all filthiness of the flesh, previously to baptism. An addition, not important m itself^ thus made to the sim- ple rite administered by the apostles, easily gained ground in an age of superstitious formalism. When in after times the doctrine was inculcated that baptism cleansed from sin, this preparatory bathing acquired im- mense importance, and during the dark ages gained an almost universal prevalence. At first the bathing, styled by Justin Martyr a " washing," -Kowpov {loutron\ was kept separate and distinct from baptism, which was by pouring. But in process of time the two were, to a great extent, confounded ; and then we read of three immersions, KaTah><rui {Jcataduseis\ with the further addition of ex-
DIPPING OF PERSONS NAKED. 109
orcisms, two anointings, the "use of salt, milk, and honej, clothing the newly baptized in white raiment, and other ceremonies.
DIPPING OF PERSONS NAKED.
But the preparatory immersion was never administered to any one in his clothing; that is a novelty of more modern times. The ancient immersionists never dreamed of washing the body of the candidate through two or three thicknesses of clothing. They would no more attempt such a thing, than we would set about washing hands and feet without removing gloves, shoes, or stockings. The truth in regard to this matter, though for a while denied or concealed, is now gen- erally admitted. The Baptist historian, Kobinson, who wrote by request of the Bap- tist ministers of London, says expressly: "The primitive christians baptized naked. Nothing is easier than to give proof of this, by quotations from the authentic writings of the men who administered baptism; and who certainly knew in what way they them- selves performed it. There is no ancient historical fact better authenticated than this. The evidence does not go on the meaning of the single word naked, for then a reader might suspect allegory ; but on many facts reported, and many reasons assigned for the practice. Chrysostom criminates Theophi- lus because he had raised a disturbance with- 10
110 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
out, wTiich SO frightened the women in the baptistery, who had just stripped themselves in order to be baptized, that they fled naked out of the room, without having time to con- sult the modesty of their sex."
Wall, in his History of Baptism, states positively that " the ancient christians, when they were baptized by immersion, were all baptized naked, whether they were men, women, or children."
IMMERSION AND BAPTISM DIFFERENT RITES.
These writers might have stated an addi- tional fact of great importance. The chris- tian females of that period were not so ut- terly regardless of common decency as to appear disrobed in the presence of men. Many of them, as we know, carried their notions of modesty to such an extreme, as not even to allow their faces to be seen by any of the other sex, out of their own fami- lies. Can any one imagine, then, that they would suffer the priests to come near them while in a state of perfect nudity ? Let those believe it who can ! It is quite plain that the candidates could not have been seen by the minister officiating till the ceremony of bath- ing was over. This is made to appear from the testimony of Epiphanius, bishop of Con- stantia, who wrote in the fourth century. *' There are," says he, " also deaconesses in the church ; but this office was not instituted
ANCIENT PICTORIAL REPRESENTATIONS. Ill
as a priestly function, nor has it any interfe- rence with 'priestly administrations ; but it was instituted for the purpose of preserving a due regard to the modesty of the female sex, especially at the time of baptismal washing, and while the person of the woman is naked ; that she may not he seen hy the men performing the sacred service, but by her only who is ap- pointed to take charge of the woman, during the time that she is nahed^^ This extract proves that so late as the fourth century the immersion and the baptism were treated as two distinct things. The minister did not see the candidate till the ceremony of wash- ing was over.
ANCIENT PICTORIAL REPRESENTATIONS.
This distinction may be recognized in many pictorial representations transmitted to us from a remote antiquity. In these works, the artist, not being able to exhibit the two different acts in the same piece, se- lected the baptism, as the really important part of the solemn service ; at the same time skilfully placing before the eye the eviden-
* The above extract is taken by Mr. C. Taylor from Casaubon's Antiquities, Exerc. XVI. Dr. Wall supposes that the woman may have been first disrobed and im- mersed up to the neck, and that then the priest was intro- duced to immerse the head — an arranticement which would give no great relief to female modesty. The priest did not see them till they were again dressed.
112 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
ces of a previous immersion. Mr. C. Taylor has furnished copies of several of these an- cient pictures. I will just notice two or three.
One is the baptism of the Emperor Con- stantine in the fourth century. He is naked, and seated in a large vase, in which he has just performed an ablution. Eusebius, the bishop, is pouring water on his head from a bowl or basin.
Another is the baptism of a boy of tea or twelve years of age. He is unclothed, in a standing posture, with his hands raised toward heaven. The priest is pouring water on his head from a pitcher. This plate is now at Kome, but is the work of Greek artists.
A third depicts two candidates undressed and kneeling on the ground. The minister is pouring water on them from a small vase. A large font of water appears on tlie left, where they have undergone the customary purification. Beside it, kneeling in prayer, is a third candidate, about to perform the preparatory ablution.
These are all works of ancient artists ; and they could have had no possible motive for misrepresenting the prevailing practice.
EXISTING TBACES OF THE DISTINCTION. 113
EXISTING TRACES OF THE DISTINCTION.
The Armenians, one of tlie oldest christian sects in existence, administer baptism by dip- ping thrice and sprinkling thrice.*
Deylingius, as quoted by Mr. Booth, in his " Pedobaptism Examined," writes : " So long as the apostles lived, as many believe, immer- sion only was used; to which afterwards, perhaps, they added a kind of affusion, such as the Greeks practise at this day, after having performed the trine immersion." The fact that the Greeks do practise a kind of affusion after immersion, is quite to our purpose. Whether the pouring or the im- mersion is the human addition, we have a right to decide for ourselves.
From a detailed view of the rites of the Greek Church, drawn up by an Archbishop of their own, and published by Kromayer, {Scrut, Relig.) it appears that they frequently dip their infants only to the breast, and then pour water on the head ; thus clearly show- ing, that the immersion and the baptism are not regarded as the same thing.
Mr. Daniel Huber, of Kentucky, in a letter to the editor of The Pedohaptist, published at Danville, writes: "I resided upwards of three years in the capital of the Grand Seignior's dominions, in a Greek family of
* See the American Encyclopedia, and Ker Porter's Travels in Armenia. 10*
114 THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
tbe first respectability. During tbat time, I was present at four baptisms — two in the family, and two in the immediate neighbour- hood. The company were all seated on the sofas around the room. A table stood in the middle, with a basin of water on it. The Papa, or Priest, was then sent for, who, upon entering the room, was received by the fiUher of the child, and led to the baptismal water, which he consecrated with a short prayer and the sign of the cross ; then the mother presented her babe, which he laid on his left arm ; and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, he thrice dipped his hand into the water, and dropped some of it on the child's forehead, giving it a name. I may here remark, that I never heard, during my stay in Constantinople, of adult baptisms, nor of the ordinance being performed by im- mersion in a single instance."
The Greeks of Constantinople do certainly practise immersion ; and yet Mr. Huber was honest in his statement. He witnessed only the baptism proper, and was not aware that a preparatory washing, or immersion, had taken place in another apartment, before the arrival of the priest.
BAPTISM IN ABYSSINIA.
But the practice of the Abyssinian church places the question beyond dispute. That people were converted to Christianity, and
BAPTISM IN ABYSSINIA. 115
received their ritual from the judaizing church of Egypt, about the middle of the fourth century. They still receive their bishop from Alexandria. They retain cir- cumcision, and other Jewish observances, in connection with Christianity; and owing to their entire seclusion from the rest of the world, have, in all probability, preserved their religious rites unchanged for fifteen centuries. Mr. Salt, an English consul, who visited that country, has furnished a minute account of the baptism of a Mohammedan- boy, at which he was present. He tells us that they first stripped the lad of all his clothing, and "washed him all over very carefully in a large basin of water," which stood outside of the church. He was then taken to another place, where was a smaller font. Here "the head priest laid hold of him, dipping his own hand in the water, and crossed him over the forehead, pronouncing at the same moment, ' George, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.' The whole company then knelt down, and joined in reciting the Lord's Prayer."— p. 152.
Here, in all probability, is the precise mode of baptism which existed in the church of Alexandria, in the fourth century. It is seen at once, that the Jewish ablution was a mere preparation for the baptism, which was administered by a different person, from a different font, and with different words. Mr.
lis THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
C. Taylor, to whom the writer is indebted for some valuable suggestions, concludes his in- vestigation of the subject as follows: "There- fore, whoever adopts immersion without^^o^ir- ing^ may certainly claim all the credit due to the revival of an ancient Jewish cere- mony, signifying death; but christian hap- tism, signifying lifej they do not practised — p. 186.
PART II.
THE SUBJECTS OE BAPTISM.
(in)
SCRIPTUEE BAPTISM.
CHAPTER I.
History of infant baptism — The Greeks, Armenians, Nestorians, Syrians, Abyssinians, Waldeuses — The Petrobrussians — The Pelagian controversy — Council cf Carthage — Testimony of Origen, Tertullian, Ireu-
W.E now invite attention to a point of difference, by far the most important of any, between the Baptist brethren and ourselves. "We insist that not only adult believers, but their infant children also, have a right to baptism. They, on the contrary, contend that none but believing adults are entitled to that ordinance.
These brethren display, on all occasions, the most bitter hostility to what they call infant sprinhling^ and assail it with an ob- jection which we may as well consider at the outset. They cry out that infant ha/ptism is one of the abominations of Popery^ luhich was unknown in the church during the prirai- tive ages,
(119)
120 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
HISTORY OF INFANT BAPTISM.
But if indeed it owes its origin to Popery, then we may expect to find some, at least, of the early christian sects who escaped the authority and influence of Eome, quite free from so serious an innovation. But here, unfortunately for the Baptists, the facts are all against them. Of all those christian communities which were never under the influence of Eome, but always contended against her, there is not one which does not maintain the baptism of infants. There is, for example :
1. The Greek Church, which nearly equals in numbers that of Eome. It never yielded in the least to the Papal power, but resisted it from the beginning. They are a high authority with the Baptists, because they practise immersion. But it is noto- rious that they also practise infant baptism.
2. The Armenian Church is another of those ancient sects which never had any connection with Eome. They separated from the Greek Church at an early period, and seem to have remained faithful to their old religion and worship. They are at this day distinguished among the Oriental chris- tians for superior intelligence and purity of morals. They practise the baptism of infants — dipping thrice and sprinkling thrice.*
* A lew Arincuiaus, scattered through Italy, Polaod,
HISTORY OF IIs^FANT BAPTISM. 121
8. The ISTestorians, or more properly the Chaldeans, of Persia, are another branch of the Greek Church, detached from the parent stock at an early period. They oppose the use of pictures and images in the churches, and in some other respects are conformed to the simplicity of the apostolic age. They baptize children.
4. The "Syrian- Christians, or, as they style themselves. The Christians of St. Thomas^ reside on the coast of Malabar, near the Southern extremity of India. They sprung from the Gentile Church of Antioch, in Syria, and take their name from the apostle Thomas. They are named in history as far back as A. D. 356, and were, at that time, of considerable standing. From their isolated situation, they retain more strongly the fea- tures of their descent from the earliest chris- tian communities. They baptize their chil- dren, and by affusion.
5. The Abyssinian Church is a branch of the Egyptian, or Coptic, with which it still retains some communication. In the 16th century, powerful efforts were made by the Pope to subject them to his authority, but without success. They practise infant baptism.
Gallicia, Persia, and Mt. Lebanon in Syria, have sub- mitted to the Pope's jurisdiction, on the express condi- tion of retaining their ancient ceremonies and discipline. The far greater part of the sect are still Monophysites, and have been constantly protected by the Porte against the attempts of the Romanists.
11
122 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
THE VAUDOIS OR WALDENSES.
6. The Waldenses, or Vaudois, of Pied- mont, are famed as witnesses for the truth in those ages of darkness, when true religion seemed almost extinct. Secluded in their lonely valleys from the rest of the world, they seemed to have preserved the simplicity and purity of the apostolic times, when all elsewhere were inundated with error. That they refused to yield obedience to Eome, and were on this account most cruelly and brutally persecuted, is known to all ^the world. It is equally notorious that they maintained infant baptism. Sir Samuel Morland, who visited them in 1657, by ap- pointment of the British Government, com- piled their history from books and manu- scripts which had escaped the flames of the Inquisition. From one of their most an- cient Confessions, furnished by this author, we take the following extract :
" We have but two sacramental signs left us by Jesus Christ : the one is Baptism ; the other is the Eucharist, which we receive to show that our perseverance in the faith is such as we promised luhen we ivere hajJtized, being little children; and moreover, in remembrance of that great benefit given to us by Jesus Christ, when he died for our redemption, and washed us with his precious blood." — Page 39.
John Paul Perrin, a descendant of these
THE VAUDOIS OR WALDENSES. 123
people, wrote a very full account of their Doctrine and Order. It seems that their enemies had charged them with denying the baptism of infants, to which their histo- rian thus replies :
" The fourth calumny was touching bap- tism, which, it is said, they [the Waldenses] denied to little infants ; but from this impu- tation they quit themselves as follows: — The time and place of those that are to be baptized is not ordained ; but the charity and edification of the church and congrega- tion must serve for a rule therein, &c. ; and, therefore, they to whom the children were nearest allied, brought their infants to be baptized, as their parents, or any other whom God had made charitable in that kind." — Book I., ch. iv., p. 15.
Again :
"King Lewis XII., having been informed by the enemies of the Waldenses, dwelling in Provence, of many grievous crimes which were imposed upon them, sent to make in- quisition in those places, the Lord Adam Fumee, Master of Requests, and a doctor of Sorbonne, called Parne, who was his con- fessor. They visited all the parishes and temples, and found neither images, nor so much as the least show of any ornaments belonging to their masses and ceremonies of the Church of Rome ; much less any such crimes as were ^imposed upon them ; but rather that they kept their Sabbaths duly,
124 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
causing their cliildreyi to he haptized according to the order of the primitive church, teaching them the articles of the christian faith, and the commandments of God." — Perrin ; Book I., ch. vi., pp. 30, 31.
I am sorry to remark that Mr. William Jones, a Baptist, in his " History of the Wal- denses," quoting avowedly from Perrin and other authorities, carefully suppresses every sentence which would show those people to have been Pedobaptists. A more glaring falsification of history has hardly ever been committed outside of the Papal church I
THE PETROBRUSSIANS.
In spite of the abundant testimonies ad- duced by Perrin and others, some Baptist writers persist in denying that the Walden- ses of Piedmont were Pedobaptists. And what excuse do they offer for contradicting the solemn professions of belief and practice, so often uttered by these pious witnesses of the truth? Simply this: that during the twelfth century there sprung up in the South of France a small sect called Petrohrussians^ who refused baptism to infants on the ground that they were incapable of salvation. These people were, to a great extent, confounded with the Vaudois or Waldenses, because they had frequent intercourse, and made common cause with them against the Papists. Soon after the death of their founder, Peter dQ
THE PELAGIAN COIS'TEOVEESY. 125
Bruis, they dwindled away and became ex- tinct. And here let it be noted, that this is the first christian society recorded in history who rejected the baptism of infants, and that they did so expressly on the assumption that infants were not capable of salvation.
And what now becomes of the assertion, that infant baptism is an innovation of Popery ? We have seen that the principle has been maintained by all the ancient sects, without exception, who separated from the great body of the church before Popery ex- isted— by communities which never had any connection with Kome — which were scattered far apart, in the interior of Persia, in a re- mote corner of India, in the far off regions of Ethiopia, and in the secluded valleys of Piedmont. All with equal tenacity have adhered to the practice of infant baptism.
THE PELAGIAN CONTROVERSY.
If now we go back to a period within three hundred years of the apostolic age, we shall find ample evidence that no christian society that refused baptism to infants, had then existed. About that time, Pelagius published the doctrine that infants are born free from moral defilement. He was opposed with great vehemence by Augustine, who pressed him with this powerful argument: " Why are infants baptized for the remission of sins, if they have no sin ?" " Why are 11*
126 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
they washed ia the laver of regeneration, if they have no pollution ?" Pelagius, and Celestius, his principal abettor, were greatly puzzled and embarrassed with this argument, and knew not how to evade or resist its force, without plunging still deeper in difficulty. At last some one charged upon them a de- nial of infant baptism, as a necessary infer- ence from their doctrine. Pelagius became indignant. "Baptism," says he, "ought to be administered to infants with the same sacramental words which are used in the case of adult persons." " Men slander me as if I denied the sacrament of baptism to infants." " I never heard of any, not even the most impious heretic who denied baptism to in- fants ; for who can be so impious as to hin- der infants from being baptized, and born again in Christ, and so make them miss of the kingdom of God?" Celestius also con- fessed " that infants were to be baptized ac- cording to the rule of the universal church." Augustine, in the course of the controversy, makes the sweeping declaration, " that he had never heard of any christian, whether catholic or sectary, who taught any other doctrine than that infants were to be bap- tized."^
* The writer of the article Baptism in the American Encyclopedia, among many unfair and partial statements, Bays, '' 'Ihe doctrine of St. vVugustine that the unbap- tized were irrevocal)ly dannnMl, changed tiiis delay into baste, and made the baptism of childieu general." These
THE PELAGIAN CONTROVERSY. 127
Augustine lived in Africa. Pelagius was a native of Britain, but resided a long time at Kome, then the centre of the civilized world. He also visited the principal churches of Europe, Asia, and Africa. Ce- lestius was born in Ireland, but settled per- manently at Jerusalem. All three were learned men, and must have been familiar with the early christian writers. If in any part of the world there had been a church or society, which denied baptism to infants, they must have read, or heard of it. It ap- pears, from their testimony, that no such so- ciety had existed within the memory of man.
Passing by the ample testimonies of Chry- sostom, Ambrose and others, and ascending to a still earlier period, we meet increasing evidence that infant baptism was an estab- lished usage of the primitive church.
are bold and reckless assertions. Few facts are better attested in history than that the baptism of children was " general," ages before the appearance of Augustine ; and that Father, instead of holding the sentiment im- puted to him above, states frankly, in his book against Julianus, {Lib. V. cap. 8,) Ego non dico parvulos sine baptismo Christi morienies tantn poena esse pledeiidos, lit eis non nasci potius expediret. " I do not say that in- fants dying without christian baptism will suffer such a punishment, as that it would be better for them if they had never been born."
Another Baptist writer asserts that Augustine perse- cuted the Doiiatists for denying infant baptism. And yet it is notorious that that people never denied it ; on the contrary, the 48th Canon of the third Council of Carthage respects " The infants baptized by the Dona" lists."
128 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
THE COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE,
About one hundred and fifty years after the apostles, there assembled at Carthage a Council of sixty-six bishops, or pastors, over which presided the martyr Cyprian. Fid us, a country pastor, proposed to it a query ; namely, whether an infant might be bap- tized before it was eight days old. The question, let it be noticed, was not whether infants ought to be baptized, for that was a settled point ; but whether it was necessary to wait till the eighth day after the birth. The following is the unanimous decision of the Council : " Whereas you judge that they must not be baptized within two or three days after they are born, and that the rule of circumcision is to be observed, that no one should be baptized and sanctified be- fore the eighth day after he is born, we were all in the Council of a very different opinion. As for what you thought proper to be done, no one was of your mind ; but we all rather judged that the mercy and grace of God is to be denied to no human being that is born." "And this rule, as it holds for all, we think more especially to be observed in reference to infants, even to those newly born."~%). Exj'isL %Q,
TESTIMONY OF ORIGEN. 129
TESTIMONY OF ORIGEN.
This celebrated writer was born at Alex- andria, eighty-five years after the death of the last apostle. He was certainly the most learned man of the age. He was educated at Alexandria, and, to acquire knowledge, he travelled in Cappadocia and Arabia, in Italy and Greece; and spent the greater part of his life in Syria and Palestine, the seat of the first christian churches, where he could not fail to become intimately acquainted with their principles and usages. It is true that, like most of the christian fathers, he was be- trayed into some serious errors in doctrine. But with his opinions we are not at present concerned. We bring him forward as a witness to a simple matter of fact. He could not be mistaken as to what was daily occur- ring before his own eyes, and there was no possible motive to induce him to deviate from the truth. In his Homily on Leviticus, he saj'-s : " Whereas the baptism of the church is given for the forgiveness of sins, infants also are, by the usage of church, bap- tized ; when, if there were nothing in infants that wanted forgiveness and mercy, the grace of baptism would be needless to them."
Again, in his Homily on Luke: "Infants are baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Of what sins ? or when have they sinned ? or how can any reason of the laver in their case hold good, but according to that sense
130 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
we mention even now? none is free from pollution, though his life be but of the length of one day upon the earth."
Again, in his Commentary on Romans : "For this also it was, that the church had had from the apostles a tradition [or order] to give baptism even to infants. For they to whom the divine mysteries were com- mitted, knew that there is in all persons the natural pollution of sin, which must be done away by water and the Spirit." — Wall, Vol. L, pp. 104—106.
INSPIRED TRADITIONS.
Baptist writers express great contempt for what Origen styles, " a tradition from the apostles." They forget that traditions re- ceived from inspired men are widely different from those fables and corrupt glosses by which the Jews made the word of God of none effect. Paul, in 2 Thess. ii. 15, says : "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." Again, in the sixth verse of the third chapter : " Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
If, therefore, the primitive christians re- ceived a tradition, or order, from ius])ircd
INSPIRED TRADITIONS. 131
apostles to baptize infants, they were bound to hold it fast and obey it. Origen had every opportunity to know whether such an order had been received from the apostles. He was descended from a christian ancestry reaching back to the apostolic age. His pedigree has been transmitted to us by a singular providence. Porphyry, a bitter enemy to Christianity, represented the chris- tians as a degraded people, destitute of all science. But not being able to conceal the splendid literary attainments of Origen, he pretended that he was first a heathen, and had learned their philosophy. In order to confute this falsehood, Eusebius, the histo- rian, sets forth his christian descent. It seems that his father suffered martyrdom, and that his grandfather and great-grand- father were both christians. The latter must have lived in the times of the apostles, and might have heard them preach. Such is the man who testifies that the church, the whole church, gave baptism to infants, and had re- ceived an order from the apostles to that effect. What now becomes of the assertion " that infant baptism is one of the abomina- tions of Popery, which was unknown in the church during the primitive ages ?" The testimony of Origen completely settles the historical question, and leaves no reasonable doubt but that infant baptism prevailed in the apostolic times.
132 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
TESTIMONY OF TERTULLIAN.
This remarkable man, born fifty years after the apostolic age, was first a heathen. When and where he embraced Christianity, does not appear, though as a writer he flour- ished chiefly in the beginning of the third century. He held and taught the opinion that baptism cleanses from the guilt of all past offences ; but that sins committed after baptism are next to unpardonable. Pursu- ing his own doctrine to its practical results, he pleaded for the delay of baptism till the close of life, or at least till the critical period of temptation had passed, in order that, by a single operation, the sins of one's life might all be washed away. " Therefore," says he, " according to every one's condition and disposition, and also their age, the delaying of baptism is more profitable, especially in the case of little children." He then specifies a hirge class of adult be- lievers, whom he would dissuade from ap- proaching the sacred font. " For no less reason," says he, " unmarried persons ought to be kept off", who are likely to come into temptation ; as well those who were never married, on account of their coming to ripe- ness, as those in widowhood, for the miss of their partner ; until they either marry or are confirmed in continence." — Wall, Vol. I., pp. 93, 9-i. On this testimony of Tertullian we have three remarks.
TESTIMONY OF TERTULLIAN. 133
First. He urges the delay of baptism in the case of infants and unmarried adults. His advice to delay, affords the strongest possible evidence that the baptism of infants, as well as unmarried adults, was the popular practice in his day. For why seek to dissuade from a usage which had never existed ?
Second. The Baptists are not correct in saying that he denied infant baptism. He says no more against the baptism of infants, than against that of unmarried adults. He w^ould have both the one and the other bap- tized in case of sickness and danger of death. He did not say that the standing practice of the church in regard to infants, or adults, was unlawful^ or that it was of recent origin, or a novelty unknown to the apostles. This it would have suited his purpose to say, if he could say it ; but he could not. On the contrary, he advocated delay in the cases specified, because he imagined that thereby the parties would contract less guilt during the period intervening between their bap- tism and death, and so be more sure of sal- vation. This was one of those odd notions for which that Father was remarkable.
Third. If the Baptists will infer, from the advice given by Tertullian, that infant bap- tism was not practised in the apostolic age, they must also infer that the baptism of unmarried adults was equally unauthorized at the same period. 12
134 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
TESTIMONY OF IREN^US,
Ascending to a still earlier period, we come to Irenseus, Bishop of Lyons, who wrote about sixty- seven years after the apostles. He tells us how eagerly he lis- tened to the instructions of Polycarp, the disciple of John. •' I remember," says he, " his discourse concerning the conversation he had with John the apostle, and others who had seen the Lord; how he rehearsed their discourses, and what he heard them, who were eye-witnesses of the Word of Life, say of our Lord, and of his miracles and doctrine." This Iren83us, in his book against heresy, writes thus : " He [Christ] came to save all persons by himself: all, I say, who by him are born again unto God ; {renascuntur in Deum ;) infants, and little ones, and children, and youths, and elderly persons." — Lib. ii., c. 39.
The phrase, *' regenerated unto God," was used by all the ancient fathers to signify water baptism, in conformity to their notions of Christ's meaning, when he said, "Except a man be born of water," kc. We know what Irenxeus meant by the phrase, for he has told us himself. "Christ," says he, *' committing to his disciples the power of regenerating unto God^ said unto them, ' Go teach all nations, baptizing them,'" &c. — Lib, iii., c. 19. Justin Martyr also, speaking of the reception of candidates into the church,
INFANT BAPTISM NOT AN INNOVATION. 185
says : " They are regenerated dpayewoJi^Tai (ana- gennontai) in the same way of regeneration in which we were regenerated ; for they are washed with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." — Apol. I., ad Ant. Pium.
INFANT BAPTISM NOT AN INNOVATION.
It is of no importance in the present dis- pute, whether the primitive fathers used words properly or improperly. It is not with their oipinions that we are now con- cerned, but with their testimony to a matter of fact. That Irenaeus used the phrase, "re- generated unto God," to signify water bap- tism, is so clear and incontestable that the leading Baptist writers will not venture to deny it. In what light, then, are we to re- gard that bold and confident assertion with which we are so often greeted, that infant baptism is an innovation of Popery, un- known in the primitive ages? Is it not evidently an unfounded calumny, supported alone by prejudice and bigotry, but contra- dicted by the whole tenor of ecclesiastical history ? Here is Irenaeus, of Lyons, who may be called a spiritual grandchild of the apostle John — a man who made eager in- quiry, and treasured up the conversations which the blessed martyr Polycarp repeated from the apostles. He is a competent and disinterested witness to facts ; and his Ian-
136 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
gnage proves that the baptism of infants was an established usage of the church in his days. Then the famous Origen, with his line of christian ancestors reaching back to the times of the apostles, testifies again and again, that infants were baptized according to the rule of the universal church ; nay, that the church had received a tradition, or order, from the apostles to baptize infants. In this testimony, all the early christian writers unite ; and such a phenomenon, as a church or society of men denying the law- fulness of infant baptism, is unheard of for more than a thousand years after Christ! Of a truth, that man must be fast bound in the fetters of unconquerable prejudice, who, in view of all the facts in the case, will deny that the baptism of infants was practised from the time of the apostles.
THE APOSTLES NOT BAPTISTS.
Our opponents claim that the apostles preached and practised according to the principles of the modern Baptists. But if so, how came it to pass that almost imme- diately after their death, a great, sudden, and radical change, in a matter of such vast im- portance, took place throughout the whole christian world ? How could so complete a transition from the baptism of none but adults, to that of infants, be brought about in the space of a few years, without the
AN ILLUSTRATION. 137
slightest opposition being heard of, from any quarter ? How was it that, before the apostles were fairly cold in their graves, a revolution should be effected, so silently that the best informed men in after times were entirely ignorant of it ? How could the gates of hell so suddenly and universally prevail against the church, that not one of Timothy's " faithful men" remained to raise his protesting voice against the wide spread corruption ? Why was it that not a single sect, or church, or society, remained to testify to the ages following, that the apos- tles were Baptists ?
AN ILLUSTRATION.
Let us suppose, for a moment, that the great body of the Baptist church in the United States should, in the course of fifty or a hundred years, become Pedobaptists. Could so important a change in the body take place without a fierce and protracted struggle, such as would be strongly marked in the page of history ? And would not some fragments of that large denomination be seen to cling with increased obstinacy to the old principles, and remain to testify against the defection of their brethren ? And then, if some future historian should pretend that the Baptist church had never changed — that it had always, and from the first, practised infant baptism — how easy it 12*
128 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
would be to silence the assertion by an appeal to the records of the sharp controversy which attended the change, and to the little sur- viving churches which remained faithful to the ancient discipline !
Let us now apply the illustration to the case in hand. From fifty to a hundred years after the apostles, we find infant baptism universally prevailing in the church. No writer of that, nor indeed of any subsequent age, was aware that the lawfulness of the j)ractice had ever been disputed, or that any change in that respect had ever taken place. All believed that the usage had been handed down from the apostles themselves. The best informed writers of that period had never heard of any one, claiming to be a christian, who denied the lawfulness of infant baptism. Such are the facts in the case ; and now let me ask, Is there even a possi- bility that the apostles could have preached and taught in accordance with Baptist prin- ciples ? Of all incredible things in the world, that is the most incredible.
Pressed with the weight of this argument, our opponents reply that the scriptures are the only infallible guide in matters of reli- gion. We cheerfully grant it ; but would respectfully ask them, In what way are we to arrive at the true meaning of the scrip- tures ? If we shut our eyes against all the light obtained from historical research, we shall find many parts of the sacred volume
AN ILLUSTKATION. 139
Utterly unintelligible. The history of the christian church, while it enables us to settle the authenticity and divine authority of scripture, at the same time sheds abun- dant light on its meaning. Availing our- selves of this and other helps to interpreta- tion, we design, in the next chapter, to prove, by the sacred oracles, that infants were bap- tized by authority of the apostles themselves.
140 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
CHAPTER II.
Family Baptisms — Apostolic Eule of Baptism — Family of Cornelius, of Lydia, of the jailer — Model Mission- ary Report — Baptisms at Corinth— Family of Ste- phanas— Oih)S and Oikia — Christ and the Sadducees.
Having disposed of the assertion that in- fant baptism is an innovation of Rome, I shall now proceed to show that it was sanc- tioned by the practice of the apostles them- selves. This I doubt not may be made to appear :
1. From the record of their doings and sayings.
2. From the instructions given them by Christ.
3. From their clear recognition of the es- sential sameness of the church of God under all dispensations.
FAMILY BAPTISMS.
The doings of these holy men, so far as re- corded, are found chiefly in the Acts of the Apostles. That inspired book furnishes a brief history of the church from A. D. 33
FAMILY BAPTISMS. 141
to A. D. 63. During those thirty years, many thousands of persons must have received baptism ; but how many of these are named or individually specified? There are the Ethiopian eunuch, Simon Magus, Saul of Tarsus, Cornelius, Lydia, and the jailer of Philippi — six. Our Baptist friends, how- ever, may think we ought in fairness to add the name of Crispus of Corinth ; for the record says, " Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house, and many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized." — Acts xviii. 8. It may be implied in this passage that Cris- pus and his believing family, as well as the " many Corinthians," submitted to the holy ordinance. We have no objection, therefore, to add the name of Crispus to our list.
Here, then, we have just seven individuals named or specified in the Acts of the Apos- tles, as having received baptism. And in how many of these seven cases are we told that the whole family was baptized, with its head ? In no less than four ; namely, in that of Cornelius, Lydia, the jailer, and Crispus. What means this? Four, out of the seven only individuals named or speci- fied in the record of baptisms, have their whole families admitted to that ordinance ! Did the sacred writer mean to give us a fair average of these occurrences ? No christian will deny it. The Spirit of inspiration in- tended to make a correct impression on our
142 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
minds, by a wise selection of facts. Four out of seven, then, may be taken as about the proportion of cases in which baptisms of whole families took place. Now how many individuals are named in the Acts of the Apostles as converts to Christianity ? I have lying before me a list of just forty-eight persons. Supposing all these to have been baptized, the proportion of four in every seven will give twenty-seven baptisms of en- tire families, with their heads. And if the apostles baptized as many as twelve thou- sand adults in the whole thirty years, the same proportion will give near seven thou- sand family baptisms.
Does this resemble the doings of our Bap- tist brethren ? Have their missionaries to the heathen, or to our frontier settlements, ever exhibited anything like a counterpart to the Acts of the Apostles ? During the 825 years that the Baptist church has ex- isted on earth, have they ever produced a report of seven converts whose baptism is circumstantially related, and four of the seven baptized with their whole families ? Never. IIow often do they baptize a whole household along with its head ? In one case in a hundred ? in a thousand ? in ten thou- sand ?
We grant that there have been a few in- stances during the last fifty years, in which they have baptized a whole fomily at one time. And such events, when they do occur,
THE APOSTOLIC RULE OP BAPTISM. 143
are apt to be trumpeted throughout Chris- tendom as signal triumphs. Yet in these cases it generally turns out on inquiry that the family consisted of two or three aged persons. Not so in the apostle's days : large households were baptized. The phrases, " all his house," " all thine house," and " he and all his," intimate that the families to which they are applied were of considerable size. Rarely do men use such language with reference to only one or two children, without some qualifying word, as " all his little family."
THE APOSTOLIC RULE OF BAPTISM.
Take another view of this subject. We remarked that four, out of the seven baptisms above specified, were baptisms of whole families. But we must not overlook the fact that two of the seven, Saul and the Ethiopian eunuch, were without families ; and as to a third, Simon Magus, we are not told that he had any. This much is certain, that every one of the seven who is described as having a family, has that whole family baptized. This is another striking and significant fact, leading to this general con- clusion : That, so far as the record goes, ivhenever the apostles administered baptism to the head of a family^ they admitted his whole family to that ordinance. Does this look like a Baptist church ? Can we imagine a
144 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
more perfect contrast to the uniform practice of all Baptist ministers ?
We can now readily account for the universal prevalence of infant baptism in the primitive ages. Origen was not mis- taken in saying, that the church had re- ceived a tradition from the apostles to baptize infants. The uniform practice of these inspired men, together with their verbal instructions, authorized the christians of those ages to administer the ordinance to little children. Hence there was no oppo- sition from any quarter to a usage which was well understood to be derived from the apostles.
UNNATURAL ASSUMPTION OF THE BAPTISTS.
Pressed with the difficulties of their scheme, our opponents resort to the bold assumption that the four baptized families consisted exclusively of adult believers ; as though it were credil3le that in four ordinary, good-sized households there should not be a single child, too young to be baptized on his own profession of faith 1 Now I have never heard of the Baptist brethren ever admitting to baptism, children under the age of nine or ten years; and admissions even at that tender age, are regarded by them as extraordinary, and of very ques- tionable propriety. And will they assume that there are none below that age in four
THE FAMILY OF THE JAILER. 145
ordinary families respectable for numbers ? Let any one tal^e an account of eight, twelve, or sixteen of the nearest families in his neighbourhood, omitting those which have fewer than four or five members besides the head, and he will find that in every four such families, there will be, on an average, six or seven children, quite too young to be received into the church on profession.
Of the four baptized families above spe- cified, that of Crispus is described as con- sisting wholly of believers. In that respect it stands alone among all the households baptized by the apostles. Our Baptist friends indeed claim for
THE FAMILY OF THE JAILER,
that they too were all believing adults, be- cause we read that "he believed in Grod with all his house ;" Acts xvi. 84. And it is true that our English version seems to con- vey that idea, though that could not have been intended by the translators, for it is not in the original. They doubtless meant the words believing in Gocl^ to be understood as though included in a parenthesis, thus, " and rejoiced (believing in God) with all his house."* A literal translation from the
*The words of the original are, nyaWiaaaTo vavoiKi TTZTncrrevKoyg roJ Qew {egalUasato pauoiki pepisteukos to Theo). 13
146 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
Greek would be, " and rejoiced with all his house, he having believed iu God ;" or *' having believed in God, he rejoiced with all his house." This, so far as I know, is not disputed by any respectable Baptist writer. Our opponents, however, allege that, since the jailer's family rejoiced with him, the}?" must all have been adults. But if so, then the little children who rejoiced in tlie temple, crying, llosanna to the Son of David, must have been adults too, though described by our Lord as " babes and suck- lings !" We learn from 2 Chronicles xxxi. 14 — 16, that children of "three years old and upwards," entered into the house of the Lord, and ate of the free will offerings with their parents. And in Deut. xvi. 26, is this injunction upon the parents : " And thou shalt eat there before the Lord thy God ; and thou shalt rejoice^ thou and thine household." So also in Cliapter xii. 7, parents and house- holds are commanded to eat before the Lord and rejoice together. Here children of " three years old" are represented as " rejoicing be- fore the Lord," with their parents ; which is rather more than is affirmed of the jailer's family.
Equally futile is the argument that the jailer's family consisted of adults, because the apostles spake the word " to all that were ill his house." For that is the very language usually adopted when any one addresses a congregation. We say, " lie exhorted the
THE FAMILY OF CORNELIUS. 147
whole assembly ;" " He spoke to all in the house." No rational man infers from such expressions that there are no little children present in the congregation. In Josh. viii. 35, we learn that "there was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before all the congregation of Israel, with the women and the little onesP Among these little ones there must have been thou- sands who understood not a word of what was read.
THE FAMILY OF CORNELIUS.
That a part of the assembly convened at the house of Cornelius were adults, we»readily admit. But our opponents contend that all his family were of that class, because we read that he was " one that feared God with all his house." — Acts x. 2. But that is no more than may be affirmed of any household distinguished for piety, though it may con- tain children. It is usual in such cases to say, "It is a God-fearing family;" or, "They are a very religious family." Nor, indeed, can it be denied that children of two or three years old, under proper training, do commonly become impressed with a salutary fear of God. When Joshua says, " As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord," we do not conclude that his family was com- posed exclusively of adults, because no others are capable of serving the Lord.
148 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
ISTor can it avail our opponents that "the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word," in the house of Cornelius. For the same thing may be true of any assembly, where there is a remarkable out pouring of the Spirit. In such cases, how often is it said, "The Spirit descended upon the whole assembly" — "The whole audience was deeply moved!" Those who use this lanofua<2fe never mean to be understood as denying that little children were present. Childreu of three or four years old may, to some ex- tent, share the emotions of a worshipping assembly, though too young to make a pub- lic profession of religion. That Cornelius had cajled together " his kinsmen and near friends," and that these were a part of the assembly on whom the Spirit descended, is plain enough. It is equally plain that he had a flimily of his own, as I shall show in another place.
THE FAMILY OF LYDIA.
It is next argued, that the family of Lydia were all adult believers, because the apos- tles, when released from prison, "entered into her house, and when they had seen the brethren, they comforted them and departed." "Wonderful logic ! The apostles saw brethrea at the house of Lydia; therefore all Lydia's family were believing adults!! Is it possible that Paul, and Silas, and Luke, and Timothy,
THE FAMILY OF LYDIA. 149
were " many days" in Pbilippi, and that iivdia's family, besides the jailer, were the only converts made during their stay ? What are we to think of a system that re- quires so absurd a supposition to support it ? Look at Paul's Epistle to the Philippians. There it will be seen that that church was, from the first, a flourishing one. Paul and Silas were about to leave the city ; and no- thing was more natural than to hold a fare- well-meeting at the residence of the hospi- table Lydia, where Luke and Timothy had still remained. Here the two former de- livered their parting exhortations, in which they sought to comfort and strengthen the new converts, and to commend them to God and the word of his grace.
Luke, with his accustomed accuracy, de- signates Lydia as the only believer in the family. " Whose heart," says he, " the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul." Not one word does he say about her family, till he tells us that " she was baptized and her household^ The same caution is apparent in his account of her kind invitation to the apostles. She desired those holy men, to whom, under God, she owed her conversion, to share her hos- pitality, and would naturally urge every proper consideration adapted to persuade them. If she could have said, "We are all believers, therefore come in and abide with us," that is the very plea she would have 13*
150 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
urged. Instead of this, she says, "If ye have judged me to be faithful, come into my house and abide there."
A MODEL MISSIONARY REPORT.
Luke's account of the first planting of the christian church may be regarded as aa inspired missionary report. In that report he mentions the baptism of four whole fami- lies. Of one of these families he relates, as an interesting fact, that they were all believers. Of the other three he does not say this ; nor does he tell us anything from which we can fairly draw such an inference. But he does tell us that they were all baptized. How far do reports of Baptist missionaries agree with, that of the inspired Luke ? If, at any time, they have the extraordinary good for- tune to baptize a whole family at once, do they ever fail to mention expressly that they were all believers? We need not a more convincing proof that the apostles were not Baptist missionaries.
OTHER INDIVIDUAL BAPTISMS.
Thus far, in this chapter, we have confined our investigation to a single book of the Bible. But if we extend the inquiry to the whole New Testament, all the additional in- formation, having a bearing on the case, is found in the following passage.
OTHER INDIVIDUAL BAPTISMS. 151
1 Cor. i. 14-17.—" I thank God that I bap- tized none of you but Crispus and Gaius ; lest any should say that I baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the house- hold of Stephanas ; besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel."
Crispus we have already taken into the account, as being mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. As to Gaius, it is not in evi- dence that he had any family proper. Ste- phanas was " the first fruits of Achaia," and of course a believer. There is no record of his baptism, but here is a special one of the baptism of his family. We must, therefore, add to our former list just one individual, and one family ; making, in all the New Tes- tament, eight individual and five family bap- tisms, recorded as taking place after Christ instituted the ordinance, and gave commis- sion to his disciples. Two of the eight were certainly without families, and of two others it does not appear that they had any. On the whole, then, the rule still holds good that the apostles, so far as the record goes, never baptized the head of a family without ad- mitting his whole family to the ordinance.
Do the Baptists ask us to prove that in all the five families there was one little child? As well might they ask us to prove that when the Israelites were " all baptized " in the sea, there were little children among them.
152 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM!.
I would want proof in the one case about as soon as in the other. What! Will these good brethren have it that the apostles gathered in none but bachelors and childless house- holders ? Look at the case again. Five whole families of respectable size, for every eight adults named as baptized by the apos- tles, and not a little child among them ! Eeally, this is too much for credulity itself. The chances are a thousand to one against it. From the last census of the United- States it appears that two in every seven of the white population are under ten years of age. At this rate, and taking the five fami- lies at six persons each, includingthe parents, they would contain at least eight children ■under the age of ten. At the same time we should remember that in Eastern countries, and in ancient times, chikiless families were rare, children were numerous and bore a very large proportion to the adult popula- tion.
OTHEK FAMILY BAPTISMS AT CORINTH.
But were there only one or two families baptized at Corinth ? We think there were more, and that this is fairly implied in the language of Paul : " And I baptized also the liousehold of Stephanas; besides, I know not whether I baptized any other." Here the original word AoiTdr {loipov), translated besides^ is more expressively rendered in the French
OTHER FAMILY BAPTISMS AT CORINTH. 153
version, as to the rest (du reste), there being a reference to the baptized family mentioned in the previous clause. In this view the passage may be translated thus : " I baptized also the family of Stephanas : as to the rest {of the baptized families) I do not know whether I baptized any other."
We learn from the context that the Corin- thians were divided into parties, each of which adhered to a particular teacher in op- position to all others. Things having turned out so unhappily, the apostle was glad that he had baptized so few of them himself, as there was less pretext for making him the head of a party. " I thank God that I bap- tized none of you," says he, addressing the adult believers, "I baptized none of youhxxt Crispus and Gaius." Of this he was" certain, and they could not dispute it. Many others of them indeed had been baptized, but not by him. It was true that he had also bap- tized the family of his friend Stephanas, but that did not conflict with his previous statement, for they were too young to be concerned in the party strife, and were, there- fore, out of the question. For the same reason it was unimportant for him to recol- lect whether there was any other baptized family among them to whom he had admin- istered the ordinance. Many Corinthian families had received baptism, but he was not certain that he had baptized more than one. Christ, indeed, had not sent him to
154 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
baptize, but to perform tbe more important and difficult service of preaching the gospel.
FAMILIES AXD THEIR HEADS NOT ALWAYS BAPTIZED AT THE SAME TIME.
We are now prepared to meet an objection often urged by the Baptists with an air of triumph. Why is it, say they, that in the accounts of great numbers baptized at Jeru- salem on the day of Pentecost, at Samaria, at Corinth, and other places, we hear nothing of the baptism of any but believing adults? I answer, First^ Pedobaptist ministers, when- ever it falls to their lot to baptize many adults on one occasion, defer the baptism of their families to another more suitable occa- sion. Just so the apostles seem to have done. They baptized the believing Corin- thians at one time, and their families at another. Crispus, for instance, was baptized by Paul, and his household by another hand. So the baptism of Stephanas, and that of his family, must have taken place on sepa- rate occasions. And such cases were proba- bly of very frequent occurrence. Secondh/^ had it not been for the party strife existing at Corinth, we should never have heard of any baptisms there but those of believers. The disputes in that church called forth the censures of the apostle in an Epistle. In that Epistle he incidentally mentions one family baptism, and gives an intimation of
HOUSE AND HOUSEHOLD. 155
many more. If circumstances had elicited any details of the baptisms at Jerusalem, after the day of Pentecost, we should, no doubt, have learned that family baptisms fol- lowed those of believing adults, as at Corinth, and in as great numbers. And if the pro- portion of these baptisms, to those of indi- viduals, was as great, as would appear from the few cases specially recorded, we may pre- sume that from fifteen to eighteen hundred family baptisms ensued upon the addition to the church of the three thousand Pentecostal converts. The same remarks will apply to Samaria and other cities.
HOUSE AND HOUSEHOLD.
But not only have the doings of the apos- tles given testimony to the fact that they baptized little children, but their words ^yoyq that they meant to tell us so. And the fault is not theirs if no evidence of it appears in our English version. Every linguist knows, that in most languages there are words ex- pressing distinctions, for which there may not be words exactly corresponding in other languages. Precisely such is the case with the two Greek words, oixo^ (oikos) and oiKta {oikia). Our translators have rendered these words, indiscriminately, household SLud house ; though they differ from each other as a part from the whole. The one is a masculine, and the other a feminine noun. When used in
156 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
a literal sense, oihos means a Jiouse, the dwell- ing of a family ; and oikia signifies tJte whole premises^ including out-houses. When they are used figuratively, to signify persons, oikos means a man's proper famili/, excluding ser- vants and attendants ; and oihia denotes a whole household, includinsf servants and at- tendants. For this distinction we have the authority of Aristotle, as quoted by Mr. C. Taylor. Aj^ost. JBapt., pp. 41.
OIKOS {oikos), HOUSE.
o7v9j {oikos\ when it signifies 2^6rsons, most "Usually means the children o^ a family. Here are a few examples, taken from the Septua- gint:
Gen. xxxiv. 30. — " I shall be destroyed, I and my house" {oikos). There were infants in Jacob's family at the time.
Num. xviii. 31. — " Ye shall eat it in every place, ye and your households {oikos\ for it is your reward for your services." Their children ate of the offerings at three years old.— See 2 Chron. xxi. 15^ 16.
Deut. XXV. 9. — " So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house" {oikos).
1 Sam. ii. 33. — " And all the increase of thine house (o?'te) shall die in the flower of their age." Here, again, infant children are meant.
The New Testament writers, also, used the
0IK02 (OTKOS), HOUSE. 157
word to signify children of all ages, thus : Heb. xi. 7. — " Noah prepared an ark to the saving of his house" (oikos). Here ser- vants are excluded.
1 Tim. iii. 4. — "One that ruleth well his own house {oihos\ having his children in* subjection." Verse 12 — " Ruling their chil- dren and their own houses {oikos) well."
Such is the word used by the sacred writers in connection with five family baptisms. "Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord, with all his house" {oiJcos). A truly remarkable instance of a father and all his children receiving baptism, as believers. Cornelius had children. Said the angel to him, *' Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter ; who shall tell thee words by which thou and all thy house (oikos) shall be saved." — Acts xi. 13, 14. To the trembling jailer, Paul said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thine house" (oikos), and " he was baptized, he and all his, straight- way." Says the same apostle, " I baptized also the household (oikos) of Stephanas," meaning the children of Stephanas. Of Lydia, we read, that " she was baptized, and her household" (oikos). In all these cases, the word used by the apostles is one which every Grecian would take to mean children. That the people of those ages did so under- stand the word, we have the most ample evi- dence. The first translation of the New 14
158 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
Testament ever made, was the Peshito Sjriac, published only a few years after the apos- tolic age. That version, instead of saying, " Lydia was baptized, and her household," says, '' She was baptized, and the children of her house.''^
oiKiA (oikia), HOUSEHOLD.
This word, as we said, when used meta- phorically to signify ^er50725, means a house- hold^ including servants and attendants. We give an example or two.
Philip, iv. 22. — "All the saints salute you, chiefly they that are of Caesar's household," oiKta (pikia.) It is certain that not one of Nero's family, at that time, professed Chris- tianity, though some of his domestics did.
John viii. 35. " And the servant abideth not in the house {pikia) for ever."
Mark xiii. 34. " Who left his house {pikia) and gave authority to his servants."
Observe, now, what light this distinction between the two words throws upon certain texts. In Acts xvi. 32, we read that the apostles spake the word to the jailer, "and to all that were in his house," {oikia\ that is, to all within his premises, including the in- mates of the prison. Afterwards the jailer *' brought them into his house," oIko^ {oikos\ liis family apartments. Again : in 1 Cor. 3ivi. 15, we are told that "the house [oikia) of Stephanas" had " addicted themselves to
A COMMON OBJECTION ANSWERED. 159
the ministry of the saints." Here notice, that this " house" of Stephanas differs from that " household" of his, which Paul baptized. It was the oikia^ the attendants, or the ser- vants of Stephanas, who devoted themselves to the service of the saints ; but it was his oikos^ children^ who were baptized by Paul.
A COMMON OBJECTION ANSWERED.
To all this the Baptist friends will say, " This is nothing but circumstantial evi- dence. Give us a direct warrant — a declara- tion of the apostles in so many words, that they hajytized infants^ and we will believe."
Are these brethren not aware that circum- stantial or inferential proof is often more conclusive and less liable to objection than any other? It is the very kind of proof which on a memorable occasion our Saviour adduced to the Sadducees. They received the five books of Moses, but rejected the doctrine of the resurrection. They very likely de- manded a direct warrant, a Thus saith the Lord^ The dead shall arise. And yet if Moses had stated the doctrine in the most express terms, it would have made no difference. Paul has since declared in so many words that the dead shall rise, and yet there are professed christians who deny or explain it away. To those ancient skeptics, Christ offered a species of evidence more difficult to evade than any direct warrant whatever.
160 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
The Lord addressing Moses, said, "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." " He is not," said Christ, "the God of the dead, but of the living." Matt. xxii. 32. This inferential proof, in the judgment of the Great Teacher, was conclu- sive.
When, therefore, our Baptist brethren de- mand a direct warrant — an inspired decla- ration in so many words, that the apostles baptized infants — we may properly reply, that if the sacred writers had used that very language, there would have been quite as much room for cavilling as ever. Even as it is, when we press these brethren with the language and conduct of Christ to little children^ they exclaim, " Oh, yes, metaphori- cal children !" When we urge upon them the testimonies of IrenoBus, Origen, and others, in regard to the baptism of little children and infants in their day, they reply, " that these terms are used indiscriminately for minors, whether they be twenty days, or twenty years old ;" that " it happens that we hear of an infant who was hanged for killing his tutor; and of the last will and testament of the little infant {infantulns) Adald, aged eighteen." The inspired writers, foreseeing that all such language would be liable to cavil, chose a different method of conveying the truth, and one less susceptible of misconstruc- tion than that demanded by our brethren. For eight individual baptisms, the only ones
A COMMON OBJECTION ANSWERED. 161
specified by the sacred writers, they relate no fewer than five baptisms of whole fami- lies. JSTor do they ever tell ns of the bap- tism of the believing head of a family, with- out expressly informing us that his whole family was baptized. Still further, to desig- nate those families, they employ a word, which in their day would naturally be un- derstood to mean children^ and which was actually so understood in the following age. In this manner the inspired writers have conveyed to us the belief and practice of the apostles, in terms less liable to perversion than if they had said in so many words, The a2:>ostles baptized infants. 14*
162 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
CHAPTER III.
Christ's instructions to his disciples — Infants brong'ht to Christ — " Of such, toiouton, the kinfi^dom of hea- ven " — The command to baptize — Matheteuo — Pe- ter's understanding of the commission — " The pro- mise "
In the last chapter, we endeavoured to show from the record of the apostles' doings that they baptized other than believing adults. I shall now attempt to prove that they were authorized so to do by the in- structions of the Saviour. And here, at the outset, it is necessary to dispose of two or three
GROUNDLESS ASSUMPTIONS OF THE BAPTISTS.
In the first place, they assume that the command of the risen Saviour, "Go teach all nations, baptizing tliem," &;c., was the only commission to baptize which the apos- tles ever received. Whereas, it is notorious that, some time previous, they " made and baptized more disciples than John," which they would hardly have done without suffi-
Christ's instructions. 163
cient authority. In the second place, they assume that the apostles were bound to take the aforesaid command as the exclusive rule of baptism, and to construe it independently of any previous instructions of the Saviour. But why then did Christ promise, that, after his departure, the Holy Ghost should bring all things to their remembrance, whatsoever he had said unto them ? John xiv. 26. This aid of the Divine Spirit would be alto- gether useless, if they were bound to ignore all previous instructions on the subject. In the third place^ our opponents take for granted that the command referred to, is a command to baptize none but believing adults ; and as though this were a conceded point, they proceed solemnly to rebuke Pedobaptists for the sin of adding to the commission of the Saviour. Thus they beg the question at the outset, and by this means save themselves the trouble of proving their position by sound argument.
Christ's instructions to his disciples.
These, so far as they relate to baptism, are comprised in the following scriptures :
Matt. xix. 13 — 15. — " Then were brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them and pray ; and his disci- ples rebuked them. But Jesus said. Suffer little children, and forbid them not to come unto me ; for of such is the kingdom of
164 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
heaven. And he Laid his hands on them, and departed thence." See also Mark x. 13 — 16 ; and Luke xviii. 15 — 17.
Matt. xvi. 19 — "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in hea- ven." See also John xx. 23.
Matt, xxviii. 19, 20 — " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded
you."
Mark xvi. 15, 16 — "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every crea- ture. He that belie veth, and is baptized, shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
The first of these passages contains a most interesting account of
LITTLE CHILDREN" BROUGHT TO CHRIST.
They must have been quite small children, too ; for Luke calls them infants ; and Mark tells us tliat the affectionate Saviour "took them up in his arms." The parents, also, must have been believers in Christ, or they would not have sought his blessing.
" And his disciples rehuhed themr That is, as Mark explains it, they " rebuked those
TOIOYTilN (tOIOUTON), of SUCH.
that brought them." Yery probably the disciples used some such language as this : — " Away with your little infants ! Don't think to bring them to Christ now : wait till they are old enough to come themselves. "What possible good can it do to lay hands on an unconscious babe?" With this ill- judged conduct of his disciples, Jesus, as Mark tells us, was " much displeased." By his words and actions he taught them a les- son they were not likely to forget. " S after the little children," said he, " and forbid them not to come unto me." Then suiting his actions to his words, he laid his hands on them and blessed them ; thus spurning away the narrow, unworthy suggestion, that in- fants could receive no good from him.
" But why," it is asked, " is it not said that Christ baptized them ?" A more sim- ple question could hardly be put by the little children themselves I Yet, as we must be " patient toward all men," we answer : first^ that Jesus himself never baptized with water, and secondly, that he had not yet in- stituted the christian baptism. These children had been dedicated to God by circumcision, which was still in force.
TOIOYTilN {toiouton\ OF SUCH.
" Of such," says Christ, " is the kingdom of heaven." And of whom does he speak ? Not of little children, says Dr. Carson, but
166 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
of those who resemble them; and so say all the Baptists. Indeed, any other interpreta- tion would be fatal to their scheme. They would have Christ's meaning to be, " Suffer little children, and forbid them not to come unto me, for of adults who resemble them is the kingdom of heaven." But, adopting this construction, we cannot make out the force of Christ's argument. We cannot see why, in that view, little children should be brought to him, any more than lambs and doves; for it might be said with equal pro- priety, that of adults who resemble lambs and doves, is the kingdom of heaven.
The fairest way to ascertain who are meant by the phrase of such^ is to refer to other passages where the same language is used. The original word^ translated such is ToiovTOi (toioutos), and occurs in the following texts :
John iv. 23 — " The true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father seeketh such to worship him." That is, he seeketh those very persons to worship him.
Acts xxii. 22 — " Away with such a fellow from the earth ; for it is not fit that he should live." According to the Baptists, the Jews meant not Paul himself, but only those that resembled him. We say, this very Paul and all like him.
1 Cor. vii. 2, 8 — " But, and if thou marry,' thou hast not sinned ; and if a virgin marry,
"the KINGDOM OF HEAVEN." 167
she hath not sinned. Nevertheless, such shall have trouble in the flesh." On the Baptist principle, not those who marrv, but those only who resemble them are meant !
1 Cor. V. 11 — " If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator" — " with such an one, no, not to eat." That is, not to eat with the very person specified.
2 Cor. xi. 13 — " Such are false apostles, deceitful workers," &c. The identical per- sons previously described were false apos- tles, and so were all others who were like them.
1 Tim. vi. 4, 5 — " He is proud, knowing nothing" — " from such withdraw thyself." That is, from the very persons specified, as well as all who were like them.
If these six examples are not sufilicient, I can produce twice as many more. In fact, the unvarying current of scripture usage proves, that when Christ said, " Of such is the kingdom of heaven," he meant of them — that is, of little children is the king- dom of heaven. In other words, little chil- dren, as well as others, belong to that king- dom.
In the next place, what is that kingdom
to which little children are said to have a
^ight ? What Matthew calls " the kingdom
of heaven," is styled by Mark and Luke
168 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
" the kingdom of God." Both phrases have the same meaning. They contain an allu- sion to the ancient predictions respecting the glorious reign of Messiah. Thus Daniel says, " In the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed." — Chap. ii. 44. Again: speaking of " one like unto the son of man," he says, "There was given him dominion, glory, and a kingdom, that all people, na- tions, and languages should serve him." — Chap. iv. 7. To the same effect are numer- ous predictions of the other prophets. The kingdom they foretold can be none other than the visible kingdom of Christ, or the Gospel church, which was to be established among all nations. And this we have no doubt is the meaning of the phrase, " king- dom of heaven," in the passage under dis- cussion. In this particular, most Baptist writers agree with us. Christ must then be understood as making known to his disci- ples, that little children, or infants, were a component part of that visible church of his, which was about to be extended over all the earth.
It was peculiarly important that the dis- ciples should have a correct understanding on this subject, because Christ was about to intrust them with the highest authority in his church. He had promised to give unto them "the keys of tlie kingdom of heaven ;" that is to say, of that very kingdom of which
COMMAND TO BAPTIZE ALL NATIONS. 169
infants were a component part ; and what- soever they should bind on earth should be bound in heaven. They would be author- ized to open the gospel dispensation, and to declare what persons should be admitted to the visible church or excluded from it. The instructions they now received from their Divine Master, as to the position occu- pied in his kingdom by little children, would afterwards be brought to their remembrance, and made plain to them by the agency of the Holy Ghost. Guided by those instruc- tions, they would not fail to recognize the right of infants, by admitting them to baptism.
I may here remark, that if by " the king- dom of heaven" is to be understood tlie hingdom of glory^ our argument will not be weakened but rather strengthened. For if infants are admitted into the redeemed family in heaven, who will dare to exclude them from the visible family of Christ on earth ? Who will pretend that the church below is more pure and select in its society than the church above ?
Turn we now to an examination of our Lord's last instructions to his disciples, con- tained in
THE COMMAND TO BAPTIZE ALL NATIONS.
" Go," says the ascending Saviour, " Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 15
170 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
the Holy Ghost." Again : " Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned." The Baptists say that the apostles were bound to put a rigid in- terpretation on this last command of Christ, paying no regard to any previous instruc- tions; and that, infants not being expressly named, they had no authority to baptize them. But if this be true, the apostles had no right to baptize females, for neither are they specified in the order ; on the contrary, only the masculine gender is expressed : — "^e that believeth and is baptized," &c. Moreover, if our opponents will insist upon a strict construction of the words, irrespec- tive of the scope and intent of the order, they must do like St. Anthony — preach to the fishes ; for the command is, " preach the gospel to every creature^
The instructions which the apostles had already received, rendered it unnecessary that their Lord should specify either infants or females, in his last command to bai)tize. Those holy men were fully aware that little children were a part of the visible church of Christ, and could feel no hesitation about receiving them to baptism. To make this matter as plain as possible, allow me to employ
AN ILLUSTRATION. 171
AN TLLUSTBATION.
Let US suppose some monarch of those days giving orders to his commanding gen- eral to conquer a rebellious province, and enroll the people as his subjects. He has before taken occasion to acquaint his general that he accounts all children of loyal citizens as subjects, sustaining the same relation to his kingdom as their parents. There being a complete mutual understanding on this point, he issues a brief order as follows : "Go, subdue that nation, and enroll them among my subjects. He that submits to my authority, and is enrolled, shall be protected in person and property ; but he that does not submit shall suffer death." Would any intelligent commander, in the circumstances, have the least doubt that he was expected to include infants in the census and enrollment ? And suppose some one of his officers to insist, that infants are not named in the king's order, and therefore ought to be omitted in the census ; that infants cannot submit to the royal au- thority, and therefore should not be enrolled as subjects ; that it will be time enough to enroll them when they can decide the ques- tion of submission for themselves. What, in such case, would the commander have replied ? He would have said, " I know well the intent and meaning of the royal order. I know the high regard of the
172 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
king for the offspring of his loyal citizens. He has himself assured me that he accounted such as his subjects, bearing the same relation to his kingdom as their parents. I am cer- tain that he would be much displeased^ should I fail to have them included in the census and enrollment. Moreover, you say that in- fants cannot submit, and therefore must not be enrolled. You might just as well argue, that because they cannot submit, therefore they must be put to death ; for the king's order is, ' He that does not submit shall suf- fer death.'"
I leave it to the intelligent reader to apply the illustration.
The Lord Jesus, long before his death, had authorized his apostles both to preach and baptize. But their instructions limited them to " the lost sheep of the house of Israel." After his resurrection, he assigned them the world as their field. " Go," says he, "teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." — Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. This last com- mand of Christ, instead of excluding little children, seems to be worded with a special design to make room for them. The reader will please to observe, that the word teach
ALL NATIONS." 173
occurs twice in the passage : " Go, teach all nations," and " teaching them to observe all things," &c. In the original, there is no such tautology, as the two words are quite different, and differ in their significations. The first word rendered teach^ is naertTevaart (^matlieteusate^) from naQnrtvw (mathetev.o^) TO DISCIPLE, TO SECURE AS SCHOLARS, TO INI- TIATE INTO A SCHOOL AS LEARNERS. As tO
the real meaning of the word, all Baptist writers of eminence are so well agreed with us, that it may be considered as settled. Dr. Carson says, " It is well known that the word corresponding to teach, in the first in- stance in which it occurs in this passage, signifies, to disciple or make scholars ^^ p. 169. Mr. Campbell, also, founder of the numerous sect called by his name, makes the same ad- mission, and adds, that " no man can be said to be discipled, or converted, till he is im- mersed."— Ghu. Baptist, p. 630. The com- mand of the Saviour may therefore be para- phrased thus : *' Go disciple, or enroll as scholars, all nations, baptizing them," &c ; " instructing them in the observance of all the things which I have commanded you." Now, it must be admitted that children of two years old are capable of learning in the school of Christ. They may therefore, with propriety, be enrolled therein, as scholars ; and their parents may assume the obligation to instruct them, at that early period. The Baptists can hardlv deny this, though thev 15 * "
174 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
allege that infants of a few days old can, in no sense, be accounted scholars. It is easy to show that this objection has no force.
SCHOLARSHIPS FOR INFANTS.
It is not uncommon for a father to secure, in some literary institution, a scholarship for his infant child, before it is able to talk. He pays down the required sum, and receives an authenticated document, by which the officers of the institution are bound to in- struct the child in various branches of learn- ing, whenever its capacities shall be suffi- ciently developed. And where is the ab- surdity of making a provision of this kind? Are not such parents counted wise and provident ? And is it less wise to secure for a young immortal, a scholarship in the school of Christ, and to engage his instruc- tors at the earliest period? Yet this is precisely what is done when a parent gives up his infant child to God, in baptism. He solemnly binds himself to bring up his child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. It is true, the Baptist brethren pursue a WQvy different course ; they leave their children out of the school of Christ till they make a credible profession of faith, and then intro- duce them. This is as though our primary schools should refuse admission to pupils, till they have made a great proficiency in learn in j<l
THE WAY THE COMMAND WAS GIVEN. 175
" But "how can a little child be called a disciple f I answer, that the word means simply a scholar or learner. It occurs 262 times in the New Testament, and always in the same radical sense. It is applied to be- lievers in Christ in common with others, because they are professed learners while they live.
\Ye now see that the command to baptize all nations, is not at all inconsistent with the previous declaration of Christ, that little children belong to the kingdom of heaven. And the Baptist brethren are guilty of add- ing to the commission, when they make him to say, " Go, disciple the adult part of all na- tions, baptizing them and none others^
CIKCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE COMMAND WAS GIVEN.
Besides ; look at the circumstances in which the apostles received the command. As Jews, they were familiar with the practice of admitting proselytes by circumcision. They knew that when a Gentile was received into the Jewish church, his children also were admitted, and were subjected to the same religious rites with himself. If Christ had commanded them to disciple all nations, circumcising them, they would confessedly have understood him as including children with their parents. It is just as clear that the command to disciple all nations, haptiz-
176 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
ing them, would be taken by the apostles as equally comprehensive. The commission, therefore, in the circumstances in which it was given, and taken in connection with the previous instructions of Christ, was equiva- lent to an express command to baptize children.*
PETER'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE COMMIS- SION.
The keys of the kingdom of heaven, in- trusted to the apostles, were first employed on the day of Pentecost. They then opened the gospel dispensation, and made known the terms of admission to Christ's visible kingdom. If children, hitherto embraced in that kingdom, were to be excluded, that
* Baptist authors quote with an air of triumph the words of Professor Neander : " It is certain tliat Christ did not ordain infant baptism." If this learned historian had referred to the facts and evidences on which he founded his opinion, we might have judi^ed of its sound- ness. His mere opinion is wortli no more than that of other men. Great historical learnino- is no evidence of great logical powers. AVe may judge of his ability to reason correctly from the following specimen : " In the latter years of the second century, Tertullian appeared as a zealous opponent of infant baptism, a proof that it was not then usually considered as an apostolic ordin- ance." Ch. Ilist. p. 199. Now it is an undisputed fact that Tertullian was just as zealous an opponent of the baptism of uinnarricd adults ; and according to the reasoning of the learned 1^-ofessor, this was a proof that the baptism of umnairit'd adults was not then cou- Bidered as of divine authority !
" THE PROMISE." 177
was the very time to make the announcement. And surely, if the apostles had been Bap- tists, they would have embraced the oppor- tunity to declare, in emphatic terms, that little children were thenceforth for ever cast out of the kingdom of the Saviour. But in- stead of this, the apostle Peter, in his first exhortation to christian baptism, includes children with their parents. "Repent," says he, " and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of 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^ — Acts ii. 38, 39. Why did the apostle make this particular mention of the children of those whom he addressed, if he designed to exclude them from baptism ? Certainly no Baptist minister would name children in such a connection, unless for the purpose of ridiculing infant sprinkling.
Bat what is that promise of which Peter spoke, and how would he be understood by his audience? We must bear in mind that they were exclusively Jews and Jewish pros- elytes, whom he addressed. The " Parthians, Medes, Elamites," and others named as pre- sent, were no other than foreign Jews who had revisited Jerusalem ; and it was at the house of Cornelius, seven years later, that the first Gentiles were admitted to baptism.
178 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
And what would those Jews understand by the ]^romi8e to them and to their children? Undoubtedly they would recur to the great promise made to Abraham, in which Jeho- vah declared that he would be a God to him and to his seed after him. — Gen. xvii. 5. This promise was continually on their tongues; and in view of entering the chris- tian church, the question would naturally arise in their minds, whether it was now re- voked, and their children cast out. Peter, being himself a Jew, is aware of their scru- ples, and satisfies them at once. He tells them that the promise is still to them and to their children, and on this ground urges them to repent and be baptized. But on the supposition that he meant to exclude their children from baptism, his language is quite inexplicable.
SOPHISTICAL ARGUMENT OF THE BAPTISTS.
The Baptist brethren dwell much on the 'passage, " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned." — Mark xvi. 16. On this they reason as follows : Infants cannot be- lieve, therefore infants must not be baptized. Their error in tliis matter is two-fold. 1st. They understand the passage as intended to define who shall be baptized ; whereas the sole object in view is to inform us who shall, and who shall not be saved. 2d. If they
SOPHISTICAL ARGUMENT OF BAPTISTS. 179
can prove by this passage that infants can- not be baptized, because they cannot believe ; by precisely the same reasoning they can prove that infants cannot be saved, especially as the concluding words are, " He that be- lieveth not shall be damned." So, when the apostle says, " Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be srived," if we adopt the Baptist principle of interpretation, we must conclude that infants are excluded from salvation, because they cannot call on the name of the Lord. The truth is, these and many other passages are intended to de- fine the terms of salvation for adults, and have no bearing whatever on the case of in- fants.
180 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
CHAPTER IV.
Sameness of the Jewish and Christian Churches — No new organization by the apostles — 'I'he first Christian Church unbaptized — The olive tree — Testimony of facts — An unjust imputation — Nature of infant mem- bership— Import of circumcision.
That the apostles baptized little children, and that they were authorized to do so by the instructions of their Divine Master, has, I hope, been made sufficiently apparent. It is equally clear that, in the absence of any specific instructions on the subject, they would have been led to the same course, by their perfect understanding of the essential sameness of the church of God under all dis- 2)ensatwns. For if the Christian church was simply a continuation of the Patriarchal and Jewish, with a change only in the ordinances and forms of worship, then the right of mem.- bership was the same in both. And as in- fants were received into the Old Testament church by circumcision, they must be ad- mitted to the New Testament church by baptism. These several points wc hope to establish in the proper order.
FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH UNBAPTIZED. 181
NO NEW ORGANIZATION MADE BY THE APOSTLES.
First. The apostles must have understood the Christian church to be a continuation of the Jewish, since thej made no new organi- zation. The gospel dispensation was fully opened by them on the day of Pentecost ; and if the foundations of a new church were to be laid, that was the proper time for the work. But no such thing was .attempted. On the contrary, it appears from the record, that the christian church was already in ex- istence. It had been convened some days before the feast of Pentecost, for the transac- tion of business ; and " Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said (the number of the names was about an hundred and twenty). Men and brethren," &c. — Acts i. 15, 16. Here was a church of Christ, com- posed of one hundred and twenty members; and they exercised the highest functions of a church, in the election and ordination of an apostle in the place of Judas.
THE FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH UNBAPTIZED.
They constituted the first christian church ; and to them were " added" the three thou- sand converts baptized on the day of Pente- cost. But how did these hundred and twenty find their way into the church ? It is certain that they never received christian 16
182 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
baptism. Some of them may have submitted to the baptism of John, but that could not answer in the place of christian baptism, as we have shown in a former chapter. The leading Baptist writers agree, that christian baptism was not administered before the day of Pentecost ; yet previously to that time, there was a christian church existing in full operation ; and how did the members obtain admission without baptism? Mr. Alexan- der Campbell tries to solve the difficulty by asserting that, " When a person is appointed by Grod to set up an institution, he is not himself to be regarded as a subject of that institution." Deb. ivith Rice^ p. 356. That is, if we take his meaning, those hundred and twenty disciples were appointed to set up christian baptism ; and for that reason were themselves exempted from a compliance with the ordinance. But this evasion will answer no purpose ; for Abraham was ap- pointed to set up circumcision, and yet sub- mitted to the rite himself. Aaron was the first Jewish high priest, yet he was conse- crated in precisely tlie same manner in which he consecrated others.
"WHY NOT BAPTIZED.
The only rational explanation of the mat- ter is this: Those hundred and twenty dis- ciples, with their chiKlren, had been received into the church under the former dispensa-
WHY NOT BAPTIZED. 188
tion, by circumcision ; and had not forfeited their standing by the rejection of Christ. When, therefore, the unbelieving Jews, with their children, were cut off by a judicial sen- tence, pronounced by the Saviour four days before his death (Matt, xxiii. 37, 88, and Luke xix. 41 — 44), these remained in the church and formed the nucleus, around which those converted in after times were gathered. As they had never lost their standing, in the church, it was not propei* that they should be subjected to an initiatory rite, in common with the rest of the world. For the Jewish and Christian churches being substantially the same, membership in the one, of itself, conferred all the privileges of membership in the other. Thus we see that the first Christian church was nothing more nor less than the Old Testament church purged of its apostate members.
It is no objection to this reasoning, that those Jews who were converted after they were cut off, were required to be baptized, notwithstanding they had been circumcised. It is true that, in restoring an excommuni- cated member, on profession of repentance, we would not have him rebaptized ; but the cases are by no means parallel. The unbe- lieving Jews were cut off under a former dispensation. And while they were in a state of excommunication, christian baptism was instituted. Hence it was proper that they should be placed on the same footing
184: THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
with the world at large, and when they be- came obedient to the faith, should enter the church in the same manner as the Gentiles.
Secondly. That the apostles regarded the Jewish and Christian churches as essentially the same, appears from their own declara- tions.
THE GOOD OLIVE TEEE.
The apostle Paul, speaking of the excision of the great body of the Jews, writes thus :
" For if the first fruit be holy, the lump also is holy ; and if the root be holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches be broken ofiP, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graflfed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken oft', that I might be grafted in. Well, because of unbelief they were broken oft', and thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear : for if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold, therefore, the goodness and the severity of God! on them which fell, severity; but to- ward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness : otherwise thou also shalt be cut oft'. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graft'ed in : for God is able to graft' them iu again. For if thou
THE GOOD OLIVE TREE. 185
wert cut out of the olive tree whicli is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to na- ture into a good olive tree, how much more shall these, which be tl^e natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!" — Eom. xi. 16—24.
Here the apostle represents the visible church of God under the figure of a good olive tree. Of the natural branches, namely, the Jews, the greater part were broken off: and what followed? Was the tree, root, trunk, and branch, destroyed ? No such thing ; the tree remained with all its " fatness," and the Gentiles, branches of a wild olive, were grafted into it. What a strong evidence that the Christian church is a mere continua- tion of the Jewish ! But this is not all. The apostle looks forward to the period when the Jews, the natural branches, shall be re- stored. And what does he say will then be done with them ? They " shall be graffed into their own olive tree." In other words, they shall be re-instated in that very church from which they were cut off for unbelief. Lan- guage cannot be more explicit in reference to the substantial sameness of the church under both dispensations.
The same apostle addresses the Ephesians thus : " Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called uncircumcision, by that which is called the circumcision in the flesh made by hands ; that at that time ye were without Christ, 16 *
186 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
being aliens from the commonwealtli of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world."— Eph. ii. 11, 12.
What was that "commonwealth of Israel," from which these Gentiles were once aliens? What but that church of God to which the Jews belonged ? Bearing this in mind, let us hear the apostle further :
" Now, therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God ; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone." — Yer. 19, 20.
Who were " the saints," with whom these Gentiles had now become fellow-citizens? They were the patriarchs and prophets ; Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah. Again, what was that " household of God," of which the Ephesians had become members ? The visible society of the saints of all ages. Once more ; what is that one mystical tem- ple, in laying whose foundations both prophets and apostles united ? No other than that visible church of God, which abides the same under every dispensation.
TESTIMONY OF FACTS.
Thirdly. The same truth is established by indisputable facts. The church under both dispensations worshipped and obeyed the
THE RITUAL CHANGED. 187
same Triune God, acknowledged the same moral law, and received the same glorious gospel ; for " unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto themr — Heb. iv. 2. Under both dispensations the church looked by faith to the same atoning Saviour, through the shedding of whose blood was remission of sins ; taught the same fundamental truths ; insisted on the same terms of salvation, namely, faith and repentance ; and required the same qualifications for church-member- ship. What more is wanting to prove that the church of God is the same in substance now that it was in the days of the patriarchs and prophets ? There is not near as much evidence to prove that the Regular Ba'ptist Church in the United States of America, amidst the changes it has undergone, is the same ecclesiastical body that it was forty years ago.
THE RITUAL CHANGED.
It is true that the numerous and burden- some rites of the old dispensation passed away at the death of Christ, and a few simple ordinances were appointed in their stead. But let us not commit so great an error as to suppose that external forms constitute the essence of a church, or that they may not be changed to any extent by the Supreme Lawgiver, without affecting the identity of his visible kingdom. The ceremonial law
188 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
was appointed for temporary purposes, to keep the Jews distinct from the surrounding heathen, and direct their minds to the coming Messiah. It was " a shadow of good things to come." Its bloody sacrifices pointed to the cross of Christ, and its " divers wash- ings" typically represented the sanctification of the heart and life by the Holy Ghost. When Christ at last appeared and offered himself on the cross, that law, having answered its purposes, expired by virtue of its own limitation, leaving the church unimpaired by the change.
AN UNJUST IMPUTATION REPELLED.
Our opponents object against our doctrine, that faith and holiness were not required of the Jewish church, as such, and that there- fore it cannot be the same as the Christian. What an imputation is this against infinite purity I That he should constitute a visible church and not require faith and holiness of its members ! The character of God and the whole tenor of the Old Testament scriptures refute the foul and perilous assertion, and show that God has always required faith and holiness of all who entered into covenant with him. Look at the following passages :
Deut. xxvi. 17 — 19, "Thou hast avouched the Lord this day, to be thy God, and to walk in his ways, and to keep his statutes,
CERINTHIAN ERROR. 189
and bis commandments, and his judgments ; and to hearken unto his voice : and the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his command- ments ; and to make thee high above all nations, which he hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honour ; and that thou mayest be a holy people unto the Lord thy God, as he hath spoken." See also Psalm Ixxviii, and Heb. iii. 16 — 19.
RE-APPEARANCE OF CERINTHIAN ERROR.
The ancient Cerinthians maintained, that the Jewish church was the church of an inferior God, who had fallen from his pris- tine virtue and dignity ; that the Old Testament scriptures having been inspired by this inferior deity, were of no binding authority, and that the object of Christ's mission was to destroy his empire, and introduce the worship of the supreme God. The sect itself has long ceased to exist ; but some of its objectionable opinions re-appear in those Baptist authors, who decry the Old Testament church, as though its religion were false, and its ordinances of no value. But who are we that we should speak lightly of institutions ordained by infinite wisdom and purity ? What though the great body of the Jewish church, at different periods, departed from God, and perverted l;iis or-
190 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
dinances ? The very same things have befallen the Christian church ; and if the existence of the former, as a true church of God, was destroyed by the general corrup- tion of its members, the same thing must be affirmed of the latter. We should bear in mind that the constitution and laws, which God gave to his church, were good and pure, however they may have been abused by men.
Ever since the fall, God has had a church on earth professing the true religion. The external exhibitions of his grace to that church may be compared to a rivulet taking its rise from the first promise of a Saviour, and the appointment of burnt-offerings, and gliding onward to Noah, where it receives an important tributary. Thence it passes down to the father of the faithful, where it is swelled by the influx of a mighty stream. Then, as a broad, majestic river, it flows along the channel of the Jewish nation, till it meets the cross of Christ, when it over- flows its banks, and extends its healing virtues to all nations of the earth.
Since then the Jewish and Christian churches are substantially the same, the right of membership in both must be the same. And as infants, by express authority of God, were introduced into the one, they are equally entitled to membership in the other.
NATURE OF INFANT MEMBERSHIP. 191
NATURE OF INFANT MEMBERSHIP.
To some persons it sounds strange to speak of infants as belonging to the church. Membership in the church is, in their minds, associated with communing at the Lord's table, and voting at ecclesiastical meetings. But those things are in no wise essential to church-membership. In the State of Pennsylvania, little children are recognized in the constitution and laws, as citizens of the commonwealth ; just as much so as adults. The State is not only bound to protect them in their persons and rights of inheritance, but to make provision for their education, by establishing schools and providing teachers. And in some countries, as Prussia, parents are required by law to send their children to the schools. Yet these infant citizens do not anyv/here exercise the elec- tive franchise, or hold office, till they reach a certain age, and possess certain qualifica- tions. Just so, and in the same sense, the children of professing christians belong to the church, and have a right to the distin- guishing badge of membership. They are to be enrolled as scholars in the church, the school of Christ ; and their parents placed under a solemn obligation to train them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. And when they attain to maturity, if they give evidence of faith in Christ, and repent- ance unto life, they are to be admitted to
192 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
all the rights and privileges of adult mem- bers.
That infants were members of the Old Testament church will appear, if we inquire
HOW PERSONS WERE ADMITTED INTO THAT CHURCH.
How, for instance, would a heathen, who desired to renounce idolatry and embrace the true religion, be received into the ancient church of God ? What religious rites were performed on the occasion ? The answer is, that from the time of Abraham, circumcision was required. See the account of the insti- tution of this ordinance in Gen. xvii. 9-14. From that time circumcision was the distin- guishing mark of God's professing people. Accordingly, in Exod. xii. 48, 49, we find that the stranger who would unite with the Jewish church must first be circumcised. But were his children to be left out and still counted as heathen ? No : the same passage says, "Let all his males be circumcised." Thus we see that when parents were admitted into the church, their children were admitted with them, and subjected to the same reli- gious rite with themselves.
IMPORT OF CIRCUMCISION.
Let us now consider that rite by which infants of eight days old were recognized a3
IMPORT OF CIRCUMCISION". 193
members of tlie visible churcb, and see if its import is not essentially the same as that of baptism.
1. Circumcision bound all its subjects to obey the whole law. Gal. v. 3 ; *' I testify- again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law." Does baptism impose stronger obligations than these ?
2. Circumcision was a sign of holiness of heart. Rom. ii. 29 ; " Circumcision is that of the heart." Deut. xxx. 6; "And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul." All agree that baptism is a sign of regeneration.
3. Circumcision being a bloody rite, pointed to the atonement of Christ. Baptism directs our minds to the blood of sprinkling. Heb. X. 22 ; " Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water."
4. Circumcision was a seal of the right- eousness of faith. Rom. iv. 11; "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised." Can more be af- firmed of baptism ?
Now we are gravely told by Baptist wri- ters that circumcision was intended as a mark or badge of Hebrew descent and of temporal privileges, rather than of a religious 17
194 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
relation. In proof of this, they urge that the Ishmaelites and Edomites were circum- cised. " The Ishmaelites and Edomites were apostates from the faith of Abraham. And will it be pretended that the abuse of circum- cision by apostates, proves that it was not the initiating rite of the church ? Why not argue, that since Mormons practise baptism, and yet do not enter into the christian church, baptism cannot be an initiatory rite?" — Rice on Bapt.^ p. 220. No clearer proof is needed, that circumcision was not a mark of Jewish descent, than the fact that strangers of any nation, who embraced the true religion, were circumcised. Says the divine injunction, " One law shall be to him that is home born and to the stranger." — Exod. xii. 48, 49. And if half the world had embraced the religion of Jehovah, they would have been circumcised.
Such is the nature of that ordinance, which was administered to infants of eight days old, by the express command of God. And we cannot but perceive that our Baptist breth ren, had they lived under the old dispensa- tion, with their present views of divine ordi- nances, would have been most strenuous opponents of infant circumcision. Do they object to the baptism of infants because it imposes obligations which tlie child cannot, at the time, understand? The same thing might have been urged against circumcision. Do they argue that baptism implies holiness
IMPORT OF CIRCUMCISION. 195
of heart and life? So did circumcision. It is not, however, necessary to our main argu- ment, that we should prove baptism to have come in the room of circumcision ; yet it is very evident that the two ordinances, if they do not correspond in every particular, hold the same place, signify the same things, and impose similar obligations.
196 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
CHAPTER V.
A Direct Warrant needless — Female Communion — Ob- jections answered — Baptism not in applicable to In- fants— Infant Communion — Advantages of Infant Baptism.
From the previous discussion it is appa- rent that infants, having once been admitted into the visible church by the authority of God, must retain the right of membership, until the same authority is pleased to revoke it. Here we take our stand, and ask our op- ponents, "When and where has the God of heaven revoked the right ? We call upon the advocates of " direct warrant" to answer the question. The burden of proof in this case rests upon them. Let them tell us when and where the Supreme Legislator has de- clared that infants, though once admitted into his church, are now for ever excluded. Let them point us to even the least shadow of au- thority for thrusting little children out of the kingdom of heaven. They can produce none either in the Old Testament or the New. In the absence of such authority, any at- tempt to deprive infants of the right of membership, is a virtual attempt to set aside
A DIRECT WARRANT NEEDLESS. 197
the laws of God. It is more: it is under- taking to legislate in opposition to the au- thority of Jehovah ! Fearful, indeed, is the responsibility they assume who banish from the nursery of the church those who have been placed there by the enactment of heaven, for whom the Lord Jesus has shed his blood, for whom he has shown the ten- derest affection, and of whom he has declared, " of such is the kingdom of God."
A DIRECT WARRANT NEEDLESS.
And here we see, more clearly than ever, why the Saviour gave no express command, in so many words, to the disciples, to receive infants into the church. For, as he made no change in respect to membership, they per- fectly understood that the same persons were to be admitted as formerly. The church being essentially the same under both dis- pensations, and baptism having been substi- tuted for circumcision as the initiatory rite, it followed, as a matter of course, that infants still retained the right of membership, and consequently were to be baptized. And an express command to that effect would have been quite as needless as a command to admit females to the table of the Lord. Neither the one nor the other could have been needed for the direction of the apostles, who, being Jews, knew perfectly well of whom the visi- ble church consisted. Accordingly, when
198 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
they, in full assembly, decided that circum- cision was no longer obligatory ; instead of authorizing any change in regard to infant membership, they left it untouched; a striking proof that they intended it to remain. — See Acts XV. 23-29. For, if Christ had required them to exclude infants, there could hardly have been a more suitable opportunity to announce the change.
And yet there are persons who say, " Show us an express command in the New Testa- ment for the admission of infants. No matter what the Old Testament says in regard to infant membership ; if you cannot find a Thus saith the Lord for it in the New, they must be excluded." It is easy to expose the futility of such reasonings. Suppose that in a case in which the right of an infant to an inheritance is contested, a gentleman of the bar should offer the following argument to the Court : " It is true that children were once permitted by the laws of this Common- wealth to inherit the estates of their parents. But, those laws are of a comparatively ancient date. In the meantime the constitution and laws of the Commonwealth have undergone various changes. Show us a law of the last Session of the Legislature, by which the rights of in flints are re-affirmed. Unless such an enactment can be found in the jour- nal of the last Session, iniiints are no more to inherit the estates of their parents." The absurdity of such reasoning is obvious ; but
FEMALE COMMUNION. 199
it is not more absurd than the argument that infants are to be excluded from the church, because there is no express command in so many words in the New Testament for their admission.
FEMALE COMMUNION.
Besides, this reasoning will go to exclude females from the Lord's Supper. It cannot be pretended that there is any express com- mand or inspired example recorded in the New Testament in favour of their admission to that ordinance. Mr. Booth, indeed, sup- posed he could find an explicit warrant for female communion in the words, " Let a man examine himself," &c. — 1 Cor. xi. 28. For he alleges that the Greek word avdpoTroi {an- thropos^ MAN, being of the common gender, denotes both men and women. But, Peter Edwards has produced nineteen instances from the New Testament in which the word is used to denote the male in distinction from the female sex ; as 1 Cor. vii. 1 ,• " It is good for a man dvOpdSno} {anthropo) not to touch a woman." Thus the boasted " explicit warrant" is lost in the clouds.
The famous " direct warrant," invented by Mr. Alexander Campbell, runs thus : " In 1 Cor. xi, Paul speaks directly of men and wo- men ; and gives them directions accordingly. He uses the word dvhp {aner) MAN, fourteen times and y^"^ {gune) woman, sixteen times ;
200 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
then in their stead he puts the pronouns ye and you^ fourteen times, and gives these same persons the command concerning the Supper."
This statement is deceptive. The part of the chapter in which women are named, has no connection with that which treats of the sacred Supper. In verse 17, the apostle in- troduces a new subject ; and then in verse 28, says, " Let a man examine himself, " &;c. Nor is there the least shadow of necessity for making the pronouns ye and you^ used in connection with the last named subject, refer to women, mentioned far back in the chapter. So universally has the attempt to find a direct warrant for female communion proved a failure.
In conclusion, we must notice an objection or two.
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.
1. It is asserted by our opponents, that baptism, considered in its scriptural import, cannot apply to infants. That ordinance, say they, supposes that the subject of it is a believer in Christ, has obtained remission of sins, and been regenerated by the Holy Spirit ; none of which things can be affirmed with certainty of an infant. But do they not see that this objection bears with equal force against the propriety of infant circum- cision, and is, therefore, an indirect impeach- ment of the wisdom of God ? Circumcision,
OBJECTIONS ANSWEEED. 201
the apostle tells ns, was " a seal of the right-, eousness of faith," (Eom. iv. 11,) that it was a sign of inward holiness ; " circumcision is that of the heart," (Rom. ii. 29,) and that it imposed obligations of obedience, binding the subject " to do the whole law." — Gal. v. 8. Let us ask our good brethren, How could any of these things apply to an infant of eight days old ? The proper answer .to this question will satisfactorily explain the ap- plicability of baptism to infants.
2. It is objected " that infant baptism stands on the same foundation as infant com- munion." I answer, that there is this very material difference between them, that the baptism of little children rests firmly on the authority of God's word, while infant com- munion has not the least countenance from, that quarter.
Nor is it true that these two observances may be traced, historically, to a common origin. Infant baptism, as we have else- where shown, prevailed universally from the earliest period, and, as we have every reason to believe, from the times of the apostles. Not so in regard to infant com- munion ; we have not the slightest hint of it till the middle of the third century. And then we find it associated with the practice of immersion, the dogma of bap- tismal regeneration, and other novelties. It never gained a universal prevalence among the christians of any age. It was gradually
202 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
abandoned by the Western churches, though, among the Greeks, infant communion and infant immersion have continued to go hand in hand to this day.
3. " What good can it do to baptize an in- fant '/"^ In turn I ask, What good can it do to baptize an adult? If it be urged that adults can comprehend the nature of the or- dinanpe, and the obligations they incur, I reply, so can parents understand the respon- sibilities they assume in giving up their children to God in baptism. And so can the children themselves in due season be made sensible of the privilege and the duty, arising out of their early dedication to the Lord. An inspired apostle proposes the question, " What profit is there of circumci- sion ?" — {Kom. iii. 1). His own answer is *' Much every wayV And this is our reply to those who hold up to ridicule what they style infant sprinkling^ and in tones of defi- ance exclaim, " What good can it do ?" Much every way ; quite as much good as infant circumcision. To believing parents
* A candid comparison of the Baptist and Pedo-bap-
tist denominations with each other, will hardly fail to show the advantages which. result from an early conse- cration of children to the Lord. Mr. A. Campbell, in his debate with Dr. Rice, was compelled to admit that be had publisheil in the Millcimud /Lnbingct; as his de- cided opinion, '' that theie is a greater probability of Ralvation to the children of rresbytcrians, than to those of the Baptists," Tag-e 875. 'I'liis ()))inion had refer- ence to the reli"ious traininf? of the children.
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 203
wLo present their children to God in bap- tism, that ordinance seals, confirms, ratifies that gracious covenant in which God pro- mises to take a special interest in the chil- dren of his people — to take them to himself if they die in infancy — or, if he spare them to riper years, the same gracious covenant displays his readiness to bestow on them all the blessings of salvation. It imposes cor- responding obligations upon the parents in regard to the religious instruction of their children, who are thus introduced into the vschool of Christ to be trained for his service. It stimulates them to the performance of duty, by holding out the pleasing expecta- tion that, through the promised blessing of God upon their labours, their beloved off- spring may be partakers of those rich bless- ings of which baptism is a sign. To the children themselves, so soon as they are able to understand anything, their own early bap- tism represents the necessity of remission of sins, of faith, repentance, and new obe- dience in order to eternal life, blessings which can be enjoyed only through the blood of Christ, and the operation of his Spirit. Moreover, as they have had the seal of the covenant placed upon them, they are bound by peculiarly solemn obligations, to seek for and possess the rich blessings held out in that covenant. Just as circumcision formerly bound its infant subjects to obey the law, so under the present dispensation,
204 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
baptism binds its infant subjects to obey the gospel. Nor is the obligation weakened by the circumstance that they were too young to yield their assent at the time of baptism. It is a principle adopted in all enlightened governments, that children owe obedience to laws to which they have never given their consent ; and surely no one can be too young to be brought under the most solemn obliga- tions to love, serve, and glorify God.
THE END.
Princeton Theological SemmarySpeer Library
1 1012 01021 3199