Full text of "Baptism, the covenant and the family"

See other formats

■

-
... . .

I.
- - - . . ... ....

:
......

......

....

■

£3

jt>

.jgr

<«

.^^

'J=

•»

>-9

*»

„

4^t

«-

t»n

t-2
<;

~a>

<S4

«*»

c<3

*gS

"Si

-*•<
^

-a

C/l

5
^

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2011 with funding from

Princeton Theological Seminary Library

http://www.archive.org/details/baptismcovenantfOOwolf

BAPTISM

THE COYEMNT MB THE FAMILY.

REV. PHILIPPE WOLFF,

LATE OF GENEVA, SWITZERLAND.

2Eranslatetr freelg from tj)c jFrencIj bg tjje &utf)or,

WITH SOME ADDITIONS.

BOSTON:

CROSBY AND NICHOLS,

117 Washington Street.

1862.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1861, by
PHILIPPE WOLFF,
the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts.

TJniversity Press, Cambridge:
Stereotyped and Printed by Welch, Bigelow, & Co.

PREFACE.

/">

Baptist principles have never found a congenial soil
in France and Switzerland, and were discarded by the
martyr Huguenots. Of late, however, they have met with
considerable favor among the Evangelical Christians of
these countries, many of whom have adopted them in the-
ory, although very few as yet have carried them out in
practice. The Baptist doctrine has there had all the ad-
vantage of being a plausible novelty, and of meeting minds
unprepared and untrained to oppose it. Moreover, French
Protestantism surfers very much from the evils resulting
from State Churchism and its concomitant, mere nominal
Christianity. To many serious and influential Christians
the Baptist principle appears the great remedy for these
evils, inasmuch as it seems to promote individual pro-
fession. But they generally ignore the most repulsive
features of the practice of Baptists, and will scarcely credit
the rigidity of their sectarian discipline nor the scenes
usually attendant upon immersion.

The author of this book has thought it his duty to give
a timely word of warning to his French and Swiss breth-

IV PKEFACE.

ren, for whom he feels the greatest interest and attachment,
and to let them have the benefit of his personal experience
in reference to the Baptist practice, of which he has often
been an eyewitness. As will be seen, although a very
decided Pedobaptist, he more than once censures some
of the doctrines and arguments usually set up in the de-
fence of infant baptism. But if he has sometimes left the
beaten track and brought forward a new system of evi-
dence, he has done it solely in the interest of truth, and
for this very reason will be happy to have his views
fairly criticised, and even solidly refuted, if by this more
light can be thrown upon the question of Baptism. It is
principally in the hope of furthering such a result, that
this translation from the French has been undertaken.
The manner of the author will probably appear to some
as rather abrupt and sarcastic ; but let any judgment be
passed on the form, provided the substance be grappled
with. He freely acknowledges that he did not make the
futile attempt of conciliating Baptists by soft words and
honeyed arguments ; that, on the contrary, he has spoken
out all his mind frankly, and sometimes reflected severely
upon them as a whole ; but even while doing this, he has
carefully abstained from all personality. He knows that
he can never obtain forgiveness for writing such a book
from that class of people to whom their peculiar views are
like another Gospel, the truth of which is neither to be
questioned nor investigated. But this he knew before he
took the pen, and made up his mind long since to bear

PREFACE. V

quietly any amount of abuse for the sake of the cause.
From this there can he no escape, for the honest Spur-
geon himself, in a recent letter, after lamenting the dan-
gerous tendencies evinced by all the Baptist organs of
Great Britain, adds: "Abuse, misrepresentation, slander,
await any man who shall thrust his arm into this hornets'
nest ; but it must be done, and happy will he be who
shall be called to do it!"

This work has been written so as to be readable, not
only by theologians and scholars, but also by intelligent
laymen, and this is why so few references are made to the
individual opinions and arguments of other writers. If,
notwithstanding the usual aridity of the subject, it can be
read without too much fatigue, and if it suggests to the
reader some new points of view, either for approbation or
for opposition, the highest expectation of the author will
be fulfilled.

Montreal, July 25, 1861.

C ONTENTS

CHAPTER I.

THE TWO BAPTISMS.

Sect. Page

1. The Starting-Point of the Question in the Gospel . . 1

2. Contrast of the Two Baptisms 2

3. Danger which there is of confounding the Two Baptisms . 4

4. Four Figures of Spiritual Baptism 6

5. To believe and to be baptized the two Conditions of Sal-

vation 9

6. Baptism and Baptisms 12

7. " The Figure that saves " 14

8. Some Passages made clear by a double Baptism . . .18

CHAPTER II.

THE FATHERS OP THE CHURCH.

9. The Proofs drawn from the Fathers are not decisive . 20

10. The Testimony of the Fathers would be in Favor of Pedo-

baptism 23

11. The first Baptist, Tertullian, was not one . . . 24

12. The Baptist Practice has sprung up as a Development of

Romanism 28

CHAPTER III.

IMMERSION.

13. The Rite of Immersion is practised in the most corrupt

Churches 30

14. Immersion is deemed essential by the Baptists . . . 31

Vlll CONTENTS.

15. The Practice of Immersion cannot be altered if Apostolical 33

16. Baptize is a Greek Word, Anglicized, but not translated . 34

17. The New Baptist Bible 35

18. To immerse means to drown 38

19. Classical Meaning of the Word Baptize . . . .41

20. Meaning of Baptize in the Septuagint .... 44

21. What is required for a Proof that Immersion is in the New

Testament 48

22. The pretended diverse Immersions 50

23. The Immersion of the Pharisees 51

24. John the Baptist has neither prescribed nor described the

Mode of Baptism 53

25. The Waters of Enon 55

26. A Half-Million baptized by John 56

27. More than Herculean Labor of the Forerunner . . .57

28. Impossible Scene of the Three Thousand immersed . 60

29. The Baptism of the Eunuch was not an Immersion . . 62

30. The Fishes of Tertullian 70

31. Baptist Immersion is a Parody of the Burial of Jesus Christ 70

32. Baptism as a Burial is an Anachronism .... 74

33. Immersion is a difficult, complicated, and expensive Cere-

mony, which leads to Ridicule and excludes Edification 75

34. The Ceremony is sensual and carnal, dangerous to Health

and even a Peril to Life 81

35. Baptism by Immersion is an old Heathen Practice . . 85

36. The Baptism of the Holy Ghost is an Aspersion . . 88

37. While the Ordinances of the Gospel belong to all, Immer-

sion is to many absolutely and forever impossible . 90

38. Immersion is an Indecency and even a Blasphemy . . 91

39. Immersion is in Scripture the Symbol of the Divine Curse 93

CHAPTER IV.

THE BAPTISM OF JOHN THE BAPTIST.

40. The Observation of Facts is the Best Method to follow . 97

41. Presumption that the Baptism of John and that of the Apos-

tles form but one 98

42. The Pretended Anabaptism of Paul towards Certain Disci-

ples of John 100

CONTENTS. IX

43. The Spiritual Import of Baptism is susceptible, in the New

Testament, of a Gradual and Historical Development 105

44. The whole History of Baptism, from John the Baptist to

Paul, shows its Unity and Identity . . . .108

CHAPTER V.

BAPTISM BEFORE FAITH.

45. Necessity of a Progress of both Parties in the Question of

Baptism 114

46. The only Three Opinions possible on the Relation of Bap-

tism to Faith 115

47. The Baptism of John was not a Baptism of Believers but of

the Unconverted 118

48. The Baptized of John gave only an External Assent to his

Preaching 119

49. Jesus receives the Baptism of Water before that of the

Holy Ghost 121

50. The Multitudinous Baptisms of Jesus Christ . . . 124

5 1 . The Three Thousand baptized after Pentecost were of the

Called, and not of the Chosen 126

52. Mass Baptism of Unconverted Samaritans who believe, but

not unto Salvation 130

53. The Condition exacted at the Baptism of the Eunuch is

not Authentic 132

54. There is an Assenting Faith and a Justifying Faith ; and

the Eunuch believes as Simon Magus believed . . 134

55. The First Baptism of a Heathen is performed without Wit-

nesses, with Hesitancy but also with Precipitation . 135

56. The First Public Baptism of a Heathen is that of Corne-

lius ; here is again some Hesitation followed by Precipi-
tation 137

57. Paul, Lydia, the Jailer, and others are baptized in great

Haste upon the first Assent given to the Gospel, and

are taught only after being baptized . . . . 141

58. Twelve Ignorant Men baptized in Haste at the Close of a

Conversation 145

59. A Leading Object of Baptism was to bring the Receiver to

believe in Jesus Christ 146

X CONTENTS.

60. Scripture knows neither Delay, nor Preparation, nor Exami-

nation, nor Discipline in reference to Baptism . . 147

61. The Gospel places Baptism always before, and the Baptists

always after, Faith ; it is the most flagrant Contradic-
tion imaginable 148

62. Dangerous Semi-Anabaptism of Pedobaptists. Adults and

Children must receive the same Baptism . . . 1 50

63. Immersion implies Baptism before Faith .... 153

64. Baptists themselves confer Baptism before Faith and ac-

knowledge officially and publicly its Validity . .154

CHAPTER VI.
THE COMMISSION GIVEN TO THE APOSTLES BY JESUS CHRIST.

65. There is in the whole of the New Testament but a single

and unique Command to Baptize . . . . 157

66. The Command having been given to the Eleven Apostles

alone, and not transferred by them to others, points to
the Old Testament for Scriptural Authority to per-
form the Ordinance 159

67. The Commission refers also to the Old Testament for the

External Mode of Baptism and its Symbolical Meaning 1 60

68. The Command is not general; refers only to the Baptism

of Heathen, and not to that of the People of God . 162

69. The Command consists in making Disciples of the Heathen,

and in baptizing them previous to teaching them . .163

70. Every Brother is a Disciple, but every Disciple is not a

Brother 165

71. The Baptists suppress the Disciples 169

72. One can believe and be baptized with Water without being

saved 170

73. A Nation is not a Nation without the Children, and the

Baptism of Adults is not enjoined in any way more
than that of Infants 171

74. The Baptism of Women is merely implied, but not ex-

pressly commanded 172

75. Baptists suppress the Half of the Command on Baptism,

just as the Priests the Half of that on the Holy Sup-
per. But Jesus Christ commands to baptize Children 175

CONTENTS. XI

CHAPTEE VII.

THE ANTECEDENTS OF EVANGELICAL BAPTISM.

76. The New Testament is incomplete in Reference to Baptism 177

77. There are Three Alternatives : 1. Reject Baptism alto-

gether. 2. Construct it on Tradition and Fancy. 3.
Connect it with the Old Testament . . . . 179

CHAPTER VIII.

PURIFICATION AND THE BAPTISMS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

78. The Baptism of Water is Purification Symbolical and Re-

ligious 183

79. The Baptism of a whole Nation before Sinai . . .185

80. The Initiating Baptism of the Priesthood . . . 187

81. The Baptism by Sprinkling in Purification for Sin . . 188

82. In the Days of Jesus Christ a Baptist would not have been

understood, and would have passed for a Monomaniac 190

83. The Baptism of the Gospel is prepared through the Prophets 191

84. John the Baptist was himself baptized, and that by Sprinkling 1 9 1

85. John the Baptist innovates as to Baptism, by restricting the

External Form and extending the Spiritual Meaning . 192

86. The Baptism of the Death of Christ — the Consequence

and the Complement of the Baptism of Water . .195

87. Who are those who are baptized for the Dead . . 196

CHAPTER IX.

BAPTISM, THE CHURCH AND THE FAMILY.

88. The Question of Baptism ought not to become complicated

with that of the Church, but should remain Distinct
and Independent 199

89. A Church does not baptize, and Baptism does not intro-

duce into a Church 201

90. Baptism is above all the Institution of the Christian Family 203

Xll CONTENTS.

CHAPTER X.

THE NATURE OF COVENANTS AND THEIR SIGNS.

91. Every Covenant is necessarily confirmed by a Seal, an

Oath, or some Symbolical Sign 205

92. Tbe Three Covenants of the Lord, and their Signs ; Bap-

tists arbitrarily limit the Third .... 207

93. The First Covenant is concluded with Noah, but not with-

out the Participation of his Children .... 208

94. The Second Covenant is made with Abraham and his

Children. As the Third does not annul the other
Two, its Sign alone suffices for and confirms all Three 209

95. The Alliance made with Abraham is perpetual, and is

neither abrogated nor abridged by a subsequent
Alliance 210

96. The Second Covenant, far from being Carnal, is eminently

Spiritual, the Promise of Posterity signed through
Circumcision having Reference to Christ . . .212

97. Circumcision was an immense Privilege, — the Spiritual

Bond which united all the Members of the Family to
God and to one another 214

98. It is tantamount to denying Scripture and insulting God

to assert that the New Covenant has lessened or sup-
pressed the Privileges of the Old one towards any
Portion of the Family 216

99. A Sign of Covenant which excludes the Family is not

valid, and the Baptism of a Parent without that of

his Children is incomplete and of no Value . . 218

100. The Anger of the Lord is kindled against the Baptist

Practice of Moses 220

CHAPTER XI.

THE HISTORY OF THE COVENANT AND OF ITS SIGN FROM ABRAHAM
TO CHRIST.

101. The Circumcision of Ishmael confers upon him none but

Spiritual Privileges 223

CONTENTS. Xlll

102. The General Profanation of the Rite at Sichera was never

used as an Argument against the Institution . . 224

103. Children and Infants compelled to contract the Covenant 225

104. Moses does not prescribe Circumcision, but only enhances

its Spirituality 226

105. Moses inflicts upon the People Forty Years of Baptist

Practice as a Punishment for Unfaithful Parents . 226

106. Joshua renews the Covenant even with Infants, and pro-

tests against the Baptist Practice. Josiah follows his
Example 228

CHAPTER XII.

BAPTISM SUBSTITUTED FOR CIRCUMCISION.

107. Circumcision is practised jointly with Baptism during the

whole Apostolical Age 231

108. The Old Bridge and the New Bridge, with the Apocryphal

Sign-board of the Baptists 233

109. Baptism is neither greater nor less than Circumcision . 236

110. The Identity of Circumcision and Baptism declared in

Scripture 237

111. The Children of a Christian Parent being declared Holy,

should receive the Sign of Holiness . . . 239

112. The Identity of the two Institutions proved by the Identity

of their essential Features 241

113. Twenty Years after the Death of Christ the Council of

Jerusalem decides for the first time that Baptism will

be held sufficient without Circumcision . . . 242

114. Circumcision remains optional for baptized Gentiles . . 243

115. All the Children of Church-members were necessarily

either Circumcised or Baptized 245

116. Infant Baptism was indispensable to the Unity of the Apos-

tolic Church. The Baptist Practice would have put
out Baptism and perpetuated Circumcision . . 247

CHAPTER XIII.
INFANT BAPTISM CONFIRMED.

1 17. All the Baptismal Evidence of Scripture converges towards

Infant Baptism 249

XIV CONTENTS.

118. The great Sophism, that because Infants cannot believe,

they must not be Baptized, brought under the Test

of Logic 250

119. One Million of Children baptized with the Water of the

Eed Sea by the Lord himself 254

120. The Laying on of Hands, conferred by the Lord upon

Little Children, implies much more than Baptism . 256

121. A great Baptist Miracle ! There was not a single little

Child in all the Families baptized in the Days of the

Apostles 258

1 22. Some Indiscreet Questions addressed to Baptists . . 263

123. In the Kingdom of God, as elsewhere, the Naturalization 166

of a Parent always includes that of the Children . 266

124. Infants did not eat the Passover any more than they now

participate in the Communion, and these two Institu-
tions correspond to each other just as Baptism and
Circumcision 268

CHAPTER XIV.

INNERMOST MEANING AND VALUE OF BAPTISM.

125. Vagueness, Diversity, and Contradictions amongst both

Baptists and Pedobaptists, as to the Spiritual Value

of Baptism 272

126. The only Escape from Uncertainty offered by the Bible is

to connect Baptism with Circumcision . . . 275

127. The Grace of Covenant imparted through Baptism . . 277

128. The Baptism of the whole Family has most important

Results upon the Education of Children . . 279

129. It is False that a Child has no Religion .... 281

1 30. The Faith of Parents is efficacious towards their Children,

and by Baptism is confirmed and receives a determi-
nate Impulse 282

131. Whatever Exertions are made to smuggle Children into

the Covenant, they are never deprived of Baptism
with perfect Impunity 284

132. God takes Baptist Parents at their Word, and their Chil-

dren do the same 286

CONTENTS. XV

133. By calling Baptism a Righteousness, the Lord places it on

a Level with the Ceremonies of Purification in the
Old Testament 288

134. The Baptism of Fire is not that of the Holy Ghost, but is

the Baptism of Hell 290

135. The Baptism of the Gospel is intended to prepare the Way

for the Coming of the Lord, and, as such, suits Infants
better than any other Class 293

136. The Gospel knows no other Baptism than that of the

Called, who have not yet obtained the Remission of
Sins 295

137. No Theory of Baptism is true unless it fully accounts for

the Haste and Precipitancy of the Apostles to confer it 296

138. The Haste to baptize finds its Analogy and its Justifica-

tion in the Enlistment of the Soldier by the Recruiter 300

139. This Haste to enlist the Unconverted is an essential Fea-

ture of Baptism, and forms just the Reverse of the
Baptist Practice 302

140. The Grace of Calling conferred by Baptism • . . 303

141. Although the Time most propitious to Baptism is before

Faith, it had better be received late than never . . 305

142. It is as a Sign of the Future, and the Seal of a Covenant,

that Baptism is conferred but once .... 306

143. In the Case of a doubtful Baptism- the Conscience of the

Individual should decide whether he be re-baptized

or not 307

144. When the Unconverted make a Sincere Profession, their

Children ought to be baptized 309

145. The Custom of having Godfathers and Godmothers is not

opposed to the Gospel, and, if well managed, may
offer great Advantages ; but the Rite of Confirmation
impairs the Value of Infant Baptism . . . .311

CHAPTER XV.

BAPTISM AND ECCLESIASTICAL DISIPLINE.

146. Slight Differences among Pedobaptists in Regard to the

Relation of Baptism to Admission to the Church . 315

XVI CONTENTS.

147. Baptist Multitudinism is more dangerous to Piety than

any other 316

148. Baptists aim at a Medium between Fanaticism and Incre-

dulity 319

149. The Remedy for Multitudinism does not lie in Baptist

Antinomianism, but in the Preaching of the Gospel . 320

150. Anabaptism has a regular, certain, and perfectly logical

Development, which leads unfailingly to the most
Sectarian Bigotry 323

151. The Christian Heart in vain attempts a Compromise with

Baptist Discipline and Logic 326

152. Baptist Zealotry proceeds from an exaggerated and false

Importance attributed to Baptism .... 328

153. Anabaptism is, by its exclusive Arrogance, the petty Rival

of Popery 329

154. The present Baptist Doctrine and Practice date back but

two Centuries, and have been fomented by the Jesuits 332

155. Why the Baptist Schism is the most suitable Expedient

for weakening Evangelical Churches .... 336

156. The Baptist Babel, with its Schisms of Schisms, should

serve as a Warning to Evangelical Christians . . 339

157. The Heaven of Baptists is a Sad Mansion . . . 343

158. The Touchstone offered by Jesus Christ to simple Chris-

tians 344

THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

CHAPTEE I

THE TWO BAPTISMS.

§ 1. The Starting-Point of the Question in
the Gospel. — Whenever the New Testament is
opened and searched for its teachings on the doc-
trine of Baptism, the eye is first arrested by the
third chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, where is
found the earliest mention of this religious cere-
mony. John the Baptist is introduced on the scene
as the forerunner of the Messiah, and we are told
that he both preaches and baptizes. Then follows
immediately a declaration on the nature and object
of baptism, which is placed in the mouth of the
prophet baptizer himself. It is this : " I indeed bap-
tize you with water unto repentance : but he that
cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I
am not worthy to bear : he shall baptize you with
the Holy Ghost, and with fire." (Matt. iii. 11.)

This solemn declaration may well serve us as a

2 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

starting-point in our researches on baptism, for it is
the most formal which the Holy Spirit has deigned
to grant us on the nature and the object of this in-
stitution, and He has placed it at the commence-
ment of the Gospel. Further on, undoubtedly, in
the New Testament, there is often mention made of
baptism as of an established practice, and we glean
here and there many precious instructions on its
form, its symbolical sense, and its spiritual effects ;
but nowhere else do we find an official, positive,
and complete declaration, such as that which we re-
ceive from the mouth of John the Baptist. Thus,
although its extreme conciseness leaves much to
be supplied, it is, notwithstanding, that which, ac-
cording to the intention of the Holy Spirit, should
first of all arrest our attention and direct our
earliest steps in the knowledge of all that is im-
plied by that ordinance.

§ 2. Contrast of the Two Baptisms. — The first
glance cast upon this declaration teaches us at
once and clearly that there are two baptisms, —
the baptism of water and the baptism of the Holy
Ghost; a very simple and fundamental division,
but one which has unfortunately been too much
neglected in studying Scripture on the subject of
baptism. The declaration of John is immediately
confirmed in the Gospel narrative, by the example

THE TWO BAPTISMS. 3

of Jesus Christ himself, who commences his min-
istry by the reception of a double baptism, first
that of water, then afterwards that of the Holy
Ghost. This fact of two baptisms, doubly and
solemnly stated at the very threshold of the
reading of the Gospel, should never be lost sight
of in the examination of subsequent passages ; for
otherwise we incur the danger of raising, in ref-
erence to this institution, an edifice of doctrine
upon other foundations than those which inspi-
ration has laid, and we voluntarily condemn our-
selves to error and to insolvable difficulties.

This first and introductory declaration upon the
two baptisms is not only confirmed by the example
of the Lord, who receives them both successively
in a visible and striking manner, but still more so
by his testimony, when, after his resurrection and
at the moment when his disciples are about to
found the Christian Church, he repeats it to them
in the same terms as John the Baptist.

" For John truly baptized with water ; but ye
shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many
days hence." (Acts i. 5.)

This "but" first in the mouth of John, then after-
wards in that of the Lord, indicates so decided a
distinction, that it is equivalent to a contrast be-
tween the two baptisms.

Finally, this first positive teaching of Scripture

4 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

upon baptism is also the last which we meet in
its pages. The Apostle Peter, like John the Bap-
tist and like the Lord, wishes that we should re-
member that there are two baptisms, of which one
is the figure of the other, and that the second,
whose nature is spiritual, is infinitely superior to
the first: "The like figure whereunto, even baptism,
doth also now save us, (not the putting away of the
filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good con-
science toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus
Christ." (1 Pet. iii. 21.) Thus the New Testament
commences and finishes its teachings upon bap-
tism by this division, so simple and yet funda-
mental, of a baptism of water and a baptism of
the Holy Ghost, the two explaining each other
as the figure and the reality, and bound together,
but with a certain contrast, as the form to the
substance, the type to the thing signified.

§ 3. Danger which there is of confounding

the Two Baptisms. — It is the baptism of water
which we now propose to study. As to the bap-
tism of the Holy Ghost, its study is that of the
whole New Covenant, and of its spiritual graces ;
for this baptism implies the reception of the Spirit
into the heart, and His whole work of regeneration
and of sanctification, that is to say, the most vast
and profound of subjects.

THE TWO BAPTISMS. 5

At the same time, in order not to go astray in the
investigation which we are about to make, it is
indispensable to apply without delay to the passages
of Scripture referring to baptism the essential
distinction we have just recognized, and to make
use of it in order to circumscribe the choice of the
Biblical materials with which the doctrine of the
baptism of water can legitimately be constructed.
For it is evident that if, in our Biblical examination,
we do not carefully maintain this distinction of two
baptisms, we cannot help falling into serious wan-
derings and into an inextricable confusion. If we
apply to the baptism of water what is said of the
baptism of the Holy Ghost, or to the latter what is
declared of the former, we are no longer on the
ground of truth, but on that of error. This confu-
sion of ideas gives birth to very dangerous heresies.
The baptismal regeneration which the Roman, the
Greek, and unfortunately also some Protestant
churches profess, has no other source than this con-
fusion. It has been said, " The Bible teaches that
baptism saves " ; and this has been said with truth ;
but then people have failed to distinguish that, in
such passages, the Bible had reference to the bap-
tism of the Holy Ghost only, without the reception
of which, indeed, none can enter the kingdom of
heaven. Others, the Valentinians and the Quakers,
have thrown themselves into the opposite extreme,

6 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

and have suppressed entirely the baptism of water,
so as to acknowledge only the baptism of the Holy
Ghost. Others, finally, the Baptists, have attempted
to fix the external form of the baptism of water
by applying to it declarations which evidently con-
cern the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and ought to
relate to it alone. This is what the examination
of a few texts will show us.

§ 4. Four Figures of Spiritual Baptism. —

We give due prominence to three passages, per-
fectly similar, and having but one and the same
spiritual meaning. All three are from the writings
of the Apostle Paul ; all three are addressed to
brethren and saints, and speak of their intimate
union with Christ as the result of their baptism,
which latter is represented under the four figures :
1st, of a Burial ; 2d, of a Plant ; 3d, of a Gar-
ment ; 4th, of a Circumcision made without hands.
But let us quote these texts before commenting
upon them : —

" 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

THE TWO BAPTISMS. 7

if we have been planted together in the likeness of
his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his
resurrection." (Rom. vi. 2-5.)

" Ye are all the children of God by faith in
Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been
baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Gal. hi.
26, 27.)

" In whom also, ye are circumcised with the cir-
cumcision made without hands, in putting off the
body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision
of Christ ; buried with him in baptism, wherein also
ye are risen with him through the faith of the
operation of God." (Col. ii. 11, 12.)

Is reference made in these passages to the bap-
tism of water, or to the baptism of the Holy Ghost ?
We cannot hesitate a moment in deciding that it
is the latter which the Apostle has in view. Allu-
sion is here made to a baptism which regenerates,
— to a baptism which renews us spiritually, — to
a baptism by virtue of which we are actually dead
with Christ, united to him, raised with him ; in a
word, to a baptism which is not a figure, nor a sign,
nor a seal, but a profound reality, as otherwise is
shown by the whole context. If it referred here to
a baptism of water, then the baptism of water would
save. Bnt Saint Paul himself unfolds his thought
further (Rom. viii. 9, 10, 11), by saying positively
that this death with Christ is the work of the Spirit,

8 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

and therefore spiritual. Much more, it is a constant
work ; for we must, day by day, die with Christ,
be crucified with him, buried with him, and raised
with him to newness of life. There can, therefore,
be no question, that reference is here made ex-
clusively to the baptism of the Holy Ghost, for
Simon the Magician and others indeed received
the baptism of water from the very hands of the
Apostles, and yet they were never united to Christ,
were never dead with him, nor raised with him to
newness of life.

The Roman Catholics and the Baptists, neverthe-
less, understand these passages as relating to the
baptism of water, and regard this interpretation
as essential to their doctrine. The first, and with
them the Puseyites and some other exaggerated
Pedobaptists, because they can thus prove baptismal
regeneration, the opus operatum, the magical in-
fluence of the sacraments. The second, because
they can thus find a plausible meaning for their
great ceremony of immersion which then figures
burial with Christ, and to which, without the aid
of these passages, they would not well know what
meaning to give. But the Baptists not only base
their views upon a false interpretation of the text,
but also are here distinguished from Romanists by a
great inconsistency, and still more by an extreme
arbitrariness. The inconsistency consists in re-

THE TWO BAPTISMS. 9

jecting baptismal regeneration ; for if it is the bap-
tism of water which unites us so intimately to
Christ, which applies to us the benefit of his death
and of his resurrection, which, in a word, accom-
plishes all that the Holy Spirit can do within us, we
cannot then escape the conclusion of the Romanists,
that it is the baptism of water which saves. The
arbitrariness consists in this, that while the Apostle
depicts to us this baptism under these four figures, a
burial, a plant, a garment, and a circumcision, the
Baptists make use of a single one, — that which
refers to their practice, — a burial, and materialize
it, neglecting the two following, the plant and the
garment, and utterly rejecting the fourth, which
does not suit them at all, namely, circumcision.
Not content with thus curtailing the Word, they
adhere to only half of the figure they have singled
out and materialized. For while we should be
buried by baptism, not only "with" but also "into"
Christ, they profess to be only plunged with Christ,
not into him, but into the water, which water is not
Christ. Roman Catholics, with their fashion of
wresting Scripture for the support of their doctrines,
have never pushed further either inconsistency or
arbitrariness.

§ 5. To believe and to be baptized the two

Conditions of Salvation. — There is another pas-

10 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

sage, generally acknowledged as very difficult, upon
which this distinction between two baptisms throws
a strong light, and through which alone a satis-
factory solution is obtained. It is these words of
Mark, xvi. 16 : " He that believeth and is baptized
shall be saved." Here then, in a doctrinal declara-
tion of our Lord himself, are two conditions of sal-
vation,— Faith and Baptism. First, the activity of
man in believing, then afterwards the passive re-
ception of a baptism, and after that only salvation.
It has been thought possible to escape from this
rigorous conclusion, by pointing out that it is added,
" but he that believeth not shall be damned," with-
out its being said that he who has not been baptized
shall be damned. But this explains nothing, for
if there are two steps to arrive at salvation, first
faith, then baptism, it is clear of itself that he who
cannot reach even the first step, faith, is not saved,
or, what amounts to the same, is damned. Thus
then, this negative proposition, " He that believeth
not," only supports and confirms the positive " He
that believeth and is baptized," as condition of the
" shall be saved." Besides, the construction of the
sentence is simple, and leaves no room for doubt.
The grammar rigorously demands that we should
consider this " believeth and is baptized " as the
double condition of the " shall be saved." Let
a baptism of water be seen here, and it is impos-

THE TWO BAPTISMS. 11

sible to escape from the conclusion that the latter is
indispensable to salvation, and that faith without
water is not sufficient to save. If, on the contrary,
we recall the important distinction first made by
John the Baptist, and reaffirmed afterwards by
Jesus Christ and the Apostles, and recognize here
the baptism of the Holy Ghost, then the passage
becomes perfectly clear, and its sense is in agree-
ment with all the other teachings of Scripture upon
regeneration, which is fully implied in faith followed
by the gift of the Holy Ghost : " After that ye be-
lieved, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit." (Eph.
i. 13.)

But here we shall be met with the serious objection
that in the passage of Mark, xvi. 16, there can be
question of no other baptism than in Matt, xxviii.
19, where Jesus Christ orders his disciples to go
and baptize the nations, and where evidently refer-
ence is made to a baptism of water. We answer,
that both passa.ges, indeed, refer to the same cir-
cumstance, namely, the commission given by the
Lord to his disciples to go forth and evangelize the
world. But neither of the two narratives is com-
plete by itself, for each places in the mouth of Jesus
different words. Each of the two Gospels gives
us but a fragment of the discourse of the Lord, and
did we know no more, we should be obliged to com-
plete these recitals one through the other, by saying

12 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

that in this discourse Jesus Christ made allusion
to the two baptisms, — that Matthew relates to us
what he said of the baptism of water, and Mark
what he said upon that of the Holy Ghost. But,
happily, here we are not reduced to a simple prob-
ability ; we have in favor of our opinion Biblical
certainty. The narrative of the two Gospels is
further completed by the Acts of the Apostles,
where we learn that in that solemn moment when
Jesus, after being risen from the dead, gave his last
orders to his disciples, he in fact spoke to them of
two baptisms : " John truly baptized with water ;
but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost."
(Acts i. 5.)

For the rest, Romanists and Baptists alone have
a doctrinal interest in finding a baptism of water in
the words of Mark : " He that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved." Romanists, in order to
base upon it their sacramental regeneration ; the
Baptists, to show that by the order of terms the
baptism of water comes after saving faith. But
here, as above, the Baptists are less consistent than
the Romanists, since they deny that the baptism of
water is essential to salvation.

§ 6. Baptism and Baptisms. — Now, in order
to complete the separation of the passages relating to
the baptism of the Holy Gho'st from those referring

THE TWO BAPTISMS. 13

to a water baptism, we shall rapidly pass under
review some other texts, less important in the dis-
cussion than the preceding ones, but which must
first be classified to facilitate ulterior investigation.

In the Epistle to the Hebrews (vi. 2) mention is
made of " the doctrine of baptisms." This plural
agrees very well with our doctrine of two baptisms ;
but in the Epistle to the Ephesians (iv. 5) Paul
declares, on the contrary, that there is " one Lord,
one faith, one baptism." Which is this one bap-
tism? Even before casting the eye upon the con-
text, the question can unhesitatingly be answered.
Eor let it be remembered that the baptism of the
Holy Ghost is infinitely superior to the baptism of
water ; that, as Saint Peter states it in energetic
terms, the one " saves us," while the other only
" puts away the filth of the flesh," and it will not
be difficult to admit that when an apostle speaks of
a baptism in exalted terms, but without defining, it
can be only baptism par excellence, that which in a
profound sense is emphatically baptism, the only
true and effective one, since the other is only its
shadow, its figure or preparation. But let us look
at the context, and we shall find this point of view
entirely confirmed. In reference to what does the
Apostle speak here of baptism ? It is (ver. 3 and 4)
in order to urge the Ephesians " to keep between
themselves the unity of the Spirit." To this object

14 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

he reminds them that there is for them but " one
body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one
baptism, one God." Certainly it is not the baptism
of water which causes the unity of the redeemed
and of the spiritual body of Christ ; a glance cast
upon the churches and sects of Christianity suf-
ficiently shows that it is not. Moreover, if the least
doubt still remained in the mind of the reader,
Saint Paul himself would dissipate it by further
defining his thought in 1 Cor. xii. 13 : " For by
one Spirit are we all baptized into one body." By
this it is seen to be the baptism of the Spirit that
makes us one body, and it is precisely the idea
which Paul repeats and unfolds in the Epistle to the
Ephesians. Because there are not two baptisms of
the Spirit, but one baptism of the same Spirit, and
one Spirit supposes one body, whilst two bodies
would imply two Spirits, therefore Christians should
feel their spiritual unity and remain faithful to it.

§ 7. " The Figure that saves." — Finally, there
is another class of passages where there is a men-
tion of baptism made in such a manner as to con-
found apparently the water and the Spirit, the
figure and its emblem, the sign and the thing sig-
nified. But it is evident that it is then the part
of sound criticism to refer the sense of the text
essentially to the most exalted baptism, that of the

THE TWO BAPTISMS. 15

Spirit, and to acknowledge that water is there
mentioned only as a symbol. Here are these pas-
sages ; we group them together in order that they
may serve to complete and mutually explain each
other : —

" But ye are washed in the name of the

Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Cor.
vi. 11.)

" Christ also loved the Church, and gave himself
for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with
the washing of water by the Word, that he might
present it to himself a glorious Church, not having
spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it
should be holy and without blemish." (Eph. v. 25,
26, 27.)

" God our Saviour has saved us, not by works of
righteousness which we have done, but according to
his mercy, by the washing of regeneration and
renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us
abundantly." (Tit. iii. 4, 5, 6.)

To reach more promptly a conclusion, let us take
hold at once of the most difficult passage, that where
it is said that Jesus Christ himself has cleansed his
Church with the baptism of water. Here is a very
extraordinary assertion. What ! the Apostle in
speaking here of the invisible Church of the elect,
says that it is by a baptism of water that Jesus Christ
has cleansed and sanctified it ! If so, baptism of

16 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

water saves. Then, what is still more surprising
is, that, from the thief upon the cross, there are
thousands of the elect who have died without re-
ceiving the baptism of water, and who notwith-
standing have been saved, so that it must be ad-
mitted as an incontestable fact, that Christ, in spite
of the passage above, has not cleansed in the bap-
tism of water his whole Church, but only a portion,
supposing that he ever baptized any one himself.
We have then before us in this text a flagrant con-
tradiction and absurdity.

Nevertheless, the solution of the difficulty is very
simple ; it is that this baptism, or washing of water,
is plainly spoken of as a figure ; that it has a spirit-
ual sense ; that it is the Word of God which has
operated this washing, and not the hand of men ;
and this the more because Jesus Christ himself
never baptized with water. (John iv. 2.)

If " Christ has cleansed the Church with the wash-
ing of water by the Word," or, according to the
original, in the Word, the meaning must be that the
Church was essentially cleansed or baptized by the
Saviour himself, not in the water, but in the Word.
The water here only completes the idea in the figure
of washing, and the Church is washed in the Word
as we wash in water. It is a spiritual baptism. It
is absolutely the same idea which we find in the
other two passages, " washed by the Spirit," " saved

THE TWO BAPTISMS. 17

by the washing of regeneration," passages to which
we can also add (Eph. i. 13), " sealed with the Holy
Spirit," an expression which indicates the seal of a
spiritual baptism.

The Baptists will be the last to contest this inter-
pretation, since there is question here of a washing,
and not of an immersion, and that they recognize
the baptism of water only where there is an immer-
sion. As to others, if there yet remains in their
minds the least uncertainty on the subject of this
interpretation, we would beg them to take notice
of this word of Peter. " Eight persons were saved
by water. The like figure whereunto, even bap-
tism, doth also now save us." (1 Pet. iii. 20, 21.)
Here is certainly something much stronger for the
baptism of water than the passages of Paul. It is
indeed said that baptism saves, and this must be, to
all appearances, a baptism of water. Yet it is by no
means so ; the Apostle has taken great care, on the
contrary, to warn us that it is in " figure " only
that the baptism of water saves. And in order to
guard well against misconception here, and that it
may be clearly understood that it is not the figure,
but the thing figured, which saves, he is careful to
add an explanation in which he lowers the baptism
of water below the spiritual baptism in a manner
and to a degree which has often struck us : " Bap-
tism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh,

18 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

but the answer of a good conscience towards God
by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

§ 8. Some Passages made clear by a double

Baptism. — The distinction between the two bap-
tisms of water and of the Spirit casts much light
on other passages where baptism is not expressly
mentioned, but where doubtless allusion is made to
it, such as the following : —

" Except a man be born of water and of the
Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
(John iii. 5.) The water would here figure the
washing of sins, and the Spirit represent interior
sanctification which follows pardon.

" There are three that bear witness in earth, the
spirit, and the water, and the blood ; and these
three agree in one." (1 John v. 8.) Here can
be traced the baptism of the Holy Ghost, the bap-
tism of water, and the Lord's Supper. Three great
facts, which indeed bear witness upon earth, in
symbolical and mysterious language, for repentance,
remission of sins, atonement, salvation, and sanctifi-
cation ; in a word, for the whole work of redemp-
tion by Christ.

This double baptism of water and of the Holy
Spirit appears even to have been foretold by the'
prophets : " I will sprinkle clean water upon you,
and you shall be cleansed ;. from all your filthiness

THE TWO BAPTISMS. 19

will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give yon,
and a new spirit will I pnt within you." (Ezek.
xxxvi. 25, 26, 27.)

We do not quote these passages here to rest upon
them any argument. They are not necessary to
our subject, and we could have passed them over.
We have preferred to show the light which a double
baptism casts upon them ; but without attaching,
in view of the discussion, the least value to the in-
terpretation we have suggested..

We abandon here further researches on the bap-
tism of the Holy Ghost, which we have mentioned
only to distinguish it clearly from the baptism of
water, and in order to fix and circumscribe the
Scriptural domain of the latter. This distinction is
already a great step made in the difficult study of
a doctrine controverted among the most estimable
and most learned Evangelical Christians, and it will
be of immense advantage, in our subsequent re-
searches, to be able to avoid this confusion of ideas
on the subject of the baptisms of water and of the
Holy Ghost, which is common to both Baptists and
Pedobaptists.

CHAPTER II.

THE FATHERS OF THE CHUECH.

§ 9. The Proofs drawn fro in the Fathers are

not decisive. — There is found in almost all the
treatises on baptism a disquisition, deemed of abso-
lute necessity, upon the testimony of the Fathers of
the Church, to whom an appeal is thought indis-
pensable, in order to know what to regard as the
baptismal practice of the apostolical times. This
historic portion is even in many works the principal,
and often forms more than the half. By general
consent two sources have thus been adopted -for the
study of baptism, — the Bible and the Fathers. It is
necessary that, before entering upon further discus-
sion, we should decide in reference to these sources,
and that, if we admit them both, we should at least
fix their respective value, and the use which it will
be lawful for us to make of the Fathers. Only by
thus appreciating and limiting the field of data upon
baptism, shall we succeed in using in the search
after truth nothing but legitimate materials. Now,

THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH. 21

we renounce completely the use of the Fathers, and
we shall not invoke their testimony in support of
our doctrines on baptism. We make this act of re-
nunciation after having sufficiently explored their
writings to become convinced that the bearing of
their testimony has been much exaggerated. Here
are, in a few words, our reasons for setting aside
the Fathers in our researches.

1st. This great importance conceded to them in
works on baptism, this fashion of placing quotations
from their writings side by side with those of the
Bible, imply, in the mind of the reader, that Scrip-
ture is insufficient to establish the doctrine of bap-
tism upon a sure foundation. Hence arises an
uncertainty, much increased by the length and ob-
scurity of the passages from the Fathers, and which
leads many either to indifference on the subject of
baptism, or to imaginary views based on human
authority.

2d. It is only towards the commencement of the
third century that the testimony of the Fathers
on controverted points in the practice of baptism
becomes clear and decisive. But it is then already
too late to be able to decide with certainty through
this means what must have been the practice of
the Apostles. A century and a half was more than
sufficient for the Church to modify considerably
both the doctrine and the practice of baptism, which

22 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

at that period we find already sadly mixed up with
superstition and paganism. Thus the evidence be-
fore the third century amounts to very little, is
obscure and insufficient. That of the third cen-
tury, itself more complete, is already too late to
be conclusive, while that posterior to this period
is worth still less. It is grievous, therefore, to
see a recent work, written on the Baptist side,
devote the smaller portion of its pages to Scriptu-
ral study, and the larger to the Fathers and their
successors. Of what use is it to heap up, with
great historical toil, all the follies which may have
been uttered on the subject of infant baptism from
Origen to Luther and Calvin, and even up to the
present age ? What can this prove ? Would an
historical work, relating all the follies uttered upon
the Trinity from Origen to our days, be found very
conclusive against the doctrine of the divinity of
Jesus Christ ? Such a work could easily be done ;
but when called upon to decide upon such an im-
portant doctrine, all Evangelical Christians would
be unanimous in appealing only to Scripture.

3d. In fact, it is not quotations from the Fa-
thers, but the peculiar interpretation of some pas-
sages of the Bible, which makes or unmakes Bap-
tists. The Fathers are only brought forward by
both parties in support of foregone conclusions,
in order to prop up an ill-constructed system with

THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH. 23

any accessory that will render it plausible. For
ourselves, we shall not hesitate to declare that,
if the practice of Christian baptism, in its essen-
tials, cannot be sufficiently determined by the
Bible alone, it had better be entirely discontinued.
Far better would it be to acquiesce in regarding,
with the Quakers, the baptism of water as a cere-
mony become impracticable, than to attempt mak-
ing up for a Scriptural uncertainty by the tradi-
tions of the Fathers, and thus add to the Bible.

§ 10. The Testimony of the Fathers would
be in Favor of Pedobaptism. — We understand
very well, however, that by thus setting the Fathers
aside, we are perhaps exposing ourselves to the sus-
picion that they are not with the Pedobaptists, and
that it is the consciousness of our weakness upon
this ground which renders us so far from eager
to claim their assistance. It is nothing of the
kind. We are convinced, on the contrary, that the
testimony of the Fathers in behalf of infant bap-
tism would crush its adversaries, and that even
those patristical extracts which are most prized
by the Baptists as favoring their doctrine, witness
in reality against them when sifted and closely
examined. Such is also the conviction of the
best judge and appreciator of the historical evi-
dence on baptism, Wall, who has been surnamed

24 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

" the historian of baptism." This author, after
having spent several years of his life in the atten-
tive reading of the Fathers and in the gathering
of their evidence on this doctrine and practice,
and after having collected impartially, in two con-
siderable volumes, all the patristical extracts which
make even the most distant allusion to baptism,
so as to supply both Baptists and Pedobaptists with
a complete arsenal, declares that the result is en-
tirely favorable to Pedobaptism, that the testimony
of the Fathers is after all unanimous for infant
baptism, inasmuch as such of them as opposed this
practice did not reject it on Scriptural grounds,
acknowledged its universal use in the Church, and
never questioned the fact that it had been handed
down from the days of the Apostles.

§ 11. The first Baptist, Tertullian, was not
one. — Nevertheless, as we are unwilling to proceed
in this discussion otherwise than in a perfectly sure
and satisfactory manner, if our Baptist opponents
are not satisfied with the above reasons for leav-
ing aside the evidence of the Fathers, we are pre-
pared to offer to them a generous concession. We
shall produce the testimony of one Father, and
that Father shall be the choice man of the Bap--
tists, their best historical mainstay, the one they
constantly bring forward, namely, Tertullian. We

THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH. 25

renounce all the assistance which we could derive
from the declarations exclusively pedobaptist of
the Constitutions of Egypt, of Justin, Clemens,
Cyprian, Gregory Nazianzen, Augustin, etc., etc.,
and even of Origen, the most learned and best
critic amongst the Fathers of the Church. This
sacrifice, which nothing forces upon us, is our
own affair, and can raise no complaints on the
part of Baptists, since we grant them their best
patristical weapons, while we voluntarily silence our
best witnesses. But we do this, well knowing
that we shall force from them the avowal that their
only Father, confessedly the first and only one
who has opposed infant baptism during the first
four centuries of the Church, is far from being
one of their number ; nay, that he is a dangerous
friend, who requires only to be better known, that
they should hasten to disown him. Let us then
examine closely and in its details the doctrine
of this first Baptist, who is represented to us as
the champion of the purity of baptism in an age
when it had long become corrupted by its general
administration to infants.

Here is what he teaches : 1st. " It is an acknowl-
edged rule that none can be saved without baptism.
2d. Those who say that we can be saved by faith,
like Abraham, without having received the sacra-
ment of water, are impious men. 3d. Before Jesus

26 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

Christ faith was sufficient to save, but is no longer so
since his death, for he has bound up faith to the ne-
cessity of baptism. 4th. It is the privilege of bish-
ops alone to baptize. 5th. But in case of danger a
layman should baptize, otherwise he is guilty of the
damnation of the soul. 6th. There is advantage
(not duty) in delaying baptism principally in the
case of little children. (Cunctatio baptismi utilior
est : prcecipue tamen circa parvulos.} 7th. He ac-
knowledges the institution of Sponsors. 8th. It
is especially in view of Sponsors that he judges
the delay of baptism useful, because they are in
danger of being unable to keep the engagement
into which they enter in reference to the religion
of the child. 9th. As to infants, the reason for de-
ferring their baptism is that, being innocent, it is
imprudent to obtain for them, through baptism,
the remission of sins which they have not yet com-
mitted. ( Quid festinat innocens cetas ad remissio-
nem peccatorum ?) 10th. Children are too young
for us to risk intrusting them with this divine
treasure. 11th. For the same reason, unmarried
persons must be excluded from baptism, as being
exposed to more temptations than others. 12th.
Baptism should also be refused to widows until
they are wedded again, or until they have made a
vow of perpetual celibacy. 13th. Those who un-
derstand the great value of baptism will be much

THE FATHEKS OF THE CHURCH. 27

more afraid to receive it than to wait. 14th. The
suitable time for receiving baptism is Easter, since
we must be baptized into the Lord's death. 15th.
No child of pagan parents is pure, but the children
of even one single Christian parent are holy by
privilege of descent. (Sanctos ex seminis prcero-
g-ativa.') 16th. The children of believers are ap-
pointed to holiness, and by that very fact to salva-
tion. 17th. One should prepare himself for the
reception of baptism by devotions, fastings, genu-
flections, watchings, and confessions. 18th. Before
receiving the water of baptism, the candidate should
profess that he renounces the Devil, his pomp,
and his angels. 19th. He should dress himself in
white garments. 20th. Then he must be plunged
three times in the water. 21st. The efficacy of
the sacrament arises from the fact, that the water
of baptism itself is impregnated with the Holy
Ghost. 22d. On leaving the water he must eat a
mixture of milk and honey, which represents the
food of Canaan. 23d. From this moment he must
abstain during the whole week from bathing (in
order not to remove, by profane water, the effi-
cacy of the holy water of baptism). 24th. At the
moment of baptism, the sign of the cross must be
made on the forehead. 25th. After that, the can-
didate should never bathe without repeating the
sign of the cross on his forehead. 26th. After the

28 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

water of baptism, the neophyte should be anointed
with an oil poured from a horn, and prepared after
the tradition of Aaron and Moses. 27th. After-
wards he must receive the laying on of hands,
so that the Holy Ghost may descend upon him,"
etc., etc.*

§ 12. The Baptist Practice has sprung up as
a Development of Bomauisni. — But let this suf-
fice ; it will be seen from the above, that the bap-
tism of Tertullian is composed of a tissue of at least
twenty-seven heresies or superstitions, not one of
which his professed modern friends will indorse. His
objections to infant baptism are not theirs, nor have
a shadow of resemblance with them. If he delays
baptism, it is because it saves, effaces all the sins of
past life, and that we must wait to have a good sup-
ply of these to make it worth the while to be bap-
tized. In a word, Tertullian is a Baptist from an ex-
cess of Romanism. He is a Baptist as the Emperor
Constantine was, who, from conviction, postponed
his baptism till the hour of his death, in order to
insure the greatest benefit from it, by being able to
live in sin till the last moment. The whole Cath-
olic Church, by the very fact of its corruption, and
from the same motives as Tertullian, was then on

* De Baptismo, c. 7, 12, 13, 18, 20. De Anima, c. 39, 40. De Corona
Militis, c. 1, 2, 3. Contra Marcion, I. 14.

THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH. 29

the road to Baptist practice ; and the entire Church
of Rome would be to-day, and long since, ultra-
Baptist, as a result of the consistent development
of her doctrine, had she not invented in due time
additional sacraments, namely, Confirmation and
Extreme Unction, in order to distribute over all
ages of life the supposed virtue of baptism.

We most cheerfully abandon Tertullian to our
Baptist friends. Let them draw from him all the
benefit they can ; but let them at least not attempt
any more to impose upon the simple and ignorant
the belief that this celebrated heresiarch, this first
Baptist, had in common with them a single point
of their peculiar doctrine.

We leave here, with satisfaction, the Fathers, to
return to Scripture.

CHAPTER III

IMMERSION.

§ 13. The Rite of Immersion is practised in
the most corrupt Churches. — A religious cere-
mony always implies an external form with an inter-
nal meaning. The form is that which first calls the
attention of the spectator ; it addresses itself to his
senses, and it is but later that reflection supervenes
to explain the figure and impart to the rite its
spiritual value. Indeed, to a great many the cere-
mony is exclusively a form, and their thoughts never
go beyond. It is natural, therefore, that the exter-
nal practice of baptism should first engross our
attention. It is true that to a certain extent the
form must assume its shape from the internal idea,
and that it is only after the latter has been well
ascertained that the former can be fully understood.
But the controversy in reference to the mode of
baptism rests essentially on a question of fact, which-
can be investigated apart from the spiritual sense.
Two opinions are here in antagonism, — one, that the

IMMERSION. 31

baptism of water in apostolical times was an immer-
sion ; the other, that it was an affusion or sprink-
ling. With scarcely an exception, the Baptists have
pronounced for immersion. The Greek Church
sides with the Baptists, and at Moscow children are
plunged in the water. The Romish Church also
indorses the Baptist practice. Thomas Aquinas,
Bonaventura, and others advocated it, and enforced
it during the Middle Ages, until the Council of
Trent decreed that baptism can be performed either
by immersion or by sprinkling, the former being the
practice in several dioceses, such, for instance, as
that of Milan. All the Protestant churches, with
the exception of Baptists, practise sprinkling. The
English churches have not first suppressed the prac-
tice of immersion at the Synod of Westminster in
1643, and by the majority of one voice only, as is
asserted in some Baptist works. A triple immer-
sion had been practised in England by the Romish
Church, and had afterwards been gradually aban-
doned by the Reformers. The synod was unani-
mous in behalf of sprinkling, which had become the
established practice, and the vote referred merely
to the more or less severe wording of an article
condemnatory of immersion.

§ 14. Immersion is deemed essential by the

Baptists. — To several of our Baptist friends in

32 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

France and Switzerland a long controversy upon im-
mersion may appear as useless. They have often
told us that they care little for the form, but much
for the substance of baptism ; that a little more or
less water in a baptism can be of no consequence ;
that the choice between immersion and sprinkling is
very immaterial, the essential being that baptism
be not conferred upon unconscious infants, but
restricted to believers alone, as prescribed by the
Bible. But the Baptist principle cannot be fairly
judged from its aspect in countries where it is
recent; where, just born, it has not had sufficient
time to develop itself, and still enjoys the innocence
of its first youth. We must take it at its maturity, in
England, and especially in the United States, where,
entirely free for two hundred years, strong, numer-
ous, and triumphant, it has reached its complete
development and produced all its legitimate fruits,
as it is infallibly bound also to do, sooner or later, in
France and Switzerland. Now, wherever the Bap-
tist principle has reached its maturity, the form
prevails over the idea, and absorbs it. There is no
longer any baptism but immersion. Sprinkling is
held to vitiate essentially baptism, and therefore
to be no baptism at all. Immersion alone buries
the believer with Christ, and in this burial consists
the very idea of baptism and all its efficacy. The
American Baptists are unanimous in considering as

IMMEESION. 33

null and void the second baptism of those brethren
who, baptized once in their infancy, have been bap-
tized again on a profession of faith, but with sprink-
ling. The exact quantity of water specified by the
Holy Ghost having been wanting, this second bap-
tism, although that of a believer, is of no account
whatever, merely through a defect in the form. So
much is this the case, that Baptist missionaries from
Switzerland have been driven to a third baptism in
order to obtain the confidence and support of their
co-religionists ; and that rigid Baptists are not want-
ing who would exact a fourth one, because it is
more Scriptural to be plunged in the river than in a
font or artificial basin.

§ 15. The Practice of Immersion cannot be
altered if Apostolical. — Let us, however, render
to the Baptists their due, that they are more con-
sistent in reference to immersion than many of the
champions of Pedobaptism, who, with Neander, cool-
ly affirm, that the Apostles invariably practised im-
mersion, but that we, their successors, are perfectly
justified in doing otherwise, and then offer some
sort of an apology for having substituted sprinkling.
But on what ground should we presume to alter
the form sanctioned by the Lord, his Apostles, and
the whole primitive Church ? Is it on the score of
tradition ? But that is Romanism. Is it because

2* C

34 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

sprinkling appears more suitable and convenient ?
But this is rationalism. We can accept neither of
these. We intend, therefore, to show that baptism
by immersion is a modern fiction borrowed from
the heathen ; that neither John the Baptist nor the
Apostles have practised immersion ; that it was un-
known to them. We will go even further, at the
risk of being stigmatized as rash by our friends, and
we will assert that immersion is no baptism. We
will not even stop until we have proved it to be an
indecency, the parody of a Christian institution, if
not even a blasphemy. We pledge ourselves to
much. Let us open the discussion.

§16. Baptize is a Greek Word, Anglicized,
but not translated. — When our Reformers, of
blessed memory, undertook to translate the Bible
into the common vernacular, they were stopped by
the Greek word, Baptizd, which they did not know
how to render. They were aware that this expres-
sion had more than one meaning, and that there was
not any modern word, drawn from profane language,
which corresponded exactly with it. Luther alone
found an approach to it, in the German Taufen.
The Reformers, it is true, and Calvin among others,
inclined for immersion ; but their respect for the
Word of God was too great to permit them ever
to make their particular views triumph through a

IMMERSION. 35

translation affirming what the original text does not
affirm. Not able to translate this word without
doing injury to the truth, and without adding to
Scripture, they followed the example of the most
ancient known versions, and preserved it, such as
it was, making use in their translation of the words
baptize and baptism, which people perfectly under-
stood, and leaving it to the study of other passages to
determine whether the form consisted in an immer-
sion, or in something else. They used precisely the
same rule with regard to the words Gospel, John
the Baptist, Christ, Apostle, Church, Presbytery,
Deacon, etc., which are so many Greek words car-
ried over into the English language. Honor to
those men, who, in their profound respect for inspi-
ration, feared to add to the Book, or to take away
from it anything whatever, by an arbitrary transla-
tion of an important word, the sense of which did
not appear certain ! Shame to those who have
spurned this noble example, and who have not
hesitated to insert in the very text of Scripture
the private views of a party, of a small minority
of Christians, while the immense majority had re-
frained from doing so !

§ 17. The ]Vew Baptist Bible. — In the coun-
try where the Baptists are most powerful and most
numerous, and where their doctrine has reached its

36 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

climax, in the United States, an association, founded
in 1837, under the innocent title of " American and
Foreign Bible Society," has undertaken to have the
Bible re-translated into all languages, in reference
to a single word, and in order to make the Bible
teach baptism by immersion. This Society is not
the instrument of some fanatics, as might be
thought, but it was the avowed organ of many
thousands of Baptist churches, who regard these
new versions as indispensable to the final triumph of
their ideas. Just as we have had the Romish Bible,
then the Socinian Bible, we have now the Baptist
Bible, in which there is no longer any baptism or
baptizing, but only immersion and immersing. In
presence of such a fact, a cause is already decided
in the opinion of all simple and impartial Chris-
tians. Previous to all investigation, will not that be
thought indeed a bad cause, a questionable opin-
ion, which cannot be propped up without altering
the Bible of the Reformation and of the earliest
ages of the Church !

The pretensions of the new Baptist Bible are
excessive. The leading organs of the denomina-
tion do not hesitate to proclaim that their Bible is
the only translation that exists, since hitherto the
Bible had not really been translated, but its truth
disguised under the mask of Greek words ; for, if
we should believe them, baptism and baptize are

IMMEESION. 37

not legitimately English words. They state, in an
official document, the Annual Report of their Soci-
ety, that all the other versions but theirs are " un-
faithful " ; that in them " the real meaning of
words is purposely kept out of sight," and that all
the other Bible Societies " have virtually combined
to obscure at least a part of Divine Revelation."
They have thus produced a new English Bible,
which they give out as the only pure Word of God,
but from which they have taken away all mention of
baptism, and into which instead they have inserted
their private practice, immersion. The French Bap-
tist Bible, printed in New York, is therefore, accord-
ing to the authority of a powerful denomination, the
first and only complete translation of the Bible in
French, without even excepting the new Swiss ver-
sion, which, although impregnated with Baptist ten-
dencies, has retained the words baptism and baptize.
The French Baptist Bible of New York has other-
wise been manufactured according to a very plain
receipt, which consists in amalgamating the Protes-
tant and Romish versions, excluding completely the
words baptism and baptize, and introducing as fre-
quently as possible the words immersion and im-
merse. It must cause, besides, no little merriment
to French Protestants to receive from across the
water, in the only Bible said to be fit for their use,
lessons of stiff politeness along with immersion.

38 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

The Apostles, the brethren, and the angels have
given up the old-fashioned Thou, which is still of
universal use in France, as the language of famil-
iarity and friendship. The proscribed Thou is not
even placed in the mouth of Jesus Christ, while the
disciples in the Lord's prayer are compelled to say
with Romanists : " Our Father who are in heaven,
hallowed be your name ; your kingdom come," etc.
And yet, after all these discreditable innovations,
the Baptist version has not kept its promise ; against
its principles and its engagements, it has allowed
some Greek to linger behind. For why speak
always to us of the precursor as being " John the
Baptist"? Why conceal from the people, under
the mask of a Greek word, that he was " John the
Plunger " ? The Baptist version, judged from its
own principles, is therefore as yet far from com-
plete. Let also our friends, in order to be consistent,
not call themselves any longer Baptists, but stand
before the public as the Plungers, — the Plunging
denomination, and the Plunging Bible Society.

§ 18. To immerse means to drown. — It must
be acknowledged, besides, that, after deciding to
translate baptizo, the Baptists have been most unfor-
tunate in the choice of a suitable word. Intent upon
no longer giving Greek to the people, and under the
plea of translating' and better explaining, they have

IMMERSION. 39

replaced the word baptize, which was perfectly well
known, by the Latin immerge or immerse, which was
unused, and which is far less English than the time-
honored baptize. The use of the term was proba-
bly confined to astronomy until the Baptists claimed
it for their ceremony, and we doubt if even to this
day it is understood by common people, unless after
coming in contact with Baptists. A long- Anglicized
Greek word replaced by an unpopular Latin one !
This is truly going from Charybdis into Scylla. This
is not improving a translation, it is spoiling it.
What would a common man, a Roman Catholic, to
whom a colporteur should sell the Baptist Bible,
understand by the language of John : " I indeed im-
merse you in water, but Jesus Christ shall immerse
you into the Holy Ghost and into fire " ? or by
these words of Paul : " John verily immersed with
the immersion of repentance " ? In reality, the true
practical end in the employment of these great,
mysterious words, is not to translate and enlighten
the Word of God, but, on the contrary, by the aid
of the vagueness and obscurity which hover about
them, to make the simple-minded accept a new
ceremony, as if it were ordered in the Gospel.

This Latin word immerge does not mean to plunge,
but to drown, to bury under the water and keep
there. Thus in Virgil, when Achemenides, in de-
spair, entreats the Trojan sailors to give him death,

40 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

he says : " Spargite me in fluctus, vastoque immer-
gite ponto." (iEn. iii. 605.) " Cast me into the
waves and drown me in the deep sea." In the same
way further on, the pilot, Palinurus, declares to
iEneas, that although he has been cast into the
sea from the deck of the vessel, he has not been
immersed, that is to say, drowned, because he suc-
ceeded in swimming to the shore and thus saving
his life. {Mn. vi. 342, 348.) But Misenus (vi.
174) is purposely killed by immersion, and his body
burned afterwards. Such is the true classical sense
of the word immerse. Thus, the Baptists virtually
insist that John the Baptist and the Apostles have
drowned the believers in much water, while Jesus
Christ would have drowned them in the Holy
Ghost ! There are two words, however, which are
excellent Anglo-Saxon, and that express correctly
and exactly the Baptist practice, namely, to plunge
and to dip. Their baptism is nothing else, for the
individual does not remain under water more than
a second, and he is hurriedly drawn out that he may
not suffocate ; their ceremony is therefore nothing
but a rapid plunge. But they have wished neither
really to translate, nor to call things by their right
name, and feeling that such simplicity would destroy
the prestige of their doctrine, they have gone out
of the way to borrow from the Latin long words
rather unused and not understood by the common
people.

IMMERSION. 41

§ 19. Classical Meaning of the Word Baptize.

— But let us come now to the Greek word baptizd,
or, as it is often met shorter, bapto; these two forms,
as it is agreed on both sides, being but two different
aspects of the same root, and the first derived from
the second. Dictionaries attribute to this word no
less than fifteen different meanings, the principal
of which are immerse, wash, sprinkle, purify, and
dye. Amongst these various imports, Baptists have
arbitrarily singled out one which suits their favorite
practice, and they assert intrepidly that the Greek
word has but one meaning, and always the same,
namely, that of immerse. At this many exclaimed ;
but then the great champion of the Baptists, Dr.
Carson, has declined the authority of all Greek
dictionaries, because, forsooth, they were made by
Pedobaptists, and he has claimed the right to fix
anew the meaning of the word, from researches in
classical authors. This demand was promptly ac-
ceded to, and the Rev. Robert Wilson in England,
and the Rev. Edward Beecher in America, at the
same time published each a volume of learned re-
searches on the disputed word, and brought forth
an overwhelming array of passages where it is abso-
lutely impossible to translate it by immerse. To
give an instance : Homer, describing in a fable a
battle between the frogs and a mouse, states that
the latter was wounded, and that " the lake was

42 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

baptized with its blood," — e^airreTO ac/xarc Xijxvq.
It is easy to conceive that the lake might have been
sprinkled with some drops of blood, possibly even
partially dyed with it, but that a lake could have
been immersed in the blood of a mouse, no one will
believe.

But there is more to say. A close investigation
of the Greek classics shows that baptizo never has
the meaning of immerse, without implying also a
permanent submersion, and therefore not in the
least a Baptist plunge. Just as its Latin correlative
immerge, it means, sink under water and keep
there, that is to say, drown. Let us quote one
instance. The historian Josephus narrates that
Herod, wishing to murder the high-priest Aristo-
bulus without creating suspicions, gave the order
to secret emissaries to baptize him while bathing in
a reservoir. He was baptized, indeed, and was im-
mersed, but not after the Baptist fashion, for he
was immersed by being kept under water until
drowned. Thus in the days of Herod and Jose-
phus, that is to say, in apostolical times, a baptism
by immersion was understood to be something
similar to the noyades of Nantes during the French
Revolution. Baptism by immersion must have
been then a sentence of death, which the Apostles
would not have inflicted upon the affrighted con-
verts, when they did not intend to carry it out.

IMMERSION. 43

(Josephus, De Bello Judaico, i. 22, § 2 ; Antiq. xv.
3, § 3.) The same writer speaks, in three different
places, of vessels sunk at sea as having been bap-
tized. Of course they were not dipped or plunged,
but overwhelmed and immersed so as not to rise
again. No exception has yet been found to the
rule, that, when baptize means immerse, it implies
a permanent immersion or drowning ; so that the
distrust thrown upon dictionaries has only resulted
in showing there had been conceded too much in
allowing that baptizo ever had in a single instance
the Baptist meaning. This fashion of attempting
to build up a whole doctrine and an important
practice upon the mere etymology of a doubtful
word will find its analogy in the pedantry of a
Chinese mandarin, who would teach his pupils and
assert against any and everybody that Englishmen
eat only soup for the last meal of the day, proving
it triumphantly from the undeniable fact that the
word supper comes from soup.

Now that we have secured our position on classi-
cal ground, we confess that we really care little to
keep it or defend it, and that we have followed the
discussion on that field only on the principle that
it is sometimes proper " to answer a fool according
to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."
For should it be proved a thousand times over
again, that in classical authors baptize meant to

44 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

plunge, yet it would by no means follow with -cer-
tainty that the word has precisely the same mean-
ing in Scripture. The sacred writers, obliged to
speak the language of heaven through a heathen
idiom, have been compelled to modify considerably
the import of several Greek words, the precise
meaning of which must be determined hereafter,
not through classical paganism, but from the use
of them in Scripture itself. It is evident that, in
the language of the New Testament, an Apostle
does not mean exclusively, with the classics, an
envoy ; the angel is no longer simply a messenger ;
nor is the Lord's Supper exactly a supper, nor the
church an assembly, nor the bishop an inspector,
nor the elder an old man, nor the presbytery a lot
of superannuated brethren, nor the pastor a herds-
man ; let us add, nor is baptism a Baptist immer-
sion, even if such had been the secular sense of the
word. The classical language, it is true, supplied
the Apostles with a basis, a starting-point, but the
exact Scriptural sense of any word, and especially
baptizd, must be ascertained through the Bible
itself, — through the religious use made of it by
the sacred writers, — and it is there alone that we
proceed to investigate it.

§ 20. Meaning: of Baptize in the Septuagint. —

It is generally admitted that the language of the

IMMERSION. 45

New Testament is based upon the Greek idiom of the
Septuagint. This ancient version of the Old Testa-
ment was followed by the Apostles, and they place
it even in the mouth of Jesus Christ. The reason
for this is simple ; the Seventy were the first to
bend profane Greek, and make it express the ideas
of the Bible ; the Apostles were bound to accept the
religious idiom created by their predecessors, and
to preserve it while continuing to develop it. Let
us, therefore, investigate on this ground, more sure
than that of the classics, the import which baptizo
must have had for the Apostles. This word occurs
but four times in the Septuagint, and in no case
with the Baptist meaning. 1st. " Judith baptized
herself in a fountain of water, by the camp." (Ju-
dith xii. 7.) She was then purifying herself from
her uncleanness according to the law of Moses, and
it is known that the washing prescribed was not an
immersion. Moreover, it would have been imprac-
ticable for a woman such as Judith to proceed alone,
and bathe herself in the open air, in the midst
of a camp of twenty thousand men, much less still
to defile by a bath the reservoir from which they
drank. 2d. In 2 Kings v. 14, the Seventy trans-
late, that " Naaman baptized himself in Jordan."
It is true that our version says of this baptism that
" he dipped seven times," and that the Hebrew ap-
pears to countenance it. But the context shows

46 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

that the baptism was performed only on the part of
the body affected by the leprosy (v. 11), which
could be dipped without constituting aught but a
partial ablution of the body of Naaman. Moreover
it is said (v. 14) that he did according to the word
of the man of God ; but the latter had simply
enjoined upon him to wash himself seven times
(v. 10), and by no means to dip. 3d. In Isaiah
xxi. 4, we read : " My heart panted, fearfulness
affrighted me." The Septuagint has " fearfulness
baptized me," which means overwhelmed me, surely
not dipped me. 4th. In Eccles. xxxiv. 25, a man
defiled by the touch of a dead body, baptizes him-
self according to the law of Moses ; this, as will be
seen from Numb, xix., was unquestionably also a
baptism by sprinkling.

The word baptizd has thus nowhere in the Sep-
tuagint the meaning of immerse. The evidence is
still more decisive with reference to the analogous
bapto. In Daniel iv. 23, 33, the body of Nebu-
chadnezzar is said to have been baptized with the
dew of heaven. We ask if a baptism of dew is
like unto sprinkling or immersion !

Finally, we have met in the Septuagint with an
admirable passage, which seems to have been over-
looked, which, however, brings together all the fam-
ily of Greek words relating to lustral purifications,
and illustrates and fixes the relative and Scriptu-

IMMERSION. 47

ral sense of each. The passage is Numb. xix.
13 - 20, which goes into all the details pertaining
to the purification of one defiled by the touch of
a dead body. " A clean person (v. 18) shall take
hyssop, he shall baptize it (/Sa-v^ei) in the water, he
shall sprinkle it Qirepippavel') upon the house, the
furniture, and all the persons that were there," but
especially upon him who touched the dead body.
" On the seventh day he shall sprinkle again upon
the unclean, who shall purify himself " (a<yvt,%opbaty.
Then the unclean must immerse (irXweiv') his
clothes, and then bathe or rather wash himself
(Xovcrerac) with water. Finally, the man who has
not been sprinkled has not been purified at all
(v. 20), and the water which purifies the unclean
is called by the Seventy the " water of sprinkling "
(yScop pavTicrfiov'). The hyssop itself was baptized
in order to serve as sprinkler, which means that
the stem of the plant remained dry in the hand
of the purifier, while the other end alone, which
consisted in spongy flowers, was impregnated with
water in order to sprinkle. The baptism of the
hyssop consisted therefore only in its partial contact
with water, not in an immersion of the whole. The
hyssop is baptized, the unclean is sprinkled upon,
the clothes alone are immersed, being dipped and
held under water. The water which purifies the
unclean is a water of sprinkling. There is noth-

48 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

ing wanting to fix the respective meaning of these
words. The Seventy, finally, in another passage,
already referred to, have succeeded in giving us the
most complete and intense light upon the form of
baptism which could possibly be desired, by inform-
ing us that this purification by sprinkling upon the
unclean from contact with the dead, is nothing else
but a baptism, neither more nor less. They tell us
expressly in Eccles. xxxiv. 30, that such a man is
BAPTIZED (/3a7TTt^o/ieyo9 airo veKpov~). The proof'
is complete, it leaves nothing to be desired, and we
should not know what to add to it. It is fully es-
tablished, that, according to the Septuagint, to bap-
tize is not to immerse, but to sprinkle with water.

§ 21. What is required for a Proof that Im-
mersion is in the New Testament. — After the
Septuagint we come to the New Testament. There
the Baptists are bound to establish three points with-
out which their doctrine cannot stand. 1st. That
there is in the New Testament at least one well au-
thenticated and indisputable case of baptism by im-
mersion. 2d. That there is not one single case of
baptism by sprinkling, for that one case would justify
the Pedobaptist practice. 3d. That any change in
the mode of applying the water or in the quantity
used invalidates baptism and makes it of no effect,
otherwise, again, sprinkling might be allowed as a

IMMERSION. 49

convenient substitute for immersion. This latter
condition of the Baptist doctrine is rigorously indis-
pensable. For if some one should attempt to prove
from the Gospel that a missionary is forbidden to
ride in a carriage, or to travel with a carpet-bag, or
to wear shoes, it would not be sufficient to show
that the Apostles went on foot, without shoes, with-
out baggage, and with a staff only ; it would be
necessary still to prove that no missionary after
them can do otherwise without disobeying a Divine
order. Or, again, if a Lutheran insisted that un-
leavened bread is essential to the Lord's Supper, and
that the sacrament when celebrated without such
bread is null and void, and no sacrament at all, it
would require more than the easy proof that Jesus
Christ and his Apostles used unleavened bread ; it
would have to be shown besides, that there is such
a positive command not to use any other bread, that
any change in the substance of the latter destroys
the sacrament.

"We shall see that the Baptists are still worse off
than the above Lutheran, for they cannot even
prove the first point, much less the two others ; and
we shall establish that, while there is not in the
New Testament a single certain case of baptism
by immersion, there are on the contrary several
decided cases of baptism that took place otherwise.
Let us pass first in review a few passages where
a i>

50 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

the words baptism and baptize are employed in the
original, but have been translated otherwise in the
common version.

§22. The pretended diverse Immersions. — If

we are to credit the Baptist version, we shall find in
the New Testament not only immersion, but what
is more startling, " diverse immersions." (Heb. ix.
10.) Let some one explain to us what these vari-
ous kinds of immersion can be ! We understood
well enough the old version, which speaks of
" diverse washings." For we can conceive some
variety in the partial applications of water ; it can
be poured out, or sprinkled, or made to wash this
or that part of the body. But can one imagine a
diversity in immersion ? The moment that all is
dipped, the application of the water is very uni-
form. Are there many ways of sinking in water,
or of drowning ? These " diverse immersions " are
about as easily understood as diverse straight lines,
or diverse perpendiculars upon a given point, or
the diverse centres of a sphere ; it is simply an
absurdity of our zealous innovators, which they
should not have charged to the Apostles. If they
absolutely wished to innovate, they could have
translated " diverse baptisms," which is conformed
to the original, and the thirteenth verse would have
immediately pointed out one of these baptisms, that
of the unclean, as made by " sprinkling."

IMMERSION. 51

The same must be said of the pretended " im-
mersions of cups, pots, brazen vessels, and beds."
The original speaks here of baptisms for inanimate
objects, the variety of which is well understood from
the law of Moses. For, these objects were some-
times sprinkled (Numb. xix. 18), sometimes plunged
(Lev. xi. 82), without taking into account what
the Jewish tradition might have added, the law
of Moses prescribing, indeed, in some cases, the
immersion of inanimate objects, without ever au-
thorizing in a single instance that of persons. We
read again, in Rev. xix. 13, " He was clothed in a
vesture dipped in blood." The original reads here
baptized, but the Baptist version has not ventured
to translate immersed, but dyed in blood. In truth,
the vesture of the warrior could have been sprinkled
in the battle with the blood of the enemy, but not
immersed in it.

§ 23. The Immersion of the Pharisees. — Fi-
nally, if baptize means invariably immerse, it must
be acknowledged that the Pharisees were decidedly
the strongest Baptists that ever existed. Not con-
tent with immersing their furniture, their pots, and
their beds (j3cnrTUTfj,ov<; kKivwv, Mark vii. 4), they
immersed themselves several times every day. For
we read (Mark vii. 4) that " when they come from
market they eat not except they wash.'1'' " Except

52 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

they baptize" says the original. " Except they im-
merse" says the Baptist version. And Luke (xi.
38) tells us that " the Pharisee marvelled that Je-
sus had not first iv ashed, or in the Greek baptized
himself, or in the Baptist idiom, immersed himself,
before dinner." If the baptism of water was an
immersion, we can scarcely imagine the excessive
difficulties which those poor people must have daily
met with, even under the most favorable circum-
stances, before they could enjoy their dinner. This
perpetual immersion, this aquatic life, must have
considerably injured the health of some, and tired
out the rest. Then, how could they dine at all
when travelling in a country where water is so
scarce as Judaea ? Did they fast every time they
could not find the appliances of immersion ? In
connection with this habit, the Apostle John informs
us (ii. 6-8) that " after the manner of the puri-
fying of the Jews, there were in the nuptial hall
of Cana six waterpots of stone, containing two or'
three firkins apiece when filled up to the brim."
How could one immerse himself in such vases !
No, common sense as well as Scripture teaches us
that this baptism before the repast was not an im-
mersion, but simply a washing, which consisted in
pouring water upon the hands, as in 2 Kings iii. 11 ;
Matt. xv. 20. In the early ages of the Church,
however, devout Jews and Pharisees, on account

IMMERSION. 53

of the undue importance they attached to their
watery ceremony, were generally called " the Bap-
tists," fiaTTTtaTat, in distinction from Christians
(see Arrian on Epictetus, II. 2 ; also Kitto, Jour,
of Sacred Litt., VI. 263). This is, historically, the
oldest use of the name. " A Baptist," in those
apostolical times, was not considered a Christian,
but a Jew, and it was another name for a Pharisee.

§ 24. John the Baptist has neither prescribed
nor described the Mode of Baptism. — In all the

above passages which we have just examined, we
find baptism and baptize in the original, but not
in the translation, and our investigation has had,
therefore, to follow the Greek text. We come now
to consider another class of passages, where all the
versions, save the Baptist Bible, have suffered the
original expressions to stand.

We begin with the first baptisms that are men-
tioned in the Gospel, those which John the Baptist
performed, and which are reckoned by the thou-
sand ; for he baptized multitudes. It is certainly
here, at its very origin, if ever, that we should ex-
pect a description of the ceremony which will leave
no doubt upon the mode of baptism. But one is
surprised to meet in the Gospel with no positive
information on this point. It is easy, however, to
understand the reason for this. Moses had estab-

54 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

lished " diverse baptisms " (Heb. ix. 10), namely,
an immersion for some inanimate objects, vessels,
pots, and soiled garments (Lev. xi. 32), and a
baptism by sprinkling for all the rest, especially
for persons (Numb. xix. 18). The whole Jewish
people perfectly understood both the idea and the
mode of baptism ; they knew that it was an exter-
nal purification for sin and uncleanness, and that
its mode consisted in a partial washing. They
knew, moreover, that the prophets, in predicting
the times of the New Covenant, had announced
that God would purify his people, not by plunging
them into the water, but by " sprinkling " clean
water upon them (Ezek. xxxvi. 25) ; and this is
why it is unnecessary for John to explain his bap-
tism, and also why the Gospel does not deem it
appropriate to repeat what the Old Testament has
already taught, at length and in detail ; for the
New Testament, in all its pages, supposes an ac-
quaintance with the Old. If it were otherwise, if
John the Baptist had introduced a new doctrine, or
a new ceremony, he was bound to explain it and fix
its mode. Indeed, the Gospel would be a very im-
perfect and incomplete book, if it had prescribed
to us a practice new and unknown, without care-
fully describing it ; and we could then, with a
good conscience, dispense altogether with its observ-
ance.

IMMERSION. 65

§ 25. The Waters of Enon. — The Baptists,
nevertheless, have thought to find a proof that
John baptized by immersion in the fact that
" John baptized at Enon, because there was much
water there." (John iii. 23.) "What can be
the use," they say, " of much water, unless to
immerse ? " But let us reflect for a moment that
John dwelt in the desert, that he was surrounded
by immense crowds, by a considerable camp, and
let it be asked, "Was it not necessary, if only to
quench the thirst of the people, that he should
choose a place in the desert where there was much
water ? Add to this, that these Jews practised
daily the Mosaic ablutions, and that the baptism of
John, even if performed by sprinkling, was never-
theless a partial washing, and we have more than
sufficient to explain that " much water," without
having recourse to immersion. In any desert
there is always a scarcity of water, and what is
considered in such a region as much water would
not be reckoned as such in other places. When
the Israelites wandered in the desert, did they
not always establish their camp, from preference, in
the place where there was the most water, and
must we conclude from this that they immersed
themselves ? For the rest, if our explanation does
not satisfy, we could easily do without it. It is
in fact perhaps superfluous, for there is really no

66 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

mention mado in the original of " much water,"
but of " several waters," vScnd 7roXXa, which can
mean nothing else than " several springs." This
passage of John is perfectly analogous to that of
Exodus xv. 27 : " They came to Elim, where were
twelve wells of water, and they encamped there
by the waters." Let us make haste to add, that
they did not immerse themselves in these wells.
Under any circumstances, the fact that there was
much water at Enon no more proves that the
people were immersed, than the fact that there
was much wine in Cana proves that the disciples
became intoxicated.

§ 26. A Half-Million baptized by John. — Fi-
nally, let us take up as a whole the details of the
baptism of John, and we shall find out, by a thor-
ough critical examination of the text, that he cer-
tainly did not immerse when he baptized. We are
told (Matt. iii. 5, 6), that " Jerusalem, and all
Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
went out to him, and were baptized of him."
Surely, here are plenty of people baptized ; let
us fix somewhat the number of the population
indicated in these words. It was all Jerusalem,
and all Judaea, and more still, that is to say, an
extensive and populous region. History relates
that some years later there perished no less than.

IMMERSION. 57

eleven hundred thousand persons at the siege of
Jerusalem. Josephus tells us further, that thirty-
five years after the death of Christ there were
in Jerusalem at the Feast of the Passover three
millions of persons. These data suppose in the
region indicated by the Gospel a probable popu-
lation of six millions of souls. But in order to
place ourselves in a quite safe position, let us be
satisfied with the half of this number, and say three
millions. Then let us suppose again, that, of this
whole population, one sixth only went to listen to
John and be baptized by him. This is a very
modest valuation, since the text says, that all the
inhabitants of this region went, and we remain,
doubtless, below the truth. Well, this sixth forms
a total of five hundred thousand persons. By mak-
ing them defile in a procession, two by two, they
would form a column over a hundred miles long.

§ 27. More than Herculean Labor of the

Forerunner. — All this crowd was baptized by a
single man ! To form some idea of this undertak-
ing, let us say something of the manual labors to
which immersion compels the baptizer. First, it is
well understood that the candidate ought not to
baptize himself, but he is to be baptized by another.
He must be in the arms of the baptist operator, like
an inert and dead body which is going to be buried

58 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

in water. It becomes requisite to throw him back-
wards, to submerge him under the water, and raise
him again to his first position. Immersion sup-
poses, therefore, in the operator a considerable mus-
cular effort, and this the more, because, in the water
up to his waist, he does not feel steady, and his pow-
ers are partly paralyzed. Let us besides say some-
thing of the time which John the Baptist had at his
disposal for accomplishing this formidable labor.
He had already finished baptizing the people, when
he baptized Jesus. (Luke iii. 21.) The Lord was
then just thirty years old, and John six months
older than lie. We see by Numbers iv. 3, 47 that
the Jewish priests did not enter upon their duties
before the age of thirty. It was the time when John,
himself son of a priest, must have commenced his
ministry, — he could not do it before, — and Jesus
commenced at the same age. The official career
of the Forerunner and his baptizing are then limited
to a period of six months. Another independent
proof of this fact is obtained from Luke iii. 1 - 8 ;
where we are told that John did not begin to bap-
tize until the loth year of Tiberius Caesar, which is
equivalent to the 29th after the birth of Christ.
Add now the six months by which John was older
than Christ, and you find that he was thirty years
old when he began to baptize, which until the time
when Jesus was himself of the same age makes ex-

IMMERSION. 59

actly six months. Six months only to immerse five
hundred thousand people ! He did not perform
miracles (John x. 41), and was therefore, in the
manual labor of baptism, reduced to his own
strength, and limited, like every other human
being, by his capacity for enduring fatigue.

See him at his work. He commences baptizing,
and admit, that on the first day, by a great effort,
he succeeds in immersing one hundred. But at
this rate, and supposing that he works constantly,
without the intermission of a single day, without
even resting on the Sabbath, more than fifteen years
are required to baptize his half-million. Even
then, where should he take the time to preach and
to fulfil the religious duties of the law of Moses ?
"Well ! concede to him rest from immersion for the
Sabbath day only, and make him work all the other
days without exception, and you will find that in
order to baptize his half-million within six months,
he should have immersed at least three thousand two
hundred each day ! Can you conceive such a man-
ual labor ? Do you reckon that, according to the
Baptist view, there were no children there, nothing
but adults, and that each must have weighed on
the average at least 120 pounds, a burden which at
each baptism had first to be thrown back, then
dipped, then raised again under the most fatiguing
and unfavorable circumstances ? It was a total bur-

60 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

den of 384,000 pounds which John had to carry
in his arms a first time to bury it in the water, and
a second time to raise it up, or altogether a total
of 768,000 pounds to lift daily, while sunk up to
his waist in water, and staggering in the current
of Jordan. This is equivalent exactly to 384 tons,
the load of a ship, which John the Baptist raised each
day without expiring under the task, and he per-
formed alone the work of a hundred robust porters.
Here is, certainly, a view of baptism far from
spiritual, but one is bound, both by the facts and
by the logic of numbers, to adopt it, if baptism
must absolutely be an immersion. John the Bap-
tist, then, is nothing else but a thaumaturgist, who
has surpassed the labors of Hercules, and whose
heroic baptisms are worthy of figuring amongst the
miracles of the breviary.

§ 28. Impossible Scene of the Three Thou-
sand immersed. — We shall follow a similar line of
argument in reference to the three thousand who
were baptized by the Apostles in Jerusalem. (Acts
ii. 41.) They were all baptized " the same day," and
even in the course of a few hours of that day, since
a part of it had already been spent in preaching to
the multitudes, and their baptism was a result of
this preaching. If this baptism took place by im-
mersion, it must be acknowledged that the mission

IMMERSION. 61

of the Apostles consisted essentially in a manual la-
bor of the most overwhelming kind. Supposing that
the twelve had all been present, and all vigorous
enough to work in the water, they would have had
on an average to immerse each two hundred and
fifty persons without stop or rest. It was for each
a load of three hundred quintals to carry twice, or
six hundred quintals of human flesh to lift in the
space of a few hours. Imagination draws back be-
fore the magnitude of the performance. The Bap-
tists have consequently made an hypothesis which
they would give us as a certainty, namely, that the
disciples of the little Church at Jerusalem have
aided the Apostles, and baptized with them. But
this renders the thing only more ridiculous, more
incredible, and more unworthy of the Gospel. Sup-
pose, indeed, the Apostles incapable of performing
their manual, or, as we might say, carnal labor of
immersion, and calling to their assistance all the
other disciples. Picture to yourself, then, the whole
Apostolate, and the whole Church of Jerusalem,
sunk all the afternoon in water up to the waist,
and at times up to the neck, in order to grasp in
their arms the bodies of three thousand men, to
throw them back, immerse them, and place them
upright again ! How could these disciples, so poor,
so few in number that they met in an upper cham-
ber which could hold thorn all, dispose, in a city

62 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

occupied by their enemies, of such a bathing estab-
lishment, changes of dress, halls for dressing and
undressing ? When previously their Master had
sent them to preach and to baptize, he had enjoined
upon them not to carry two coats. How then did
they perform immersion ? Did they keep on wet
clothes all day, or did they undress and officiate
without garments at each baptism ? Indeed, the
Fathers of the Church, in order to practise a Scriptu-
ral immersion, did not allow any garments to be worn
at baptism, not even by women. They would im-
merse only the naked individual, but not his clothes,
which fact is fully admitted by Dr. Carson. Indeed,
who would think of purifying his hands even sym-
bolically by putting on gloves to wash them. But
no ; the absurdity is too gross, too glaring ; and it
must be owned that it is absolutely impossible that
either John the Baptist or the Apostles should have
ever immersed ; it was only a baptism by sprinkling
or affusion which they could have given.

§ 29. The Baptism of the Eunuch was not an

Immersion. — The baptism of the eunuch is the
great war-engine of immersionists. So much is this
the case, that their great champion, Dr. Carson,
writes : " The man who can read this passage (i. e.
Acts viii. 36 - 39), and not see immersion in it, must
have something in his mind unfavorable to the in-

IMMERSION. 63

vestigation of truth. As long as I fear God, I can-
not, for all the kingdoms of the world, resist the
evidence of this single document. Nay, had I no
more conscience than Satan himself, I could not,
as a scholar, attempt to expel immersion from this
account. All the ingenuity of all the critics in
Europe could not silence the evidence of this pas-
sage. Amidst the most violent perversion that it
can sustain on the rack, it will still cry out, Immer-
sion, immersion ! " (Carson, p. 128.) Alas ! that
the threat of a Baptist curse and the impending
danger of passing for a confederate of Satan should
have failed to make us perceive a single gleam of
immersion in this passage ! But let us produce our
reasons after first quoting the text : —

" And as they went on their way, they came unto
a certain water ; and the eunuch said, See, here is
water ; what doth hinder me to be baptized ? . . . .
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," etc. (Acts
viii. 36-39.)

Preconceived ideas have an astonishing hold on the
imagination, which may explain why both Baptists
and Pedobaptists in reading this account see Philip
and the eunuch standing upon the margin of a
pool of water, and preparing to walk down into it.

64 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

But there is nothing of this in the text. True,
" they go down," but from whence do they go down,
— from the edge of the water, from the shore of a
pond ? Not at all. They go down from where they
were when they halted, namely, from the chariot.
The text says positively that Philip had first " come
up " on the chariot (v. 31) before he went down.
We must not add to the text by making them
come down twice, once from the chariot to the road,
and a second time from the dry ground into the
water, nor must we make them go up twice in the
inverse order, for there is but one descent and one
ascent. Where was the chariot when they stopped ?
Right over the water, rfkdov ktrl n vScop. To be
correct, the translation should not read they came
unto, but over, a certain water. The chariot was
being driven through some pool of water, when they
stopped in the very midst of it. The pool of course
could not be deep, since they drove through it, and,
moreover, it contained but " a little water," ti vBcop.
They alighted from the chariot direct into the water,
and went up again from it into the chariot. This
descent from the chariot and ascent into it again is
the only one mentioned in the text, and can have
no reference whatever to the mode of baptism, of
which it formed no part, and about which there is
nothing said or hinted here.

This view, however, which we hold to be the only

IMMERSION. 65

one conformed to the text, is not essential to our pur-
pose, and we are prepared to give to the Baptists the
benefit of the usual idea implying two descents and
two ascents. Let us agree, therefore, that they first
come down from the chariot and then walk to the
edge of the water. Now, according to our version,
they go down into the water. The Greek et? means
just as well to or unto the water, as in Matt. xv. 24,
xxii. 4, for it is met in Scripture no less than 538
times with this latter sense. Afterwards they come
up out of the water ; the Greek e/e is found 119
times in Scripture meaning from, against 89 that it
means out of. In the analogous baptism of Jesus
Christ (Matt. hi. 16), the preposition used is cltto,
which means only from, and not out of the water.
The most probable meaning would then be, that, in
order to perform a baptism, they walked to the water
and after from it. But both meanings being justified
as far as the Greek prepositions are concerned, the
Baptists might choose theirs, and we by the same
right might adopt ours, according to which the two
personages would have merely proceeded close to
the water without going down into it. It is quite
enough, at any rate, that the passage should be sus-
ceptible of a construction different from that of the
Baptists, to prevent its being used as a proof for
immersion, and strictly we are not required to pro-
ceed with this discussion any further. But we feel

66 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

strong enough on other points of the passage, to
make to the Baptists another gratuitous concession
and yet refute them on their own ground. Let us
admit, therefore, for a while, that, in order to be
baptized, Philip with the eunuch, and even Jesus
with John the Baptist, have really all gone down
into the water, and that they came out of it, and
we shall still ask, Where do you see the immersion?
There are in every case of immersion three succes-
sive and very distinct acts : — 1st. The minister and
the candidate both walk down into the water. 2d.
The immersion takes places. 3d. They come out
of the water. Reading our text with all docility,
and translating exactly as our Baptist friends would
have us, we see the first and the third acts men-
tioned, but as to the immersion itself not a word of
it. The coming into the water and out of it are
not the baptism itself, but only concomitant circum-
stances. Once in the water, did Philip plunge the
eunuch, or pour water upon him with his hand ?
There is not a single word on the mode of baptism
in the very passage which, above all others, was to
prove immersion ! It is very like the tragedy of
Hamlet with the part of Hamlet omitted.

But such is the utter weakness of the Baptist
view of this, their best passage, that we can afford
to proceed from concession to concession, to grant
them all they ask ; surrender freely all the positions

IMMERSION. 67

we have gained, and yet defeat them. Granted,
then, that the mode of baptism is fairly described
or implied in these expressions, " They went down
into the water and out of it." We shall still ask,
Where is the promised immersion ? They have
gone down into the water. Very well ; but how
deep have they gone into it ? That is the question.
Did they bury and submerge themselves ? Did
they put the head under water ? Decidedly not.
The narrative affirms most positively the contrary,
for it says that both the baptizer and the baptized
went down together, and alike into the water. It
does not make the one go deeper than the other.
But Philip was not immersed ; neither, therefore,
was the eunuch. They both went down into the
water, but not under the water. Baptists add to
Scripture the dreams of their imagination, when
they make the eunuch go deeper into the water
than Philip, when they lead one of them into and
the other under the water.

It is known that the Jews wore a short robe,
went about with naked legs and bare feet resting
on sandals. This attire enabled them to wade
through water without inconvenience, and even
with pleasure. The eunuch and Philip were rid-
ing in the desert, where water is always scarce, for
there is not a single stream of water between Jeru-
salem and Gaza ; they pass over a place where they

68 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

notice " some water," n vBcop. The water always
runs into the lowest spots ; in the desert it will
be found in holes and in the bed of ravines. If the
chariot was not actually driving through the water,
the two personages would have, of course, to walk
down to get at the water, and walk up again. They
have no vessel in readiness to draw from the shal-
low water, they walk therefore into it, Philip stoops,
takes water up in his hands, and pours it over the
head of his companion. Such is the only explana-
tion consistent with the text, for there is no means
of there introducing immersion, without doing vio-
lence to some portion of the narrative. Our de-
scription of this baptism agrees with the oldest
sculptures and mosaics representing the baptism
of Jesus Christ, such as those of Beneventum and
Ravenna. The numerous pictures and sculptures
found in the catacombs of Rome, and which date
from the earliest ages of the Church, are also unan-
imous for this form of baptism. They represent
Jesus standing in water, and John the Baptist on
dry ground, pouring from the hollow of his hand
water over the head of the Saviour.

The importance Baptists attach to this passage
is sufficient to justify us in offering a simpler and
more popular method of showing that it contains
no vestige of immersion. Let us apply its words to
something else than baptism, and transfer them to

IMMERSION. 69

the regions of common life, where experience and
common sense may more easily avail. An Egyptian
reads the narrative of a journey through Russia.
Two travellers are described as driving together in
a sleigh ; in a certain place they stop, and alighting,
they went down both into the snow, and afterwards
came up out of the snow into the sleigh. As will
be noticed, these are exactly the Scriptural expres-
sions, as translated by Baptists ; nothing is changed
except that snow is placed instead of water. Now
what a miserable pedant would this African be
held, if he were stanchly to assert, against any and
everybody, that the two travellers did both certainly
then and there plunge, dip, and immerse themselves
heels over head into the snow ! But what need
have we to speak of snow ; let us return to the
water. Every time that a man fords a brook or a
stream he invariably goes down into the water, and
again comes up out of the water, — and for all this
he has neither been plunged nor immersed. Why
then talk of the fanciful immersion of the eunuch ?
In investigating this passage, we have made to the
Baptists many unnecessary concessions ; we have
complacently followed after the shadow of immer-
sion in all the paths, real or imaginary, which were
pointed out to us ; yet we cannot grasp the phan-
tom. Look at it in the face and it vanishes, it is
nowhere to be found. We have conceded much,

70 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

but there is one thing which we cannot absolutely
concede, and that is adding to the Word of God
the dreams of sectarian imagination !

§ 30. The Fishes of Tertullian. — Tertullian,
at least, quotes a much stronger passage in behalf of
immersion, and it is singular that our modern Bap-
tists should have declined to take advantage of it.
Basing himself on these words of our Lord to his
disciples, " I will make you fishers of men," (Matt,
iv. 19,) he concludes that, in order to be saved
through baptism, the Christian must commence by
making himself a fish in the water. (De Baptis-
mo, II. 2.) This picturesque argument should,
however, rather teach that the sinner must be
plucked away from the state of immersion, which
here figures sin, and that, once converted, great
care should be taken not to bring him back to it,
as would the Baptists.

§ 31. Baptist Immersion is a Parody of the
Burial of Jesus Christ. — The last passage in be-
half of immersion, which we have to consider, is
that of Rom. vi. 2-5, with its parallels, Gal. iii. 26,
27, and Col. ii. 11, 12, where mention is made of
" being buried with Christ by baptism into death."
We have already shown, while treating of the bap-
tism of the Holy Ghost (§ 4), that it is impossible

IMMERSION. 71

to apply these passages to water-baptism, since it
would imply that it is the ceremony which saves
us, sanctifies us, and accomplishes within us all
the work of God. We need not explain again
this spiritual sense, which is so evident, but we will
trace out some of the revolting absurdities involved
in the carnal interpretation forced on these words.
With the simple and ignorant, who cannot raise
their eyes above the water of baptism, and who, like
certain disciples of John the Baptist, seem to ignore
the baptism of the Holy Ghost, this passage appears
most conclusive for immersion. They do not per-
ceive that the above texts describe this baptism,
which causes us to die with Christ, under four fig-
ures, — "a burial, a plant, a garment, and a cir-
cumcision made without hands" ; that these figures
must all share the same fate, be either all spiritual-
ized or all materialized ; and that it is an impious
conceit to practise only one of them while rejecting
the others. Romanists are more scrupulous here
than Baptists, for they materialize at least two, the
burial and the garment, and, in order better to con-
form to Scripture, array the neophyte in a white
robe. Moreover, while we are told but twice to be
buried with Christ, we are enjoined no less than
five times to be crucified with him. (Gal. ii. 20,
v. 24, etc.) Consequently some fanatics, such as
Maria Peters and others, trusting to the carnal

72 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

interpretation of Baptists, have caused themselves
to be crucified in obedience to God. " The holy
Catharine of Sienna" underwent also by a miracle
a similar crucifixion. It is again by following this
same Baptist sense that Romanists do not perform
their devotions without a cross ; that they walk on
their knees, and through twelve stations, the via
cruris, the " path of the cross," which ends by bury-
ing one's self in the tomb with Christ. They crucify
themselves much more than the Baptists bury them-
selves, and they bring forth for their crucifixion an
array of passages far more plausible and imposing
than those adduced for immersion. Even in their
baptism, Romanists carry out the idea of burial
with greater conformity to the letter of Scripture
than Baptists. In obedience to these words of Je-
sus Christ, " For that she hath poured this ointment
on my body, she did it for my burial," (Matt. xxvi.
12,) they practise in baptism an unction of oil over
the head, and they think that if a sprinkling of oil
implied sufficiency for the Lord a symbol of burial,
a sprinkling of water will also do the same. If in
addition they make the sign of the cross over the
person baptized, it comes from their anxiety to
leave out nothing which is best adapted to symbol-
ize in material figures a death and burial with the
crucified Saviour. Are the Baptists as scriptural as
Romanists in their theatrical representation of the
death of Christ ?

IMMERSION. 73

"We utterly deny that immersion has any analogy
with the burial of Christ, unless as a parody and
profanation of a holy thing. The truth is, that
after his death, the body of our Saviour was em-
balmed, wrapped in a shroud, carried inside of a
vault hewn out of the rock, and either stretched on
a level with the floor, or rather raised up in a niche.
Baptists, on the contrary, would have the people be-
lieve that he was buried according to modern fash-
ion deeply underground, which is false. And yet,
on the ignorance of such a plain scriptural fact
rests all their ceremony of immersion. Moreover,
had the body of Christ been let down into the
ground and covered with earth, where is the anal-
ogy between burial and immersion ? Sprinkling
comes much nearer to it. At a funeral the bury-
ing element is always thrown upon the body, and
thus alone is it buried. The water, therefore,
should be applied to the body, and not the body
to the water. The sprinkling or affusion of water
might represent burial, but immersion never will.
The Baptist minister and the candidate both pro-
ceed down into the water. But is it usual for those
who bury the dead to half entomb themselves in the
grave with the corpse ? Our Saviour was buried
for three days, the Baptists do not bury for three
seconds. The idea of sepulture implies at least
some duration, but a rapid plunge not only has not

74 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

the slightest analogy with a burial, but stands in
contrast. The most wretched actor on the last of
theatres would not risk himself in acting a funeral,
where the dead would not lie even three seconds in
the tomb. The conditions indispensable to a sym-
bolic burial are in no way fulfilled by immersion.
It is but a burlesque, a miserable parody, of the
death of Jesus Christ, and that is all.

§ 32. Baptism as a Burial is an Anachronism.

— Imagination and credulity are not the only requi-
sites indispensable in order to transform baptism in-
to a ceremony of burial. A strange anachronism
has still to be added. John must have buried with
Christ all the people and disciples in the water of
baptism four years before the death of Christ him-
self! And the disciples, in their turn, must have
buried others after the same fashion ! The people
must have been buried with Christ long before he
was buried himself! But the people baptized by
John had not the slightest conception of a crucified
Messiah ; the Apostles themselves began faintly to
understand atonement only when their Master was
on the eve of parting with them. It must then be
acknowledged, either that their baptism did not bury
at all with Christ, or else that they buried the people
unknown to them, just as Father Bataillon baptizes
and saves Chinese without their suspecting any-

IMMERSION. 75

thing about it. Then, through his baptism, Christ
would have been buried with Christ three years
before his death, which is rather startling. It is
trne that it was before his death that the Lord insti-
tuted the Holy Supper, but this was only a few
moments before, when the scene of crucifixion was
already beginning, and his disciples could under-
stand his atoning death. Besides the Lord gave,
but did not himself take the Sacrament, since he
could not, even in a figure, eat his own body and
drink his own blood.

§ 33. Immersion is a difficult, complicated,
asid expensive Ceremony, which leads to Ridi-
cule and excludes Edification. — A superficial
study of baptism once in our younger days had drift-
ed us pretty far into the Baptist current, when the
scandalous spectacle . of immersion created misgiv-
ings, and caused us to turn back. At the sight of
what we then witnessed for the first time, we were
overwhelmed with the feeling that neither Jesus
Christ nor his Apostles could have instituted a cere-
mony so complicated, and so far removed from the
simplicity of the Gospel. We must be permitted
here to describe this ceremony, with the leading cir-
cumstances which it involves. First, it is a very
expensive practice. We do not live in the desert,
and in towns or populous regions there is no fa-

76 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

cility for immersing in the river and under the
canopy of heaven. Churches, therefore, have to
be constructed especially in view of immersion.
It requires, in the middle of the edifice, a basin large
enough to allow both the minister and the candidate
"to go down" according to Scripture, which de-
scent necessitates steps resting in the water, and
occupying some room ; then sufficient space must
remain to allow the rite of burial to take place.
There is need, therefore, of a reservoir of consid-
erable size, very expensive, and occupying a large
space. Then seats must be arranged so as to allow
the whole audience to witness the ceremony, a desid-
eratum scarcely ever obtained, even by building the
church in the shape of an amphitheatre. After this,
the church must contain at least two, if not three,
private dressing-rooms, one for men, another for
women, and the third for the minister, where they
can take off their clothes and put them on again
after drying themselves. A pretty complicated
system of pipes is also necessary in order to bring
in and carry away the enormous supply of water
needed. In towns where there are no water-works,
and where water must be carried in buckets, the
labor is considerable ; we have seen several men
employed for a half-day in filling one of these
basins. But this is not all ; — in winter, ice-cold
water would suit neither the candidate nor the offi-

IMMERSION. 77

dating minister ; the church therefore also requires
an extensive apparatus for warming the water.
A Christian friend, who, without being present at
the ceremony, had only witnessed these formidable
preparations, confessed to us that they were quite
sufficient to convince him that the Apostles could
never have practised immersion, seeing that they
administered baptism promptly, and wherever they
had been preaching on their travels.

The basin once filled, it is out of the question to
immerse the people in the garments they wear. It
would be not only indecent, especially for females, but
very awkward, because, once drenched, they could
scarcely move, and still less pull off their adhering
clothes. A peculiar dress had, therefore, to be in-
vented, long and loose robes which both sexes put
on, the men being thus publicly dressed in the habit
of women, contrary to the injunction of Scripture.
(Deut. xxii. 5.) But these robes swelled out and
floated on the water in an indecent manner. Ameri-
can genius has therefore invented the sewing all
round them of leaden bullets. Invention has been
carried still further, and the officiating minister is
dressed, under the baptismal gown, with a complete
water-proof suit. Boots, trousers, and vest are all
of one piece, so as to protect against the danger-
ous consequences of a prolonged stay in water.
(Poor Apostles ! if they had only known the virtues

78 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

of india-rubber when they had to stand all day in
water to immerse the thousands!) Since one is
immersed but once in a life-time, it is not worth the
while to have a baptismal robe made on purpose,
and, besides, the very making of the gown, with
its delays, might cool the ardor of many a candi-
date, and allow time for reconsideration. The Bap-
tist churches are therefore compelled to have their
own vestiary stored, in readiness for any emergency.

It must be acknowledged that all this indispensa-
ble water-apparatus, the peculiar construction of the
building, and the set of baptismal robes, increases
considerably the expenses of worship, probably no
less than twenty to thirty per cent, so that the same
monev needed to construct four Baptist churches
•would more than erect five, were it not for the pecu-
liar ceremony. Immersion has thus already absorbed
millions of dollars in the United States alone, and
France, with Switzerland, may have, sooner or later,
to pay dear for it. It would, perhaps, be worth the
while to question whether the Apostles have really
enjoined this expenditure, and whether it would not
be more consistent with their principles to spend
that money in the evangelization of the people.

But let us come to the ceremony itself. In
front are seated the neophytes with an embarrassed
air. dressed in black gowns similar to cassocks,
and in this guise scarcely recognizable by their

IMMERSION. 79

own friends. A stranger would take them to be
priests or monkish penitents, about to perform some
great ceremony. The minister also officiates in
the same cassock, which conceals the water-proof
vestment. After preaching in that dress, he goes
down first in the basin, and then invites the can-
didates to follow him, one after another. The con-
gregation, who see them disappear under the floor,
and whose curiosity is excited, all rise ; they press
forward, push, and elbow each other, so as to see
the ceremony. We know of a Baptist brother who,
thus pushed, accidentally fell into the basin from a
great height, and came near being drowned. Many
persons present have come from curiosity, drawn
by the grotesque scene, and although the minister
has carefully warned them to behave with propriety
and not to laugh, they cannot always restrain them-
selves. In most cases, when the neophyte steps into
this deep water, fear and anxiety are vividly depicted
on his face ; the minister, therefore, loses no time
in pronouncing these sacramental words falsified :
" I immerse thee in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Then, grasping
him in his arms, he throws him back violently,
sinks the body under water, and promptly raises
it up again. The subject immersed is then panting
for breath, sneezing, blinded by the water, and he
staggers. The minister holds him up with one

80 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

arm, while the other is engaged in wiping the face
and eyes with his handkerchief. Then the immersed
ascends from the water through the same step-ladder
which brought him down, and hastens through the
church to the dressing-room, leaving behind a stream
of water wherever he goes. Last of all, the min-
ister hastens to his dressing-room, and the service is
abruptly closed, unless there be present a second
minister to proceed with it. During the whole of the
ceremony, it is morally impossible that the candidate
could have quietly collected his thoughts, calmly
edified himself, and prayed. On the contrary, he
has undergone a difficult, complicated, and even
fearful operation, which has claimed for externals
all his attention, and this pretended solemnity in-
variably closes with towels, combs, and a tedious
toilet.

In perusing these details, several will be aston-
ished, some will be tempted, to disbelieve. But let
no one think that these are fancy details, for they
are not only drawn from nature, but they are es-
sential to the ceremony. Which of them would
you leave out ? Which of them do you think could
be dispensed with ? How are you going to practise
immersion in a different and more appropriate man-
ner ? Baptists, of course, have done everything in
their power to render their ceremony as solemn and
as far removed from ridicule as practicable, and,

IMMERSION.. 81

after all, it remains from necessity just such as we
have described it, — a practice entirely opposed to
the simplicity of the Gospel, and highly repugnant
to a somewhat enlightened sense of propriety. We
have described, however, immersion as it occurs
under the best circumstances ; namely, in a church
edifice. Had we depicted immersion in the open
air, and the burial of believers through the ice,
we should have had to go into more offensive de-
tails, and to speak of wild scenes which almost
baffle description.

§ 34. The Ceremony is sensual and carnal,
dangerous to Health and even a Peril to "Life.
— But the love of great ceremonies is deeply seated
hi human nature ; it forms indeed the principal at-
traction in Romanism and Paganism. Why be sur-
prised if this same tendency manifests itself in the
bosom of Evangelical Christianity, and endeavors to
gain ground and make itself plausible ! There is in
this dramatical ceremony of immersion something
irresistible to weak minds. It possesses for some a
fascination of allurement, for others a fascination
of terror, for all the captivating charm of mystery,
just as is the case with the ceremonies of initiation in
free-masonry. And with both the Baptist and the
masonic initiations, those who have undergone the
ordeal are forever after seized with an irresistible

4* F

82 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

desire to inflict it upon others. We touch, here
a law of human nature, that innate love of over-
doing the ceremony, and of absorbing the spir-
itual sense in the carnal type. Carried away by
a similar impulse, the Apostle Peter was once
tempted before his conversion to apply the sensual
meaning to the water of baptism. " Peter says
unto Jesus, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus
answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part
with me. Simon saith unto him, Lord, not my feet
only, but also my hands and my head ! " Here is
exactly our immersionist. The moment he thinks
the symbolic water good for anything, it must be
applied first to his feet, then to his hands, then
even to his head, or, in a word, to the whole body.
But Jesus instantly reproves the carnal mind of
his disciple ; he shows him that a partial washing
is best adapted to the figure, the spiritual import
of which might otherwise easily be forgotten in the
form. " He that is washed needeth not save to
wash his feet, but is clean every whit." (John xiii.
8 - 10.) This circumstance explains, undoubtedly,
why at a later period Peter established such a se-
vere contrast between the baptism of the Holy
Ghost and that of water, which he lowers as " put-
ting away of the filth of the flesh." (1 Pet. iii.
21.) He remembered having been tempted once
to exaggerate the value of a baptism of water,

IMMERSION. 83

and having been reproved by his Master for his car-
nal mind. The blind man whom the Lord healed,
more humble, did not attempt to carry obedience
beyond the injunction of his Master ; he was satis-
fied with washing his eyes in the pool of Siloam,
although unbelief might have prompted him to
perform a complete immersion as more efficacious
than a partial affusion of the water.

Some Baptists, to be more Scriptural, baptize
only in the open air, in ponds or rivers, and even
often break ice in the midst of a rigorous north-
ern winter, in order to immerse their new-made
adherents. This practice is constant in America,
and becomes often a necessity from the fact that
in country places a bathing-tub of sufficient di-
mensions is seldom found. Indeed, the first im-
mersions performed in a locality almost always take
place out of doors, until Baptists become numerous
enough to build a chapel with the immersing appa-
ratus. But it is easily understood that, if a person
is converted to Baptist views in winter, he will not
be made to wait till summer to fulfil the pressing
duty of immersion, the more so because his con-
victions might grow cold while the water of the
river is growing warm. They hasten therefore to
perform the ceremony at any risk. The candidate
is told that there is nothing to fear for his health,
that God protects in a special manner those who

84 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

obey him, and that this which under any other
circumstances would be an imprudence will prove
but a blessing. Certain it is, that these fair prom-
ises of a special interposition of Providence are not
realized, and that some pay for immersion with
their health, and even with their life. But the
fatal result not being immediate, it happens with
this as with the panaceas of quack doctors, who
while promising, and indeed sincerely, impunity
and wonderful effects from their treatment, kill
hi reality a great many people. The fatal results
pass unnoticed, enthusiasm is sustained, and dupes
multiply notwithstanding. "We have seen a woman
who, immersed in the river in mid-winter, reached
her home with difficulty, forming but one icicle
with her frozen garments, and had to be thawed
before the fire. She escaped with a violent fever.
That Mormon priest will be remembered, who some
years since, in attempting to immerse two women
in the Trent, drowned them both. Similar cases
have occurred in America. But in the heat of
victory and conquest, the casualties of the battle-
field are passed unnoticed.

In order to give one instance amongst many, we
borrow from the recent work on baptism of the
Rev. J. Wood, the following incident which hap-
pened in his neighborhood. He states that " A
young lady was recently immersed in Paris, Can-

IMMERSION. 85

ada West, in the winter season, and died shortly
afterwards from the effects of it ; and her father,
after listening to the funeral sermon preached on
the occasion, — in which the minister had remarked
upon the mysteriousness of Divine Providence in
cutting off one so young and promising, — unable
to control any longer his indignation, rose and
publicly charged him with the death of his daugh-
ter ! " Another lady, of Baptist principles but in
delicate health, who was urged to undergo an iced
immersion, declined, unwilling to believe that it
was the will of her Saviour she should leap into
the very jaws of death for the sake of a ceremony.

§ 35. Baptism by Immersion is an old Hea-
then Practice. — We have said that this zeal for
immersion proceeds from a carnal propensity of
human nature to exaggerate the figure and over-
do the ceremony. Let us add now that this prac-
tice is more ancient than Christianity, for it is pa-
gan. The Greek and Roman heathen are perfectly
agreed with the Baptists as to the mode of bap-
tism, only we must give them credit for more
moderation and less exclusiveness than modern
immersionists. For they did not absolutely deny
the validity of sprinkling, but were satisfied with
underrating it, and devoting that form of bap-
tism to the worship of the infernal deities. To

86 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

them, however, immersion was the most genuine
form of baptism ; it was reserved for Jupiter and
the great gods. Heathen and Baptists are thus
agreed that immersion is the only baptism wor-
thy of the Supreme God, and that it is indispen-
sable to his worship. (Virgil, iEn. II. 719 ; IV.
635 - 638.) They differed however in this, that
the heathen, with correct taste, thought that a
religious lustration in a pond, or in a basin, or
any stagnant water, was unworthy of deity, and
they insisted upon a resort to running water.

Attrectare nefas ; donee me flumine vivo

Abluero.

(Mn. II. 719.)

vhaci iroTdfilois
eXovaaro.

(Euripides, Alcest. 160, 161.)

They understood rightly baptism as a symbol of
purification, and considered it just the reverse from
purifying to have twelve or more successive im-
mersions of different people, and different sexes,
in one basin, with the same unchanged water. Pu-
rity, and not defilement, was the object of their
religious lustrations.

But whence this strange conformity of feeling
and practice between modern Baptists and old
heathen ? Morally it arose from this love of im-
mersion, which, as we have seen, lies in human

IMMERSION. 87

nature ; but historically the Catholic Church bor-
rowed very early this rite from paganism, as well
as many other objectionable practices, and the Bap-
tists in turn borrowed immersion from the Papists.
Horace informs us that superstitious mothers in
Rome made immersion the object of a vow to Ju-
piter, and that although this baptism performed
in winter in the Tiber had often the most fatal
consequences, yet there was no falling off in the
zeal for immersion. Delira mater, etc. (Sat. II.
3. 289.) But here is a most striking instance
which we have gathered from the Latin poet
Juvenal. Describing the practice of superstitious
women, upon whom the priests inflict a penance,
he says : " And in order to make an expiation for
the sins of the whole year, having broken the ice
in winter, she will go down into the river, will im-
merse herself three times in the Tiber, and though
frightened will dip her head in the very current,
will come out of the water shivering, and drag
herself home with difficulty through the fields."

Et totum semel expiet annum,
Hibernum fracta glacie descendet in amnem,
Ter matutino Tiberi mergetur, et ipsis
Vorticibus timidum caput abluet, etc.

(Sat. VI. 518-521.)

Here is a real Baptist scene drawn from nature,
and there is no detail wanting to it ; but this sort

88 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

of baptism was practised in Rome before Jesus
Christ by heathen, as it continues to be even at
the present day by the Hindoos in the Ganges.
The Druid priests also conferred a baptism by im-
mersion in the sacred lakes as an initiatory rite.
(Keysler, Antiq.) It is easy now to see where
the Fathers found their immersion, indeed, their
triple immersion, which they always practised in
honor of the Trinity. It was a means of popu-
larizing baptism amongst a people, pagan, igno-
rant, and superstitious, to identify it with an old
and favorite superstitious practice. This cold im-
mersion through the ice of a river was a merito-
rious work, a sort of penance ; it satisfied, by an
act of mortification, the self-righteousness natural
to man. On the other hand, the moment that the
water of baptism was supposed to possess some
miraculous virtue for regenerating, as the Fathers
believed, it was but fair to exclaim with Peter :
"Not only the feet, but also the hands and the
head ! " that is to say, the whole body. Let us
be just, let us render to Ceesar the things of Csesar,
and baptism by immersion to the heathen, who
have practised it long before Jesus Christ, and
continue it still in the Ganges.

§ 36. The Baptism of the Holy Ghost is an
Aspersion. — The water baptism of the Gospel is

IMMERSION. 89

very different from the pagan ceremony. It repre-
sents in a figure the baptism of the Holy Ghost ;
but we know that the latter is " poured out and
shed " on us. (Acts ii. 18, 33 ; x. 44 ; xi. 15, 16.)
We are certainly not plunged into the Holy Ghost,
although the Baptist version makes John say :
" Jesus Christ will immerse you into the Holy
Ghost and into fire." (Matt. iii. 11.) Here is at
last purgatory introduced into the Bible by Bap-
tists for the benefit of the Romish Church, if the
Lord is to give his disciples a plunge into the fire.
Scripture, however, teaches us very clearly and
very positively that the Holy Ghost came down,
was "poured, shed, fell, and sat upon" the heads
of the disciples like tongues of fire. (Acts ii. 3.)
This was the greatest baptism, only foreshadowed
by that of water, and yet it was visibly and figura-
tively applied to part of their heads alone, and not
to the whole body. The Spirit was applied to them,
and not they to the Spirit, much less were they
thrown down and plunged into the Holy Ghost. In
the very same manner the water of baptism must
be applied to the candidate, and not the candidate
to the water, as do Baptists. (See also Eom. v. 5 ;
Tit. hi. 5, 6 ; Eph. i. 13.) The Spirit rests upon
us, and not we into or under the Spirit ; and at
the baptism of Jesus, John saw the Spirit " descend-
ing and alighting" upon him. Moreover, the blood

90 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

of Christ, which washes us from all sins, is it a
"blood of sprinkling" or a blood of immersion ?
(Heb. xii. 24 ; 1 Pet. i. 2.) And if an aspersion
of blood is sufficient to wash us in figure, why
should not an aspersion of water be also suffi-
cient ? Why insist to be washed by the water more
completely than by the blood ?

§ 37. While the Ordinances of the Gospel he-
long to all, Immersion is to many absolutely
and forever impossible. — As we have already
acknowledged, immersion is a difficult, expensive,
and often dangerous practice. It cannot generally
be performed without very complicated preparations.
And if it is impracticable in several climates, under
the freezing blasts of the north, as well as in the
midst of the droughts of the African desert, or of
the steppes of Asia, it is also absolutely impossible
in many cases. First of all, for sickly persons, the
clinici of the Fathers. Baptism is often craved for
on a bed of sickness and death, and then few Bap-
tists have the cruelty to deny aspersion as valid.
But is this not tantamount to a confession that
immersion is not indispensable to the form ? Why
again excommunicate so many of their brethren for
no other reason than that they have been sprinkled
instead of immersed ? Why this indulgence for
those sick in the body, and this severity for those

IMMERSION. 91

supposed to be sick intellectually, who, however
sincere, cannot succeed in perceiving the command
of immersion in the Bible ? Is not this the indi-
cation of a bad cause, sullied with fanaticism and
sectarian spirit ? We have already explained the
necessity of considerable physical strength in the
Baptist minister, to enable him to fulfil his minis-
try, because, while occupying in the water an un-
stable position, he has to carry in his arms the
heavy load of an inert body. But there are men
so corpulent, women of such size, that no Baptist
minister could possibly immerse them. Their bap-
tism is beyond the muscular power of man. They
cannot be requested to immerse themselves, for
immersion is burial, and no dead man can bury
himself or even help at his burial ; he must remain
perfectly passive. Now we ask, Is the kingdom of
God only for people of small stature, or must we
invent engines to assume the place of the Baptist
minister ? Why compel all the grenadier body-
guard of the Emperor of France, or even the
Coldstream Guards of the Queen, to be Pedobap-
tists ? Is not the Gospel intended for all ?

§ 38. Immersion is an Indecency and even a

Blasphemy. — But this is not all. Immersion is a
public indecency. Is it proper that a man should
take, in public and before a promiscuous congrega-

92 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

tion, a young woman in his arms, clasp her appar-
elled in a loose bathing-dress, plunge her, wipe her,
and assist her out of the bath, with her light clothes
indecently clinging to her form ? Shall they make
him believe, who knows ever so little the manners
of the East, the immense distance which there sep-
arates the sexes, so that a man dares not even look
at a woman's face in public, and it would be his
death to touch her, — shall they make him believe,
we say, that the Apostles would have dared to take
by the waist the women of Jerusalem, bathe them
with their own hands in the presence of an indig-
nant public, and send them back home, dragging
through the streets of Jerusalem their clothes drip-
ping with water ? The Apostles would have been
immediately stoned by a justly irritated people.

Immersion is not only an act of indecency, but
it is also, by implication, a blasphemy. For in that
parody of the death of Christ, there cannot be a
burial, without also a resurrection, and this the
Apostle himself declares. (Rom. vi. 4.) The first
man who saw in water-baptism a burial, Menander,
disciple of Simon the Magician, consistently taught
also that baptism was a resurrection. It is evident
that the same person who buries the neophyte raises
him up again from the tomb, for he could not be left
buried under water even for one moment. In figure
he is resuscitated, just as much as he is buried.

IMMERSION. 93

The Baptist minister acts then figuratively in the
place of God, whom he unwittingly personifies. He
takes possession of the candidate, who must become
passive ; he crucifies him with Christ, he causes
him to die, he buries him, and raises him up again
with Christ. For it is impossible to carry out only a
portion of the figure. Involuntarily the whole pan-
tomime of redemption is acted, if any part is at-
tempted, by a water-burial with Christ. Is not this
virtually a blasphemy, from which the evangelical
Christian must turn aside with disgust and indigna-
tion, saying, " Father, forgive them, for they know
not what they do " ? No wonder, then, that our
reformers should have expressed strong abhorrence
for Anabaptism, and should have maintained with
Zwingle, that " those who rebaptize crucify Jesus
Christ."

§ 39. Immersion is in Scripture the Symbol

of the Divine Curse. — We could close here our
remarks on immersion, for we believe to have
shown by a superabundance of proofs that it is
not the baptism of the Gospel. But in order to
be more complete still, we are anxious to sound
Scripture again, to see if immersion is mentioned
in any way apart from baptism, and whether some
symbolical sense is attributed to it. Now, we shall
soon find that the Bible knows immersion, and it

94 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

has made of this pagan ceremony the symbol of
malediction. The Apostles Peter and Paul have
themselves put us in the way of this symbolical
meaning, through the contrast between baptism and
immersion which their language implies. When
Peter speaks to us of the baptism of Noah, and of
the eight persons saved in the ark (1 Peter iii. 20,
21), and we inquire what was the mode of this bap-
tism, the response is evidently that they were not
plunged in water, but only sprinkled by the rain of
heaven which fell upon them. But at the occasion
of this baptism, who was immersed ? " The world
of the ungodly " ; they alone were immersed in the
waters of the deluge, and immersion was henceforth
among the people of God a symbol of malediction.
God himself immersed the sinful and perverse race
during forty days and forty nights, in reality bury-
ing them into the waters of the deluge, whilst he
baptized the family of Noah by the sprinkling of
heaven. After the same manner Paul teaches us
(1 Cor. x. 2) that after the deluge God baptized
his people when they passed through the Red Sea.
Certainly they were not plunged ; the spray of the
sea driven by the wind could alone have reached
them, and thus baptized them by sprinkling. "Who
at the time of this baptism was immersed ? Pha-
raoh and his army ; God himself immersed them in
the Red Sea as a malediction. Moses declares to

IMMERSION. 95

us (Ex. xiv. 27, 28) that " the Lord overthrew the
Egyptians in the midst of the sea, and the waters
returned, and covered the chariots, and the horse-
men, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the
sea after them ; there remained not so much as one
of them," — for they were all immersed, that is to
say, drowned. Then follows this beautiful descrip-
tion of the immersion : " Then sang Moses and the
children of Israel this song unto the Lord, and
spake, saying, The Lord is my salvation. Pha-
raoh's chariots and his host hath he cast into the
sea : his chosen captains also are drowned (in the
Hebrew immersed) in the Red Sea. The depths
have covered them : they sank into the bottom as a
stone. The sea covered them ; they sank as lead
in the mighty waters." (Ex. xv. 1, 4, 5, 10.)

The New Testament, faithful to this symbolic
sense, represents the dragon as pouring water from
his mouth like a flood, to immerse the woman who
personifies the Church, — that is to say, the believ-
ers. (Rev. xii. 15.) It is for the same reason that
Jesus Christ himself advises that those who commit
offences should be immersed, but not his disciples.
(Matt, xviii. 6.) When the confidence of his dis-
ciple Peter wavers, then only he inflicts upon him
a commencement of immersion, from which his
faith saved him in time, otherwise he would have
been completely immersed. (Matt. xiv. 30.) The

96 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

herd of swine, as soon as they were possessed of the
evil spirits, rushed to the sea for immersion. (Matt,
viii. 32.) Immersion is thus, in the intention of
our Saviour, the wages of unbelief, the punishment
of offences, a symbol of malediction.

What perversion of ideas, to wish to replace the
sign of the covenant of grace by a type of maledic-
tion, and to compel the Christian minister to act
the part of the dragon, who, in his hatred towards
Jesus Christ, would immerse all believers in the
water !

The grave of Jesus Christ belongs to the infidel
world, and is reserved to the impenitent sinner; he
will be buried with the Son of Man, never to rise
again, and this burial is symbolic of the curse of
God. But the believer finds " a lively hope only
in the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. i. 3),
and, obedient to his Master, lets the dead bury
their dead.

CHAPTER IV.

THE BAPTISM OF JOHN THE BAPTIST.

§ 40. The Observation of Facts is the Best
Method to follow. — The external and ceremo-
nial form of baptism once decided, our researches
ought henceforth to have for an object to reach the
hidden meaning of this sacrament, and to deter-
mine who are the persons who ought to receive it.
Two methods here offer themselves to us. One
would consist in ascertaining first the hidden mean-
ing, and then deciding from it who are the proper
persons to receive baptism ; this would be regulat-
ing the practice by the idea. The other method
would take for a starting-point the practice of the
Apostles, — would examine facts, class them, and
deduce from them the theory. The first method
is the most brilliant and also the easiest, but at the
same time the most superficial, the one which most
favors peculiar ideas, and which serves to support
all preconceived theories. The second is more slow
and difficult, but much safer, and therefore this is

98 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

the one we adopt. It is in the Gospel as it is in
nature : from the attentive and critical observation
of a great number of facts we draw the most solid
conclusions and systems truly based on reality,
whilst we go astray when we begin with abstract
ideas, with a notion of how a thing should be, to
descend thence afterwards to facts, and seek to
make the latter fit with a preconceived system.
We resume, therefore, our researches by the in-
vestigation of a great fact, — the baptism of John
the Baptist.

§ 41. Presumption that the Baptism of John
and that of the Apostles form hut one. — Most of
the works on Baptism, whatever be their color, seek
to establish a fundamental difference between the
baptism of John and Christian baptism, — a differ-
ence sufficient, they say, in the eyes of the Apostles
to lead them to rebaptize those who had already
received John's baptism. (Acts xix. 1 - 5.) Sev-
eral Baptists, however, have contended that the two
baptisms are essentially but one, and we are happy
to be able to agree with them on this point. Such
also is the opinion of Calvin. To admit that there
could have been two baptisms, differing either as to
form or to substance, is to place one's self under the
impossibility of understanding anything as to Chris-
tian baptism. When should one baptism have ceased

THE BAPTISM OF JOHN THE BAPTIST. 99

and the other begun ? Most writers fix this mo-
ment at the first Pentecost after the death of Jesus
Christ, when the Apostles received the baptism of
the Holy Ghost. It would follow that, in what pre-
cedes, namely, in the four Gospels, which is to say,
the first half of the New Testament, whatever is said
in reference to baptism must be understood as that
of John, and that we should be confined in our
researches upon Christian baptism to the second
half of the New Testament. Thus, while the data
of the whole book might already seem insufficient
to enable us to reach some safe conclusion on Chris-
tian baptism, many divines are still willing to throw
away half, without thinking that they thus place
themselves under the unavoidable necessity of re-
sorting to fancy rather than to facts, if they would
reconstruct a doctrine with materials altogether
insufficient, incomplete, and of uncertain relation.

But this is not all. It would become necessary
then to treat of the two baptisms separately, to write
the history of each, showing its beginning and its
end. The baptism of John, its mode and idea,
should first be well studied, then the Christian bap-
tism subsequent to it should be well contrasted,
differences well ascertained, new principles and new
rules of practice established for the latter. This is
an impossible undertaking, which never has been
and never will be accomplished ; without which,

100 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

however, nothing certain could be decided in refer-
ence to the Christian Baptism. As to ourselves, if
we were convinced that the baptism of John is dif-
ferent from that of the Apostles, either as to the
mode or the meaning, we should lay aside all
further researches as a vain attempt, and we should
hereafter consider baptism as an impenetrable mys-
tery, which it has been the intention of Scripture to
conceal from us. With the Quakers, we would
abandon its practice, as wanting Scriptural basis,
and fit only to divide Christians.

§ 42. The Pretended Anahaptism of Paul to-
wards Certain Disciples of John. — There is then,
already, a strong presumption that the two baptisms
are identical ; let us now change presumption into
proof. Only one fact has ever been adduced in
support of the opinion that there are two distinct
baptisms of water under the Gospel ; it is the ana-
baptism of Paul in reference to the baptism of
John : —

" And it came to pass that Paul came to Ephesus ;
and finding certain disciples, he said unto them,
Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed ?
And they said unto him, We have not so much as
heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he
said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized ?
And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said

THE BAPTISM OF JOHN THE BAPTIST. 101

Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of re-
pentance, saying unto the people that they should
believe on him which should come after him, that
is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they
were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And
when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy
Ghost came on them. And all the men were about
twelve." (Acts xix. 1 - 7.)

At first sight, this passage appears very strong,
and it seems impossible to escape from the con-
clusion, that if, after having received the baptism
of John, it was still necessary by command of an
Apostle to be re-baptized in order to obtain Chris-
tian baptism, there must be indeed a radical and
fundamental difference between the two baptisms.
The conclusion is too logical to be avoided ; we do
not therefore contest it, but we attack the premises
as insufficient. If these disciples were really re-bap-
tized, which the translation affirms, but the original
does not, we must say that their first baptism was
far from a true baptism of John ; it was, on the
contrary, so irregular and spurious, that Paul felt
bound to consider it as void and of no effect. Let
us follow the narrative. "We are in the year 55 or
56 of the Christian era ; that is to say, over twenty-
five years after the death of John the Baptist, and
over twenty-two since the foundation of the Chris-
tian Church. The Messianic view of the Forerun-

102 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

ner has therefore become superannuated and inad-
missible ; it belongs to the past, is outshone by new
light and does not meet with the creed of the Apos-
tles. A baptism made then in strict accordance
to John, namely, to obtain the remission of sins
through faith in a Messiah only expected, but not
come, is a falsehood ; for the Messiah has come,
and such a baptism, in denying it, denies the Gos-
pel. Can such a baptism be valid ? Certainly not.
It might have been allowed a quarter of a century
earlier, but at this point it was an apostasy against
which it was necessary to protest, by holding such
baptism as of no account whatever.

This explains why Scripture speaks of these peo-
ple as being certain disciples, which means that
they were not some of the disciples, but only spu-
rious disciples, neither Jews nor Christians, an
anomaly and an exception. They had not been
baptized by John himself, for this is not said, and
in that case they would all have been old men.
More strange still that these twelve, after having
been baptized in Jordan, should all meet together
twenty-five years afterwards in Ephesus, and that
during a quarter of a century, and through long
travels, not one of them should have ever heard
aught of the accomplished atonement of Christ, of
the Church, and of the Holy Ghost. All this is im-
possible. For the same reason, these twelve must

iHE BAPTISM OF JOHN THE BAPTIST. 103

have been strangers in the city of Ephesus, and
were only recently arrived when Paul met them ;
otherwise they would have heard of the Christians
in the place, and not have remained in such gross
ignorance of Christianity. We must therefore ad-
mit that these people had just come from some dis-
tant locality, that some old disciple of John, still
unenlightened, had imparted to them an imperfect
doctrine, and that they had been baptized by him
against all rules, and even in ignorance of the true
principles of John the Baptist. For the latter had
himself preached the baptism of the Holy Ghost,
the very existence of which was ignored by these
twelve, and he had announced the immediate com-
ing of Jesus Christ, whom these pretended disciples
did not know either, as is apparent from the lan-
guage of Paul. A baptism according to John the
Baptist, more than twenty-five years after his death,
would have been irregular enough, but these " cer-
tain disciples " had come very short of even such
a baptism. They had virtually received only a re-
ligious lustration, having of baptism but the form.
The external seal of baptism had been placed on
words and doctrines imbued with ignorance and
heresy. We should ourselves have declared their
baptism void, and re-baptized them. We should re-
baptize Mormons, and yet Mormon baptism, imply-
ing some knowledge of Christ and the existence of

104 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

the Holy Ghost, is vastly superior to the baptism
received by the " certain disciples."

All this is still clearer in the original than in the
version. It does not affirm that the disciples had
believed ; it makes rather their faith the object of
the question of Paul : " Have you received the
Holy Ghost, having believed ? " Which amounts
to saying : " Have you received the Holy Ghost
through faith ? " The Apostle neither affirms nor
denies that they have believed, but means only that,
if they are truly disciples and have believed, they
must also have received the Holy Ghost. Their
answer shows sufficiently that they have neither
the spirit nor the faith, and need to be catechized
by Paul. He expresses his astonishment that they
should have been baptized at all, by asking, " Unto
what " — namely, unto what doctrine — '' have you
been baptized ? " And they answer, " Unto John's
baptism," — namely, in professing the doctrines of
John.

Calvin does not think that these people were re-
baptized with water by Paul, but that their second
baptism was only that of the Holy Ghost conferred
by the laying on of hands. The original does not
bend to this interpretation, for it describes the bap-
tism and the laying on of hands as two successive
and distinct acts. But nothing in the text prevents
the translation of Beza, Calixtus, and Wolf, who

THE BAPTISM OP JOHN THE BAPTIST. 105

make the 5th verse the conclusion of the speech of
Paul, and read : " John said unto the people that

they should believe, etc and having heard

him (John) they (the people) were baptized." Ac-
cording to this reading, there is nothing said in the
text about the disciples being re-baptized, but only
that hands were laid upon them to obtain the Holy
Ghost. We do not indorse this last translation,
but it agrees perfectly with the Greek original, and
this alone will be sufficient reason why the pas-
sage cannot serve as a basis upon which to erect
the doctrine of a double baptism of water under
the Gospel.

§ 43. The Spiritual Import of Baptisin is sus-
ceptible, in the New Testament, of a Gradual
and Historical Development. — We shall be re-
proached, perhaps, with having implied, in the re-
marks that precede, a certain difference between
the baptism of John and that of the Apostles, even
after declaring them identical. Let us, then, ex-
plain ourselves. It is only an essential difference
between the two baptisms that we deny ; but we
readily admit a shade. A distinction is to be made,
in water baptism, between the form, the subjects
who receive it, and the dogmatical idea attached to
it. We see between John and the Apostles no dif-
ference, either as to form or as to subjects ; but as

106 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

to the dogmatical idea we acknowledge a difference,
if not in the substance, at least in the development ;
for after the death of Christ, the light on the work
of Redemption is much greater than in the days of
the Forerunner. But the spiritual idea remains in
substance just the same. Both baptisms have regard,
1st. To repentance and conversion ; 2d. The re-
mission of sins ; 3d. The Lamb of God, who takes
away the sins of the world ; 4th. The effusion of the
Holy Ghost as the final object to be reached. (Acts
ii. 38.) These points are just the same ; their de-
velopments alone differ. Remission of sin is a doc-
trine far clearer in the mouth of Paul than in that
of John. A crucified Saviour is more than a Lamb
of God yet to come ; a Holy Ghost present, more
than a Holy Ghost promised ; but the doctrines and
fundamental ideas of both baptisms are identical,
they differ only through the circumstances and time
of their taking place. Moreover, all this develop-
ment was not effected suddenly on the day of Pen-
tecost ; it was the work of years, and with it pro-
gressed also the spiritual import of baptism.

This identity is further proved by other sacra-
ments which have been placed in analogous circum-
stances of development. "The circumcision of
Moses " (Acts xv. 1) was essentially the circum-
cision of Abraham, and the Lord says so (John vii.
22). But this ceremony, while remaining the same

THE BAPTISM OF JOHN THE BAPTIST. 107

in substance, the same as to subjects who are to re-
ceive it, the same in its innermost idea, was bound
after Moses to a far more developed doctrine than in
the days of Abraham. Under all circumstances and
changes it remained always the sign of the Cove-
nant, but the Covenant itself was undergoing new
developments, while the ceremony of initiation re-
mained one and the same, and no one claimed that
there were two circumcisions. It would be just as
erroneous to conclude for two baptisms, because of
the developments which the doctrine of the New
Covenant has undergone from the days of John the
Baptist to those of the Apostles. On the same prin-
ciple we should have two Lord's Suppers. The first
instituted by the Lord himself, previous to his death
and the establishment of the Church, and celebrated
in view of a coming sacrifice ; while we take now
the Lord's Supper in remembrance of a sacrifice
already accomplished. It recalls to our minds
details of the crucifixion and resurrection of the
Lord ; it evokes a whole circle of ideas which exist-
ed but in germ at the time of its first celebration.
This sacramental ceremony has undergone, there-
fore, no change in the form, but some in its hidden
meaning, has received spiritual developments at
least as considerable as those of the baptism of
water, yet it is always the same holy supper, as it
is also always the same baptism.

108 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

§ 44. The whole History of Baptism, from
John the Baptist to Paul, shows its Unity and
Identity. — A rapid glance at the history of John's
baptism, from its beginning until the time when it
is supposed to have made room for a new baptism,
will confirm us still more as to its identity with
that conferred by the Apostles after Pentecost. Let
us first remark that this name, " Baptism of John,"
is imparted to it in the Gospel, from its origin, and
before the existence of Christian baptism proper.
(Luke vii. 29 ; Matt. xxi. 25.) What could this ex-
pression mean, since this baptism " was not really of
John, but of heaven " ? The name must undoubt-
edly have been given, to distinguish it from the other
water baptisms which existed before, and were prac-
tised according to the law of Moses. The baptism
of John did not differ from these as to the form, but
was specifically another, by a spiritual sense more
developed ; it was a baptism of repentance. John,
as prophet, was the first to introduce it and practise
it, and hence its appellation.

This baptism came, then, from heaven, and, not-
withstanding the name the people gave it, it was
not the human invention of John ; he teaches us
so himself, when he says, " He that sent me to bap-
tize with water, the same said to me," etc. (John i.
33.) But is it credible that God, to introduce
the New Covenant, should have needed two dis-

THE BAPTISM OF JOHN THE BAPTIST. 109

tinct and successive water-baptisms ; that he should
have instituted one, that of John, to last just six
months, or at most three years and a half, until
the Pentecost ? It would be without precedent in
the rest of Revelation that the Lord should have
instituted such an ephemeral sacrament, such a
short-lived ceremony, and it is unworthy of the
Almighty to suppose such volatility in his counsels.
Jesus Christ arrives on the scene, and his dis-
ciples begin also to baptize, and their baptism is
performed under the responsibility of Jesus as being
his own baptism. (John iv. 1, 2.) " The Phari-
sees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more
disciples than John, though Jesus himself baptized
not, but his disciples." Nothing points out then
the slightest difference between the baptism of John
and the baptism of Jesus and his disciples. On the
contrary, the disciples of John are jealous of the
great number of baptisms performed by those of
Jesus (John iii. 26 ; iv. 1) , and their master does
not reply, that with the same external form another
new baptism is conferred, which they cannot per-
form, but his answer implies that there was but one
and the same water-baptism for the two parties.
Therefore it is generally granted that the baptism
practised by the disciples of Jesus before his death
was precisely the same as that of John, and that first
at Pentecost was the transition to the new baptism
made.

110 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

Neither does Scripture place the ministry of John
and his baptism outside of the New Covenant and
as antecedent to it, but it considers them as integral
parts of the Christian dispensation, as its beginning,
its starting-point. This is set forth by several decla-
rations. In Luke ill. 18, we are told by the origi-
nal, " John the Baptist evangelized to the people."
He who evangelizes is on the same ground with the
Apostles, and belongs, with them, to the Gospel dis-
pensation. When the Apostles make choice of one
to replace* Judas, it is required that the new Apostle
should have been a witness of all the facts of the
new economy, " beginning from the baptism of
John." (Acts i. 22.) Peter also places the bap-
tism of John as the first fact of Christianity (Acts
x. 37), and Paul does the same (Acts xiii. 24).

When Jesus Christ gave the holy supper to his
disciples, they had then been baptized with no other
baptism than that of John, and had there been
two baptisms, the holy supper would have preceded
Christian baptism, instead of the latter serving as
initiation. When, after his resurrection, Jesus gave
to his disciples the order to go forth and baptize the
nations, — Christian baptism not having begun yet,
— the order should have been : " Do not henceforth
baptize with the same baptism which you have hith-
erto practised, but use a new water-baptism." There
is of course, no trace of such an important change,

THE BAPTISM OF JOHN THE BAPTIST. Ill

and it is revolting to Christian feeling to think that
the Apostles should have successively practised two
baptisms, and led into error the people and future
ages by retaining absolutely the same form for
a ceremony essentially different. When Jesus is
about ascending to heaven, he imparts to the dis-
ciples his last instructions, and they refer to bap-
tism. (Acts i. 5.) He repeats to them, after John
the Baptist, that there are two baptisms, that of
water, and that of the Holy Ghost. The first they
had already received from John ; the second alone
was yet to come, and the Lord does not mention a
third as also coming. To him, the baptism of John
is the baptism of water. He does not make the
slightest allusion to a Christian water-baptism dif-
ferent from that. It would have been a new insti-
tution, of the origin and character of which no trace
has been left, and of which Jesus Christ has not
said a single word, at the very moment when he is
supposed to have introduced it. The Pentecost
comes, and with it the baptism of the Holy Ghost,
so often promised, and which the twelve are the first
to receive. Are then the Apostles re-baptized with
water ? Not one. They never receive this pre-
tended Christian baptism. The baptism of John is
their only water-baptism. Apollos also, who had
received John's baptism, is not re-baptized when
converted and brought over to a full knowledge of

112 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

the Gospel. (Acts xviii. 26.) Finally, the differ-
ence which was thought by some to exist between
the two water-baptisms, inasmuch as the Christian
one conferred the gift of the Holy Ghost, does not
really exist, for the Holy Ghost was not obtained at
baptism, but only afterwards by a distinct opera-
tion, namely, the laying on of hands. Indeed, the
Christian water-baptism conferred by Philip on the
Samaritans (Acts viii. 12) did not impart to them
aught more than John's baptism. It was necessary
that two Apostles, Peter and John, should come
down expressly from Jerusalem, some time later, to
add to their baptism of water, and through prayer
(ver. 14), the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

Thus, by following up the history of the baptism
of water, from John the Baptist until after the
foundation of the Church, we can nowhere find a
point of transition to help us from one baptism to
another. All that has been said on the existence
of these two baptisms and their point of transi-
tion is mere hypothesis, without even the shadow
of a proof. While, on the contrary, Jesus Christ
and his Apostles, neither through their words nor
through their practice, ever acknowledge but one
baptism of water, which Scripture calls the bap-
tism of John, and which continues up to this day.
Those who, like Apollos, knew nothing but the
baptism of John, knew in fact nothing but the-

THE BAPTISM OF JOHN THE BAPTIST. 113

baptism of water, that is to say, the rudiments
of the Gospel, what belongs to its initiation. In
our subsequent researches, therefore, we shall look
upon as synonymous expressions these Scriptural
words, "baptism of John" and "baptism of water";
and we shall gather from the whole New Testament,
beginning with John the Baptist, our data upon
water-baptism, its mode, the subjects that are to
receive it, and its spiritual meaning.

CHAPTER V.

BAPTISM BEFORE FAITH.

§ 45. Necessity of a Progress of both Parties
in the Question of Baptism. — Having already
expressed our conclusions on the form of baptism,
and having recognized besides that under the
new dispensation there is but one water-baptism,
namely, that of John, the time has come now to
turn our investigations towards the class of persons
upon whom it should be conferred. This is an
apple of discord between the Evangelical Christians
of the day. The minority, the Baptists, have in-
scribed on their flag the device, " The baptism of
believers alone," and have excluded infants from
all participation in this ceremony. The majority,
the Pedobaptists, accept in full the Baptist device
as to adults, but reject it as to infants, for they
baptize generally no adults except believers, but
baptize also infants, who, whatever might be said
to the contrary, do not believe at all. Thus it is
the relation held by water-baptism to faith which

BAPTISM BEFORE FAITH. 115

is differently understood by the two parties, upon
which they cannot agree, and for which they war
together, and often excommunicate each other.
Such serious and prolonged disagreement between
sincere Christians sufficiently indicates that here
lies a difficulty which has not yet received a per-
fectly satisfactory solution. It must be therefore
allowable for any Bible-Christian to seek one, even
were it different from that of either of the two
opposing parties. The apparent novelty of an ex-
planation ought not to deter, provided it springs
from Scriptural facts. For if unity is ever reached
on this question, it will not be by holding each
exclusively to the formulas of his own party, but
rather by trying new paths, which may lead to
some modification of the usual theories of bap-
tism. We have endeavored to contribute for our
own part to this result, and, the better to study un-
fettered the facts imparted by Scripture, we have
begun by laying aside all former notions, both
Baptist and Pedobaptist, so as to reach indepen-
dent conclusions. The result has led us, it is true,
to the Pedobaptist practice, but at the same time to
a doctrine which is strictly that of neither Baptists
nor Pedobaptists.

§ 46. The only Three Opinions possible on
the Relation of Baptism to Faith. — The rela-

116 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

tion of baptism to faith can offer but three alter-
natives : — 1st. Baptism always after faith ; this
is the Baptist opinion. 2d. Baptism before and
after faith, — before for the children and after
for the adults ; this is the Pedobaptist opinion.
3d. Baptism always before faith. This last is
our opinion, which happens to be neither Baptist
nor Pedobaptist, but upon which alone we think
that the practice of infant baptism can obtain a
solid foundation. The Baptist opinion, as can be
seen at a glance, enjoys, as well as ours, perfect
simplicity and clearness. It has in this a great
advantage over the Pedobaptist opinion, which is
complex, and implies an evident contradiction.
Why adopt two rules acting inversely to each
other, — baptism always after faith for adults,
and baptism always before faith for infants ?
Moreover, there is between infancy and manhood
an age of transition for which the double rule op-
erates very badly, becomes uncertain, and is practi-
cable only through an arbitrary choice. The conse-
quence is, that, to many logical minds, Pedobaptism
appears as a doctrine full of contradictions, uncer-
tainties, and arbitrariness, and this feeling drives
them, often with regret, but through conscientious-
ness, logical consistency, and need of certainty,
into the Baptist idea, which appears to them alone
satisfactory. The finger must be laid on the weak

BAPTISM BEFORE FAITH. 117

spot ; it is useless and dangerous to cherish any-
longer illusions. The constant going over to Bap-
tist principles of excellent men and conscientious
ministers is a fact very serious, but not without a
cause which calls for a remedy. It is Pedobaptism
in its present shape which brings forth Anabaptism,
leads to it, and will continue to operate in the same
direction, until it has revised its own doctrine, in
order to rest its practice on better foundations than
heretofore. This adoption of two contradictory rules
in reference to the subjects of baptism, and the ar-
bitrary practice which follows, are the cause that
the Pedobaptist doctrine is so vague, so difficult to
grasp, and so unsatisfactory to minds in want of
clear and definite notions. Such vagueness does
not only give a vantage-ground to Baptist principle,
but it also spoils Pedobaptism, and brings it into
confusion and misty error. The shelter afforded
by vagueness, combined with the love of tangible
notions, explain why so many mystical and super-
stitious ideas are connected with infant baptism,
assimilating it more or less to a sacramental mira-
cle, and thus creating in the bosom of many Evan-
gelical Christians an aversion for the practice.

But we are anticipating conclusions which must
result from the study of facts. Let us therefore
begin by a scrupulous examination of all the cases
of baptism related in the New Testament, and let

118 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

the question be asked before each, separately,. "Did
the ceremony take place before or after faith ? "
"We can thus show how we have been forcibly led to
adopt the opinion which we profess. To prevent
all misunderstanding, however, let it be first well
understood that in our definition we mean by faith
precisely what the Baptists mean, not mere external
assent, not historical faith, but the faith that saves,
justifying faith ; that which Baptists require for
admission to both Baptism and the Lord's Supper.
This being well understood, we say that the Apos-
tles have always and invariably conferred baptism
before justifying faith. And if we make good this
point, it follows of necessity that the whole Baptist
practice must be rejected as anti-Biblical.

§ 47. The Baptism of John was not a Bap-
tism of Believers but of the Unconverted. — The

first baptisms performed under the new dispensa-
tion, are those of John the Baptist. They were
very numerous, and also, with the exception of that
of Jesus Christ, very uniform. He baptized im-
mense crowds, for " Jerusalem and all Judasa, and
all the region round about Jordan, went out to him
and were baptized of him." (Matt. hi. 5, 6.)
This number, as we have already shown while treat-
ing of immersion (§ 26), must have reached about
half a million. We would, however, be satisfied for

BAPTISM BEFORE FAITH. 119

our argument with ten thousand, and even much
less. Now did John baptize these people after faith,
or, what comes to the same, were this crowd, these
five hundred thousand, believers ? Much thought
is not needed to enable one to answer with the most
entire confidence, No ! These were not all believers.
Had they been converted, the Lord would not have
called them a little later a perverse and adulterous
generation ; he would not have grieved that there
were so many called and so few chosen ; he would
not have been crucified by this very people of Jeru-
salem, who had flocked to receive the baptism of
John ; and, three years after the death of the Fore-
runner, the first Christian church would not have
been composed of a mere handful of disciples, gath-
ered in an upper chamber, but the whole country
would have risen at the call of the Apostles, and
the land have been rapidly covered with Christian
churches. But the result shows, beyond all cavil,
that the baptism of John, that is to say, the baptism
of water, was not a baptism of believers ; and if it
was not so then, it never became such afterwards,
for otherwise it would have been an entirely new
sacrament, entirely different from the former, which
would be contrary to Scripture.

§ 48. The Baptized of John gave only an Ex-
ternal Assent to his Preaching:. — It will then be

120 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

asked, If not believers, whom then did John bap-
tize ? The Gospel tells us that they were people
who repented, or rather professed repentance, who
confessed their sins, in reference to the near coming
of the Messiah. (Matt, iii.) This confession of sins
did not enter into the details of the private life of
each individual, for the ministry of John would not
have been equal to it, and besides it would have
been an anticipated Romanism. It was a general
confession of impurity and of the need which man
has to be washed of his sins by Divine mercy,
in order to partake of the kingdom of heaven.
Such a general confession is obtained still, at the
present day, without much difficulty, and very sin-
cerely, from the great mass of men. They recog-
nize willingly enough the truth of the Gospel and
the supremacy of Jesus Christ. They confess that
they are sinners, that they need salvation and puri-
fication from their sins. It is doubtless an impor-
tant confession, a basis for the preaching of the
Gospel ; but, nevertheless, those who make it are
far from being converted, far from being believers,
in the exalted and spiritual sense attached to this
word. Had John limited his baptism to believers
alone, to those who gave proof of conversion and
of a change of heart, he would not have found fifty
persons to baptize, perhaps not even twelve, instead
of half a million. Those baptized by John, taken as

BAPTISM BEFORE FAITH. 121

a whole, were certainly neither more enlightened,
nor nearer the kingdom of heaven, than the mass of
nominal Christians who crowd into our Protestant
churches. It was a people of the called, but not
of the chosen. And yet the disciples partake of the
Holy Supper, at the hands of the Lord, when they
had received no other external initiation to the
Church than this multitudinous baptism of John.
With the exception of Judas, they had doubtless
become believers ; otherwise the Lord would not
have given them the Supper ; but their faith had
followed, and* not preceded, their baptism.

§ 49. Jesus receives the Baptism of Water
before tliat of the Holy Ghost. — With the crowd,
and coming one of the last (Luke iii. 21), Jesus
Christ presents himself to John to be baptized. The
Forerunner is awed at the thought of baptizing the
Messiah. " He forbade him, saying, I have need to
be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me ? And
Jesus said unto him, Suffer it to be so now, for
thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness."
There can be no talk here of a baptism before or
after faith ; for Jesus, having never sinned, did
neither repent nor believe. His baptism, like his
circumcision, and like his observance of the Pass-
over, is a " righteousness," which it becometh him
to fulfil, because he is the Son of Man, and must

122 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

serve as a model to man in the accomplishment of
religious duties. Besides, inasmuch as he partici-
pated in human nature, which is defiled, it was
becoming that he should receive in his flesh the
external sign of purification. But even in his bap-
tism, it was his intention to impart to his disciples
and to future ages a great lesson, namely, that the
baptism of water must precede the baptism of the
Holy Ghost. "And Jesus, when he was baptized,
went up straightway out of the water : and lo, the
heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the
Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting
upon him : and lo, a voice from heaven, saying,
This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well
pleased." Such, then, is the instruction which
Jesus gives us through his baptism ; — the unc-
tion of the Spirit and the adoption of the Father
bestowed after the baptism of water. This instruc-
tion of the Lord has been set at naught by the
Baptists ; for they teach that the unction of the
Spirit and adoption must precede their baptism,
and they baptize only the believer who has received
already the Spirit and adoption.

And let no attempt be made to lessen the value
of this instruction by claiming that the Spirit of
God is here put to signify the miraculous gifts of
the Holy Ghost, for these were not known until
after Pentecost. This Spirit of God received after

BAPTISM BEFORE FAITH. 123

water-baptism was the same Spirit which led Jesus
into the wilderness (Matt. iv. 1), and certainly it
was not the gifts that led him away, but the Spirit
as a person, or at least a divine influence. The
Spirit of the Father spoke in the disciples before
Pentecost (Matt. x. 20). The miraculous gifts of
the Holy Ghost were represented by tongues of
fire, while the Spirit as a person, the sanctifying
Spirit, came under the winged, celestial, and per-
sonal figure of a dove. The Spirit of truth, the
Comforter, does not consist exclusively in one of
his external manifestations, namely, extraordinary
gifts, but in that Spirit which receives every man
who believes. (John iii. 5 ; vii. 39.) If any man
have not this Spirit of Christ, he is none of -his
(Rom. viii. 9), and nevertheless all Christians had
not received spiritual gifts. This is the Spirit
which is shed in our hearts, with which we are
sealed, which is the earnest of our redemption, and
which is received only after faith. " After that ye
believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit."
" Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye
are sealed unto the day of redemption." " By one
Spirit are we all baptized, and we have been all
made to drink into one Spirit." (Eph. i. 13 ; iv.
30 ; 1 Cor. xii. 13.) This same Spirit which is
imparted to the believer was undoubtedly with
Jesus from the beginning, but he received it in

124 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

an official and ostensible manner only after the
baptism of water. Immediately after, but not
before.

§ 50. The Multitudinous Baptisms of Jesus

Christ. — The numerous baptisms of John are fol-
lowed by the baptisms of Jesus Christ, administered
through his disciples. But it is ever the same
multitudinous baptism, conferred upon people who
have not saving faith, but only repent and give an
external adherence to the preaching of the Gospel.
Thus, the disciples of John complain that " Jesus
baptizeth, and all men come to him." Again, " the
Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized
more disciples than John." (John iii. 26 ; iv. 1,
2.) Which does not mean that in total Jesus had
baptized more people than John, which would be
impossible, but that, at the time when Jesus entered
on his ministry, the crowd which continued coming
to be baptized had divided itself between John and
Jesus, and that the Lord was beginning to receive
the preference, baptizing then more people than
John. But it was exactly the same baptism, bap-
tism of the multitude, national baptism. John the
Baptist preached very severely to them, calling
them " generation of vipers" ; but for all that it is
not seen that in a single instance he had refused
baptism to any one who wanted it.

BAPTISM BEFORE FAITH. 125

We must not be surprised, therefore, in seeing
several of these new disciples, after they have been
baptized and have followed the Lord for some time,
grow cold and abandon him. The Lord himself
was saying to those he had admitted to baptism,
" But there are some of you that believe not."
(John vi. 6-4 - 66.) For he knew from the begin-
ning which were those amongst the baptized that
would believe, and which that would persevere in
their incredulity, notwithstanding their baptism.
(See also xi. 15.) The fact is, that the ministry
of the Lord was spent in preaching the Gospel to
these unconverted masses, which had been baptized
with water, but not with the Holy Ghost, and which
it was necessary, after their baptism, to urge to
believe. The first of the Apostles, Peter, had him-
self been baptized while in an unconverted state,
and it is only long after, that the first germ of
true faith was exhibited by him. (Matt. xvi. 16.)
Therefore was the Lord saying to him long after
his baptism, " When thou art converted, strengthen
thy brethren." (Luke xxii. 32.)

We reach thus the death of our Saviour, and
even to Pentecost, without meeting in the Gospel
any other baptism than that of the masses and
the unconverted. Of the large numbers who lis-
tened to the preaching, the avowed enemies of the
Lord alone — namely, some Pharisees and lawyers —

126 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

were not baptized ; and yet they were not excluded,
but they voluntarily abstained. (Luke vii. 30 ; xx.
1 - 7.) " They did not believe him, and they were
not baptized"; that is to say that they gave no
adherence to the preaching of the Gospel, and
through this absence of baptism, through this re-
fusal of formal assent, " they rejected the counsel
of God against themselves." These unconverted,
however, who caused themselves to be baptized,
were certainly well-disposed people, who experi-
enced religious wants, who felt themselves drawn
towards the Gospel ; they would not otherwise have
taken the trouble to proceed as far as the desert,
to listen there to the preaching of John and of the
Lord, and they would not have consented to receive
baptism.

§ 51. The Three Thousand baptized after
Pentecost were of the Called, and not of the
Chosen. — We have thus far found all the practice
of John the Baptist, and all that of the Lord, not
only different from that of the Baptists, but just the
reverse. It is even impossible to imagine a more
flagrant contradiction. But perhaps the Apostles
have taken the lead, and given the example in this
subversion, and have hastened, after the death of
their Master, to undo his work, to contradict his
principles, and to re-baptize after faith those whom

BAPTISM BEFORE FAITH. 127

he had baptized before they were truly converted.
Let us see.

At the first baptism performed after Pentecost,
the Apostles baptize no less than three thousand at
one time, and in a single afternoon. (Acts ii. 41.)
Here is certainly the same multitudinous baptism
as that of John the Baptist and of the Lord ; there
can be no mistake about it. The circumstances
attendant upon this mass baptism are, for the Bap-
tist point of view, still more aggravating than all
previously related. It was a multitude of people
who had gathered together in the street during the
forenoon, and those in part strangers (ver. 6-11).
Some had come through curiosity, others to mock
(ver. 12, 13). Then Peter preaches unto them the
Gospel, denounces their unbelief and hard-hearted-
ness, and reproaches them twice with being the
murderers of Jesus Christ (ver. 23 and 36). The
heart of these people is moved, and they ask what
they shall do, for they have as yet no knowledge of
the Gospel, except what they have just heard, and
can express but a vague feeling of acceptance of
what Peter has said. The Apostle urges them to
be baptized immediately, not because they have be-
lieved and possess the faith that saves, for on the
contrary he has just told them, " Be baptized every
one of you for the remission of sins." (ver. 38).
He places the remission of sins, or what comes to

128 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

the same, saving faith, after baptism, and puts before
only the desire of pardon, for which a feeble germ
of repentance is sufficient. The order of the Apostle
-runs thus : 1st, Repent, that is, desire to do better ;
2d, Be baptized ; 3d, After baptism, strive to obtain
the remission of your sins by believing ; 4th, After
faith, if so be that you believe, you shall certainly
receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. This all is con-
tained in verse 38, and the place assigned by the
Apostle to the baptism of water in the work of re-
generation, is placed between external assent and
saving faith, as an intermediary, which aids in pass-
ing from one to the other.

Happily, the narrative of this first baptism after
Pentecost has been made to us in so detailed and
complete a manner, that we may arrive at conclu-
sions which surpass in certainty those drawn from
subsequent and less circumstantial narrations of
baptism. Thus the text imparts to us an additional
light upon the religious character of these three
thousand, by telling us (ver. 41) that " all who re-
ceived his word gladly " were baptized. The sub-
jects of the baptism of the Apostles are there very
clearly determined, for Scripture designedly makes
use of an expression explained by Jesus Christ him-
self at length, and which leaves no room for doubt.
In Matt. xiii. he depicts, under the form of the
Parable of the Sower, all those who listen to the

BAPTISM BEFORE FAITH. 129

word, and arranges them in several classes. First,
we must carefully distinguish those who listen to
the word from those who do not listen to it, either
from indifference or from aversion. Those who
listen are those who feel themselves drawn by the
preaching of the Gospel, and who receive it favor-
ably ; these are evidently the three thousand bap-
tized of our text " who had gladly received the
word " which Peter had addressed to them. Now
the Saviour says that, amongst those who listen to
the word, there are some who " receive it " as seed
cast by the wayside ; it does not long remain, the
fowls devour it. Others receive it in stony places ;
" they hear the word, and receive it with joy " (ver.
20) , precisely like the three thousand ; but it has
no root, and soon are these disciples offended. Oth-
ers still receive the word amongst thorns. Others,
finally, receive the word into a good ground, and it
bears fruit ; but this is by far the smaller number,
for, says the Lord, there are many called, but few
chosen. Our three thousand have then most cer-
tainly received a baptism of calling, but not a bap-
tism of faith and conversion. There is not, in these
three thousand baptisms, the shadow of a trace of
Baptist discipline. An hour before their baptism,
these were hardened hearts whom Peter reproaches
with having crucified the Lord. Many are moved,
and listen with compunction to this severe preach-

6* I

130 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

ing, and immediately, without examination, without
delay, without individual confession, without per-
sonal acquaintance, the Apostles hasten to baptize
these assassins of Jesus Christ. They baptize un-
known men ; they baptize all who present them-
selves, without refusal and without selection. Their
sincerity is not put into question, for it is sufficient-
ly proved from the fact that they offer themselves
to baptism, and the act of the ceremony is of itself
a confession of sin and a repentance, expressed in
symbolical language, more powerful still than words.
He who causes himself to be washed publicly with
water testifies sufficiently by this very act to his im-
purity. What a contrast with Baptist and even
with Pedobaptist practice ! Tf the Apostles had at
least postponed this baptism to the morrow, if they
had but waited one day to collect information on
the faith of these new disciples, or at least to be
sure that their compunction would last twenty-four
hours ! But no, they make haste, and whosoever
wishes receives baptism. And, on this very day,
three thousand are added, not to the Church, but
simply to the number of disciples (ver. 41). Such
only were added to the Church as believed unto
salvation (ver. 47).

§ 52. Mass Baptism of Unconverted Samari-
tans who believe, but not unto Salvation. —

BAPTISM BEFORE FAITH. 131

After this detailed recital of the first baptism which
followed Pentecost, there is no mention made of bap-
tisms in the narrative of the Acts of the Apostles
until that of the Samaritans (Acts viii.). But this
second apostolic baptism is quite as multitudinous
as the first, and still more so if possible. Philip
preaches in the city of Samaria to crowds, who are
quite attentive, and listen to him especially because
they saw him perform miracles (ver. 6). Then these
crowds " believe," not in Jesus Christ nor to salva-
tion, but " they believe Philip, Philip preaching,"
which means that they put confidence in the preach-
ing of Philip, give to it a certain assent. Then they
are all baptized in a mass (ver. 12), both men and
women. The still carnal character of these people,
their ignorance, the nature of their belief, and their
unconversion, may be judged of from the fact that
Simon Magus also believed, was also baptized, and
was the most zealous of these new disciples ; " he
continued with Philip, and wondered" (ver. 13).
And nevertheless he had not yet repented, his heart
was not right, and he had no part with the Lord
(ver. 20-23). These people had been baptized for
some time, and yet not one of them had received
the Holy Ghost. It became necessary to pray for
them, and the missionary toil of the Apostles was
also indispensable before they could receive this
precious unction (ver. 14-17).

132 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

§ 53. Tlie Condition exacted at the Baptism

of the Eunuch is not Authentic. — At last we meet
with a baptism which appears to form an exception
to the rule, and which is even the strongest argu-
ment of the Baptists to prove that baptism should
be administered only after faith ; it is that of the
eunuch by Philip. " The eunuch said, See, here
is water ; what doth hinder me to be baptized ? and
Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart,
thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe

that Jesus Christ is the Son of God And

Philip baptized him." (Acts viii. 36 - 38.) Let
us first remark, that after having established the
rule followed by John the Baptist, then by Jesus
Christ, and then by the Apostles, in more than five
hundred thousand baptisms, the exception of a
single baptism could not have great weight. But
happily the exception is not one, and, as we shall
soon see, it comes perfectly under the general rule
of baptism before faith.

First, the entire 37th verse, which contains this,
"If thou believest, thou mayest," is wanting in all
the old and best manuscripts, without exception.
In the small number of modern manuscripts where
it is found, the passage is full of variations, which
ehow plainly that it is a late addition made to the
text by the Fathers, who did not like to see the
eunuch baptized without making first a confession

BAPTISM BEFORE FAITH. 133

of faith. All the revisers of the canon are unani-
mous for rejecting this spurious sentence, which is
certainly not inspired. Now, the passage, were it
only doubtful, is, by this very fact, not such as might
serve for a basis upon which to build a doctrine in
opposition to the rest of the Bible.

Perhaps some will cry out at this, as if, with an
impious hand, for the sake of Pedobaptism, we
dared to touch the sacred text. But we will
promptly impose silence. Let criticism be trampled
upon, let the authority of manuscripts be denied,
let the revisers be discarded, but let at least the
voice of a Baptist, eminent through faith and sci-
ence, be heard. The learned English theologian,
Benjamin Wills Newton, in a quite recent work
against Pedobaptism, suppresses completely this
verse 37, and says : " I omit the intervening
verse, viz. ' And Philip said, If thou believest
with all thy heart,' etc., because it is universally
admitted that the whole of this verse is an interpola-
tion. Nor would the Scripture so speak. If such
words were found in the Scripture, weak believers
might long torment themselves with the question,
whether they believed with all their heart. The
Scripture is very careful never to represent justify-
ing faith as any thing else than simple reliance,"
etc. (Newton on Baptism, I. 9.)

134 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

§ 54. There is an Assenting Faith and a Justi-
fying Faith ; and the Funuch believes as Simon
Magus believed. — If, in spite of such testimonies,
it was absolutely insisted to retain the spurious
verse in the Word of God, on the sole authority of
the version, then we must be permitted to observe
that the controverted passage is far from sufficient
to prove a case of baptism after faith. JFor indeed
Scripture takes the word " believe " in more ac-
ceptations than one. It is applied not only to sav-
ing faith, but also very frequently to that external
assent which people often give to the preaching
of the Gospel, without being regenerated, and fre-
quently also to simple confidence in the testimony
of another. Peter believed with saving faith (Matt,
xvi. 16), Judas with assenting faith (John ii. 11).
Charity believes everything, but the disciples did
not believe Mary Magdalene ; and upon such belief
or unbelief does not depend the change of heart.
This assenting faith, which precedes justifying faith
but is not the same, is often characterized in the
Gospel. " When Jesus was in Jerusalem, many
believed in his name, but Jesus did not commit
himself unto them, because he knew all men."
(John ii. 23, 24.) His disciples believe on him at
Cana (ver. 11), but they are far from having the
true faith ; and it is not until three years later (ver.
22) that they believe unto salvation. Tins explains

BAPTISM BEFORE FAITH. 135

also why, when " many had believed on him,"
Jesus said to those Jews which believed on him,
" If ye continue in my word, then are ye my dis-
ciples indeed." (John viii. 30, 31.) But soon after,
these very same believers would kill Jesus, who
calls them the children of the devil, and with diffi-
culty escapes from the stones they cast at him (ver.
37, 44, 59). Elsewhere, again, we are told that
" many believed on him, but did not confess him,
for they loved the praise of men more than the
praise of God." (John xii. 42.) But why seek
instances elsewhere than in the very same chapter
where is recorded the baptism of the eunuch, or
from another witness than Philip himself. The
eunuch " believes " through Philip ; very well,
but Simon Magus "believed" also first through
Philip (Acts viii. 13). Both are baptized by Philip
on the same professions. What the faith of Simon
Magus was, we know perfectly ; and unless Philip
has suddenly and arbitrarily changed his practice,
we know that he did not exact from the eunuch a
different faith. It is clear as noonday that in
neither case was it a baptism after justifying faith,
but only after the first external assent to the preach-
ing of the Gospel.

§ 55. The First Baptism of a Heathen is per-
formed without Witnesses, with Hesitancy hut

136 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

also with Precipitation. — But this is not all. The
eunuch is the very first heathen baptized under the
Gospel, just as Cornelius was the second. Hitherto
Jews only had been baptized, the Apostles had not
turned yet to the Gentiles ; and it will be recollected
after what hesitations, what scruples of conscience,
they decided to do so. There is therefore nothing
astonishing, nothing contrary to rule, if in these first
two baptisms of Gentiles there has been some delay,
some hesitancy, some greater caution as to the sin-
cerity and earnestness of the candidates ; indeed, it
would be astonishing had it been otherwise.

For the rest, the baptism of the eunuch is a most
precipitous baptism, without premeditation or even
a moment for reflection ; as soon as first thought of,
it is also done, and is in every respect opposed to
Baptist practice. Only an instant before his baptism
he has heard for the first time Biblical instruction
on Jesus. A ray of light has glided into the mind
of that pagan, which overjoys him ; for, a few mo-
ments before, he was reading the Prophets, without
understanding aught of what they meant concern-
ing the Messiah. He is seized with the desire of
receiving baptism, but Philip hesitates for a while,
for he has not at heretofore to deal with a circum-
cised Jew, but with a Gentile. This " If thou
believest, thou mayest," if authentic, would then
indicate a concession made for the first time to a

BAPTISM BEFORE FAITH. 137

Gentile, but on condition of a special assurance of
sincerity and earnestness. Had he applied to be
circumcised instead of baptized, a Jewish priest
would have enacted the same condition without its
implying aught against the circumcision of infants.
Finally, should any one, in spite of all preceding
evidence, persist in seeing here a baptism after
faith, he cannot certainly deny that what must have
rendered the baptism such is a delay of a very few
minutes only, caused by the hesitation of Philip ;
for just a moment before, the eunuch ignored all
concerning the kingdom of heaven. A baptism
performed under such circumstances forms no ex-
ception to the rule which we have laid down.

§ 56. The First Public Baptism of a Heathen
is that of Cornelius ; here is again some Hesi-
tation followed by Precipitation. — The baptism
of Cornelius (Acts x.) resembles very much that
of the eunuch. Philip had baptized the first Gen-
tile. But this had taken place in the desert, —
without witnesses and through a special revelation.
The eunuch had proceeded afterwards to his own
country, without presenting himself amongst the
disciples at Jerusalem. The fact was therefore still
unknown to them ; and besides, Philip had not the
preponderating influence of Peter to make them
accept a doubtful baptism. It is now the first of

138 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

the Apostles who will be called to baptize Gentiles
in a public manner, and for the first time to ac-
knowledge some of them officially as disciples. But
how strong were his prejudices, and how great his
fear of compromising the cause ! The whole chap-
ter is explaining how he is led gradually to baptize
heathens. First, a special revelation of God teaches
him that earnest and sincere pagans are not defiled
as unclean animals. Then comes a new revelation
of the Spirit, to make him accept the invitation,
and follow, doubting nothing, the three pagan mes-
sengers. For greater precaution, he requests a cer-
tain number of Jewish brethren to accompany him ;
he imparts to them and to the assembled heathen
his reasons for venturing even to preach the Gospel
to Gentiles. He speaks to these heathens of the
baptism which John preached, but does not dare
commit himself in recommending them to be bap-
tized in order to obtain the remission of sins, which
he never failed to do when preaching to the Jews.
He waits for a new manifestation from above before
he offers to baptize them. God then operates before
him and before the brethren a miraculous demon-
stration, which must overcome their reluctance and
remove all their conscientious scruples in reference
to baptizing Gentiles. By anticipation and for a
time he imparts to them the gifts of the Holy
Ghost, causing them to speak with tongues and to

BAPTISM BEFORE FAITH. 139

magnify God. All the brethren must then be con-
vinced. Peter feels that he cannot refuse them
baptism any longer, since the Spirit has already
forestalled effects which follow this ordinance.
However, he yields to this conclusion only with
extreme caution. He first questions the brethren,
" Can any man forbid water ? " (ver. 47), and they
not objecting, and consenting tacitly to share in the
responsibility, he grants to Gentiles the baptism of
water, which after this precedent will be hereafter
granted to them sooner and without any hesitation,
as being a public act of renouncing paganism and
professing to seek in Christ the remission of sins.

It must be granted that in this baptism of Corne-
lius there is an exception to the universal rule of
the baptism of water before that of the Holy Ghost.
But the exception has its motives clear and strong,
and therefore only confirms the rule. For the rest,
let us reduce this exception to its exact dimen-
sions, which will prove very small. First, nothing
shows that every one of these heathen had been
thoroughly converted during the few moments or
hours while the address of Peter lasted. The gift
of the Holy Ghost which fell suddenly on all pres-
ent (ver. 44) must be considered as a new miracu-
lous manifestation added to those of the day pre-
vious. It did not imply a change of heart and a
complete work of regeneration ; they had still to

140 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

seek and obtain the remission of sins, in view of
which water-baptism was conferred upon them as
it had been by the same Apostle on the three thou-
sand (Acts ii. 38) : " Repent and be baptized every
one of you for the remission of sins." But accord-
ing to the Baptist view, not one was baptized by the
Apostle unless he was a believer and had experi-
enced saving faith. This is tantamount to confer-
ring upon Peter a most wonderful magical power
of saving souls, as it were by an electrical shock.
When he begins to speak, he has before him an
audience of heathen who know as yet nothing about
the Gospel ; a moment after, they are all believers,
regenerated and saved, yea, all and every one of
them at the same time. If not, if there was a single
exception, this baptism was not that of believers,
and the Baptist doctrine crumbles. But even sup-
posing the impossibility that this miraculous " fall-
ing" of the Holy Ghost on all present be tanta-
mount to a true conversion of each, it must be
conceded then that the exception to the universal
rule of baptism before faith has consisted only in
the delay of baptism by a few minutes, — delay
caused not by a principle, but by the necessity
of exceptional circumstances, and sufficiently ex-
plained through the scruples of Peter and other
Jewish brethren present. As soon as he is con-
vinced that he has used unnecessary delay, the

BAPTISM BEFORE FAITH. 141

Apostle commands and hurries the baptism of all
his heathen listeners (ver. 47 and 48).

It was not, however, without some good grounds
that Peter had hesitated, for the report of his visit
to Cesarea and of a baptism conferred upon heathen
caused a lively sensation in the Church at Jerusa-
lem (Acts xi. 1-18). He is accused of having
violated the established rules. He is compelled to
justify himself by stating in detail how he was led
to assume this responsibility, and produces as wit-
nesses of the whole occurrence the six brethren
that accompanied him (ver. 12). The Church at
last officially indorses this baptism of Gentiles, and
" holding their peace, glorified God, saying, Then
hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance
unto life." Repentance alone justifies in the eyes
of the Church this baptism of heathens, and places
it in agreement with the established practice. A
miraculous and anticipated baptism of the Holy
Ghost had compelled in this case that of water,
which from legal prejudice was in danger of being
withheld.

§ 57. Paul, Lydia, the Jailer, and others are
baptized in great Haste upon the first Assent
given to the Gospel, and are taught only after
being baptized. — The baptisms which now follow
in the narrative of the Acts cannot delay us long,

142 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

for they all bear the same character. They all take
place before faith, or are simultaneous with it, but
never posterior to it. First comes Paul's baptism.
(Acts ix. 19.) When Ananias was sent to him, he
was only overwhelmed, distressed and praying for
mercy ; he was not converted. Ananias is sent on
a special mission by Jesus, to declare to him the
counsel of God, that he might receive his sight
and be filled with the Holy Ghost. Then the use
of his senses is first restored to him, then he rises,
and then before he is allowed to eat anything, al-
though fasting since three days, he is first baptized
(ver. 18), and only after baptism will he eat, recruit
his strength, and last of all be taught. Here, as
everywhere, we meet with this remarkable haste in
the performance of baptism, which is always con-
ferred on the very first mark of an external assent
to the preaching of the Gospel, and without allow-
ing a moment for consideration on the part of either
the baptized or the baptizer. This extraordinary
haste will have to be carefully investigated a little
later, if we are to understand the true nature of
baptism, for it is probably the most striking fact
connected with it, though the least noticed ; but we
must be content for the present with its being well
authenticated for future reference.

Afterwards comes the baptism of Lydia. She
listens to an address of Paul, and " the Lord opened

BAPTISM BEFORE FAITH. 143

her heart, that she attended unto the things which
were spoken of Paul." (Acts xvi. 14, 15.) Thus
far, there is no evidence on her part of anything
more than interest and attention paid to the things
spoken by Paul ; but this is quite sufficient ; they
hasten to baptize her, and not only her, but also all
her household, which appears either to have paid no
attention, or not even to have listened at all. In
the text the household is intentionally left out as to
the report of change of heart and attention to the
preaching of Paul. Lydia alone experiences this.
But her household is not left out in baptism ; will-
ing or unwilling, interested or not, they are bap-
tized with the head of the family. There is no indi-
cation of Lydia having believed so as to experience
a change of heart ; the Lord only opens her heart
that she listens attentively to Paul. But this is
enough ; baptism is immediately imparted without
delay, and before the meeting breaks up. The
haste is such, that only after her baptism has she
a chance of proffering to Paul the hospitality of her
house. Here again we see baptism conferred as
soon as the people can be made to agree to receive
it. They are not made to wait for their baptism,
or undergo a course of preparation and teaching.
No, it is almost forced upon them, on the very spot
where they listen for the first time to the preaching
of the Gospel. They are baptized first and taught
afterwards.

144 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

The same precipitancy is observed in the baptism
of the jailer and of his family. (Acts xvi. 25-84.)
Awakened in the middle of the night by an earth-
quake, they hear for the first time the Gospel spoken
of. They feel moved, and at the instant, without
waiting for daylight, without preparations, without
a moment for reflection, without calling together a
meeting of the brethren of the place, they are hur-
ried to baptism. Now-a-days, we would all tax
such a baptism with shocking impropriety and cul-
pable levity ; but it seems evident that the Apostles
must have entertained very different notions from
ours upon the inmost nature of baptism, and its
peculiar usefulness to the receiver. It seems as if
they had thought it their duty to take advantage of
the very first indication of a feeling of compunction
in an unconverted listener for hastening to confer
upon him a baptism of water. The version says
that they were baptized " straightway " ; the origi-
nal is stronger, if possible, " at the very instant."
True, it is stated farther on (ver. 34) that he re-
joiced and believed ; but this comes only after his
baptism, which must have contributed to this final
happy result of rejoicing and believing. Then the
question would be again to know how he believed,
for if he believed as did the Samaritans and Simon
Magus, this belief did not surely imply conversion
and justifying faith. The same remark applies to

BAPTISM BEFORE FAITH. 145

the brief mention of the baptism of some Corin-
thians, — " Many of the Corinthians hearing, be-
lieved, and were baptized." (Acts xviii. 8.) The
former baptisms explain sufficiently this passage
where the details fail us.

§58. Twelve Ignorant Men baptized in haste
at the close of a Conversation. — There remains
now but one more baptism to examine, namely,
that of " certain disciples " whom Paul re-baptized.
(Acts xix. 1-6.) Here again the people are bap-
tized in haste, and immediately at the close of a
conversation with Paul. They were twelve. An
hour before their baptism, they still ignored the
Gospel and even the existence of the Holy Ghost,
and yet they were baptized all twelve together and
at once. Have they all been converted together
at the same minute ? Have they all twelve, and
without a single exception, believed and experi-
enced a change of heart, and all at the same
instant, through some magical power in Paul ?
This absurdity must be admitted, or else it must
be granted that these twelve were baptized without
regard to faith, and before they had it. A unani-
mous assent of twelve men to what Paul said is
quite natural and easily understood, and upon this
they are baptized. But in order to find here a

baptism of believers, Paul has to be endowed with
7 j

146 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

the power of changing men's hearts at pleasure,

and thus to be put in the place of God. For the

rest, they received the Holy Ghost only after the
baptism of water.

§ 59. A leading Object of Baptism was to
bring the Receiver to believe in Jesus Christ. —

But this is not all ; in this very passage we have
an important declaration upon the connection exist-
ing between faith and water-baptism, namely, that
" John baptized with the baptism of repentance,
saying unto the people, that they should believe on
Christ Jesus." (Acts xix. 4.) He did not baptize
believers, but people who " should believe on Christ
Jesus." He preached first to the people to repent,
then he baptized them as a token of repentance,
and when baptized he preached to them that they
should believe on Christ Jesus. So much says
Scripture. John therefore made of his baptism a
veritable preaching of saving faith, an ordinance
through which to obtain the grace of believing.
He baptized with water the called, urging them to
become the chosen. But we have already ascer-
tained that the baptism of John is emphatically
the baptism of water, the only baptism which the
Apostles ever received or conferred. We have
here, therefore, a clear declaration of principle laid
down in Scripture, which perfectly agrees with all

BAPTISM BEFORE FAITH. 147

the facts we have examined, which is the same
which we expressed in the beginning, and which
alone can satisfactorily explain all the baptisms of
which we have a detailed account. This is the
baptism of water before faith, and Scripture knows
no other.

§ 60. Scripture knows neither Delay, nor
Preparation, nor Examination, nor Discipline
in reference to Baptism. — We have passed under
review all the cases of baptism detailed in the
New Testament, and nowhere have we found faith
placed as a preliminary condition, while we have
recognized everywhere baptisms of the unconverted.
Two baptisms alone seemed for a while to make an
exception ; but they were those of the first two
Gentiles baptized, and it has been shown not only
that the exception was insignificant, but that it
agreed with the rule and confirmed it. The fact
is, that there is in the Gospel no condition what-
ever attached to the reception of baptism. The
ordinance is as freely imparted as the word of
preaching itself ; it is even part of the preaching
of repentance. Both the preaching and its ordi-
nance are for all who care to listen and to receive.
Baptism is given to any one who wishes for it, and
there is not a single instance of refusal or postpone-
ment. People are urged to receive it as soon as

148 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

they assent to the preaching, and great haste is
evinced in bringing them to the ceremony. No
discipline, no examination, no time of probation
to make sure of faith, not even a question asked.
An external assent to the truths of the Gospel is
sufficient, and the readiness to receive the water of
baptism is considered as sufficient proof of assent to
the preaching just heard. The condition, if there
be any, is entirely subjective ; it is the affair of the
candidate and not of the baptizer. But these facts
can in no way be reconciled with the doctrine of
Baptists, nor even with that of most Pedobaptists.

§ 61. The Gospel places Baptism always be-
fore, and the Baptists always after, Faith ; it is
the most flagrant Contradiction imaginable. —

We feel so strong on the ground of Scriptural facts
that we can afford to make generously a great con-
cession to Baptists, and yet prove to them, in an
invincible manner, that their whole practice is just
the reverse of that of the Apostles. Therefore let
us concede for a while that both the eunuch and
Cornelius were baptized only after faith, and there
still remains to us untouched the great truth, the
impregnable position, that

There is no instance in the Bible of a single
person being baptized later than the very day
of his conversion.

BAPTISM BEFORE FAITH. 149

Here is the practice of the Apostles. Now for
that of the Baptists : —

There is no instance of the Baptists immersing
A believer the very day of his conversion, or at

ANY TIME SOONER.

Here is a striking contrast between the two prac-
tices, and the one entirely gives the lie to the other.
Tax your imagination for a more flagrant contradic-
tion of the practice of the Apostles, and you cannot
find it. Of course, Baptists do not profess to bap-
tize a man earlier than the day of his conversion,
since they insist upon the baptism of believers only.
Moreover, we have never met with a Baptist who
had been immersed on the very day and hour of his
conversion ; we question if there be any such, and
the case must be a very rare one indeed if it exists
at all. Thus is a Baptist Church, through the bap-
tism of each of its members, a living protest against
the practice of Jesus Christ and his Apostles. This
is a sad thing to say, but it is a fact by far too in-
contestable. Moreover, who does not know where
Baptists go in order to recruit their ranks ! Who
does not know that it is in the bosom of Evangelical
churches, much more than amidst the crowds of a
perishing world, that they strive for new adherents
to enlarge their numbers ! They are Christian
brethren those whom they seek to convert, not to
the Gospel, but to Anabaptism, and many receive

150 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

their pretended baptism twenty years or more after
their conversion. The Romish Mass is probably
not quite so far removed from the Gospel as the
baptism of Baptists.

§ 62. Dangerous Semi-Anabaptism of Pedo-
baptists. Adults and Children must receive tbe
same Baptism. — It is but fair and true to add,
also, that the baptism of adults, conferred by Pedo-
baptists after faith only, and by following the same
discipline used for admission to the Lord's Supper,
is a Semi-Anabaptism, contrary to Scripture, and
which receives its punishment, from the fact that
it is everywhere through this dangerous conces-
sion that Baptists gain access to the mind and con-
science of simple-minded people. Their work is
half done by Pedobaptists themselves ; it requires
only to ask the people to be logical and consistent,
and if they would have but an after-faith baptism
for themselves, not to give another to their chil-
dren, not to violate their own principles in baptiz-
ing those who cannot believe. How many Pedo-
baptist brethren, to whom their inmost Christian
feeling and practical common sense whisper that
Anabaptism cannot be the truth, and who are,
however, incapable of forming any clear concep-
tion on the doctrine of baptism, and lose them-
selves in the intricate maze of contradictions which

BAPTISM BEFORE FAITH. 151

that Semi-Anabaptisra, where they find themselves
placed without suspecting it, suggests to their
minds. And the champions of Pedobaptism write
with an admirable simplicity : " We are perfectly
agreed with Baptists in reference to the baptism
of adults ; we differ only in reference to infants ;
we practise, in common with Baptists, only the be-
liever's baptism for adults, and base ourselves for
this on the same texts with them ; why, then, bring
these texts against infant baptism ? " This recalls
to our mind the story of that walled city which was
preparing against the invasion of the French. The
defence of one of its three gates had been neglected,
because situated on the opposite side to that where
the enemy was expected to arrive. But the assail-
ants appearing before that very gate, the officer in
command exclaimed in vain : " Gentlemen, you are
not expected at this gate ; please to pass on to the
other gates." They went in just the same through
the defenceless gate, laughing at the incredible sim-
plicity of the inhabitants and their defenders, and
unconcerned for the great preparations made at the
other gates.

Baptism always before faith both for adults
and for infants : such should be the device of
Pedobaptists. With it, they will easily resist the
onset of Anabaptism ; without it, the issue of the
conflict will at best remain doubtful, — the enemy

152 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

will enter the place through the gate left open, and
will recruit their ranks with prisoners taken from
the Evangelical churches. It is but just to observe
here, that there is a wide difference between the
several Pedobaptist churches as to the severity of
the admission of adults to baptism, and this gen-
erally according as their discipline for the Lord's
Supper is more or less rigorous. The Indepen-
dents, otherwise called the Congregationalists, are
the most strict of any ; Presbyterians and Episco-
palians are easier, and the practice of some of them
in reference to adult baptism comes very near our
own point of view. But experience shows that the
more strict a church is as to adult baptism, the
more it is exposed to inroads from Baptist propa-
gandism. Let no inference, however, be drawn
from this in behalf of laxity of discipline in the
Lord's Supper ; for we only attack the transfer of
the discipline of the one sacrament to the other
as unjustifiable and mischievous, however proper
and Scriptural that discipline may be in its right
place.

Baptism before faith once well established through
the facts and declarations of Scripture, all opposi-
tion to infant baptism falls of itself, since that oppo-
sition rests altogether upon the anti-Scriptural idea
that baptism must be given exclusively to believers.
Although baptism before faith is alone justified in

BAPTISM BEFORE FAITH. 153

principle, it will happen, through accident or neg-
lect or error, that it is omitted at the proper time,
or delayed, and then an exception will become ne-
cessary, not to the principle, but to its application ;
and a person placed in such exceptional circum-
stances will do well to fulfil " all righteousness "
and to receive a baptism of water even after faith.
Much as such delay is to be regretted, it will then
be proper to decide, as in former times for circum-
cision, and now-a-days for the admission to church-
membership and participation in the Holy Supper,
that it is better late than never.

§ 63. Immersion implies Baptism before

Faith. — Our conclusions on the relative order of
baptism to faith are already drawn, and, as we be-
lieve, well supported by stanch Gospel facts. But
we will not take leave of the subject without some
additional strictures.

The Baptists unconsciously admit by implication
our principle, and corroborate it in two different
ways. First, by their immersion itself. They pro-
fess to represent through it a burial with Christ.
Let us take them at their word. Burial with Christ
would evidently be damnation, if not followed by
resurrection with Christ. Sin causes death, and
baptism buries, but faith does neither. The part
of faith is to raise up, and its action does not pre-

154 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

cede, but follows baptism. This argument is not
ours ; it is that of St. Paul, if we are to under-
stand with Baptists, in its literal meaning, their
following favorite passage : " Buried with him
in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him
through the faith." (Col. ii. 12.) Here is cer-
tainly baptism-burial put before faith. But Bap-
tists have changed all this. If we are to credit
them, one must first be raised up by faith to be
buried afterwards in baptism. It is a complete
inversion of the Gospel.

§ 64. Baptists themselves confer Baptism be-
fore Faith and acknowledge officially and pub-
licly its Validity. — Finally, whatever Baptists may
assert as to the absolute necessity of faith to render
a baptism valid, they are the very first to deny it in
practice. You say that infant baptism is not valid,
that it is not even a baptism at all, because it has
been imparted without faith, and you re-baptize
those who have received it, because you admit as
valid only the believer's baptism. But you confer
yourselves thousands of baptisms, which, in your
own point of view, are no better than those of
infants, — indeed, are worth much less. Are you
able to read the heart, and are you perfectly cer-
tain that a man has a genuine faith, and that he
is already regenerated, when you immerse him ?

BAPTISM BEFORE FAITH. 155

Does it never happen that those whom you have
baptized show afterwards through their works that
they had not yet received faith at the time of their
baptism ? If this does not happen to you, you are
more clear-sighted than the Apostles, who baptized
even a Simon Magus ; more discerning than Jesus
Christ, who sanctioned the baptism of multitudes,
amongst whom very few persevered. And when it
so happens to you that you have made too much
haste with your ordinance, and you find it out,
what do you think then of your baptism ? Is it
valid, this baptism imparted without faith, granted
to illusion, if not even to hypocrisy ? And when
these people whom you have baptized too soon be-
come later really converted, why do you not re-
baptize them ? Why do you concede to them, in
contradiction with your own principles, a baptism
before faith, which you deny to brethren more
faithful ? Do you really imagine that this baptism
which you so often confer upon the unconverted
and upon the hypocrites is worth more than the
baptism of infants ? As to ourselves, we place it
infinitely below. But as for you, you declare null
and void the baptism of innocence, and valid that
of unbelief or hypocrisy ! You witness, therefore,
against yourselves that you admit as genuine and
valid, baptism before faith under its worst aspect.
The amazing contradictions in which you are com-

156 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

pelled to involve yourselves, indicate sufficiently
that your doctrine is not of God, that it is a
modern invention, which does not rise above the
level of all the human traditions of the Church
of Rome.

CHAPTER VI.

THE COMMISSION GIVEN TO THE APOSTLES BY JESUS
CHRIST.

§ 65. There is in the whole of the New Tes-
tament hut a single and unique Command to
Baptize. — All the accounts of baptism supplied
by the New Testament have now been passed in
review, and searched to ascertain in every separate
instance which of the two, baptism or faith, pre-
cedes the other. After having exhausted this source
of information, we have been compelled to acknowl-
edge that baptism always precedes regenerating
faith, and is itself preceded only by that external
assent indispensable in order that a person should
agree to pass through the ceremony. This assent
is at any rate a belief, and the word believe can be
used to express it, as indeed Scripture sometimes
does ; but it is far from being faith in the absolute
sense, faith that saves and regenerates. We have
ascertained, moreover, that baptism followed imme-
diately and at the very instant the first indication

158 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

of external assent, that haste was exhibited in con-
ferring it upon any one who agreed to receive it,
and that there is not a single instance of a person
listening with joy or attention to the preaching of
the word, whose baptism had been postponed to the
morrow. Having exhausted the investigation of
that class of facts, our next move now should be to
seek if there are not, in reference to baptism, some
positive commands of the Lord and the Apostles,
which might further enlighten us upon the nature
of this ordinance and its relation to faith. After
careful search, we can find in the whole New Testa-
ment but one sole command to baptize, and that is
given to the eleven disciples by the Lord himself,
after his resurrection. It is the following : —

" Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptiz-
ing 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 command, being the single one in the whole
New Testament which refers to baptizing, deserves
particular attention. We are bound to investigate
with the greatest concern all that it implies, as well
as to ascertain what it does not imply.

§ 66. The Command having heen given to the
Eleven Apostles alone, and not transferred by

THE COMMISSION GIVEN. 159

them to others, points to the Old Testament for
Scriptural Authority to perform the Ordinance.

— 1st. The injunction to baptize is given to the
eleven alone, and nowhere do we see it transferred
by them. There is no command whatever of the
Apostles, either expressed or even implied, author-
izing us to baptize. Moreover, all the baptisms are
performed by the Apostles themselves, with only two
exceptions, namely, Philip the Evangelist and Ana-
nias the prophet, who have received a special mis-
sion, have the gift of miracles, and are responsible
to the Apostles. It must be confessed that baptism
has somewhat the appearance of an apostolical pre-
rogative, which we have arrogated to ourselves
without sufficient authority ; and that when we pro-
test against the attempt of the priest to confer the
Holy Ghost, after baptism, through the laying on of
hands, we might, with some show of truth, be re-
proached that we do much the same, and that our
baptism has for its support neither more authority
nor more efficacy than this vain imposition of hands.
Ecclesiastical history will not avail to help us out of
this difficulty, for if it shows that baptism was very
early practised in the Church, it shows also that the
laying on of hands always followed baptism, and
was in use just as early. Thus, in a word, there is
but one command to baptize, the command is given
to the eleven alone, and not to us, and the eleven

160 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

have not " delivered " it to us, as they have that
for the Holy Supper. (1 Cor. xi. 23.) The Qua-
kers and Socinus are therefore perfectly right in
saying that nothing in the New Testament enjoins
upon us the practice of baptism. Only let us be-
ware of concluding with them that baptism was
an ordinance limited to the time of the Apostles,
and extinct with them. No, for it existed before
the Apostles, before John the Baptist, and they only
modified a religious practice enjoined already by
Moses. But, at the same time, it is only by adopt-
ing the Old Testament as a foundation, and con-
necting with it the practice of baptism, that we
obtain sufficient right to perpetuate it. A resort to
the Old Testament must, of course, exceedingly dis-
please Baptists ; but if they deny it to us, we shall
in turn deny to them the right of baptizing in any
way at all, baptism becoming then a practice with-
out authority, a usurpation upon the Apostles,
similar to the exorcism of the Greek and Roman
Churches. "We say no more at present, postponing
to a later stage the study of the relation of baptism
to the Old Covenant.

§ 67. The Commission refers also to the Old
Testament for the External Mode of Baptism
and its Symbolical Meaning;. — 2d. We must re-
mark in the second place that the command of the

THE COMMISSION GIVEN. 161

Lord fails entirely to appoint the mode of baptism,
or even to hint at it. This sole order to baptize,
does not state whether baptism should be performed
by aspersion or immersion, nor whether there should
be one application of water, or, according to the
Fathers, three, to correspond to the three persons of
the Trinity in the triple name of which the baptism
is to be conferred. In the command of the Lord,
the form of baptism is left out, as already known
and prescribed, since the disciples had already prac-
tised it after John, and in the same manner. But
John the Baptist, in his turn, takes also for granted
that « the form of baptism is already known and
ordered before him, and teaches nothing whatever
in this respect. The command of the Lord, there-
fore, forces us back to the Old Testament for infor-
mation on the mode of baptism.

3d. As to the religious and symbolic import of
baptism, the Lord commands nothing and explains
nothing. He supposes it already known and under-
stood, and John the Baptist does the same. He
only commands his disciples to continue the prac-
tice of a ceremony already established, and to ap-
ply it to the evangelization of the heathen. For
the original religious meaning of the ceremony,
Jesus Christ forces us back again to the Old Testa-
ment, without the light of which, nothing but mere
hypothesis can be made on the nature of baptism,

162 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

and all baptismal theories must rest more or less on
fancy.

§ 68. The Command is not general ; refers
only to the Baptism of Heathen, and not to
that of the People of God. — 4th. The command
to baptize applies exclusively to " the nations."
From this it is generally inferred that there is
here a command to baptize all mankind. But it
is by no means the case, although the version is
liable to lead one into this error. The word in
the original is eOvr), the Gentiles, — the heathen in
opposition to the Jews. There is not in the New
Testament a word the meaning of which is better
ascertained and so much beyond discussion. It is
employed over a hundred times, and this is the
very word used exclusively by Paul in speaking
of the Gentiles. The expression strictly excludes
the Jews. Thus it is said : " The Apostles and
brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gen-
tiles (nations) had also received the word of God."
(Acts xi. 1.) Paul said unto the Jews : " We turn
from you to the Gentiles." (Acts xiii. 46). " He
hath called us, not of the Jews only, but also of
the Gentiles.'''' (Rom. ix. 24.) The command of
Jesus Christ to baptize is therefore not a general
one, applying to mankind, but a special one, apply-
ing to a certain portion of mankind only, — to a

THE COMMISSION GIVEN. 163

nationality still more distinct from that of the Jews
than Chinese are from Frenchmen. There was no
need of command or even authorization on the part
of the Lord to baptize Jews, because the law had
already given the authority ; but one was needed
for the Gentiles.

5th. The command of Jesus Christ is a formal
revocation of a previous injunction given to the
disciples at the time of their first mission. He
had ordered them, saying : " Go not into the way
of the Gentiles." Now, on the contrary, all being
accomplished, he orders them, saying : " Go ye and
teach all the Gentiles, baptizing them and teaching
them."

§ 69. The Command consists in making Dis-
ciples of the Heathen, and in baptizing them
previous to teaching- them. — 6th. The injunc-
tion towards the nations is literally to make them
disciples : " Go and make disciples all nations "
(fiadyrevcraTe). All critics and all new versions
are agreed that this is the only correct translation.
All the remainder of the passage is but explica-
tive of this, — make disciples, — and the order does
not bear directly on baptism, which is mentioned
here only as a means, and not as an end. The
command is, " Go and make disciples all nations."
But how is it to be executed ? 1st. In baptizing

164 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

them ; 2d. In teaching them. The command, of
course, to be obeyed, must be executed by the pre-
scribed means ; but after all the fact remains, that
it does not refer directly to baptism itself, which is
mentioned here, not as the direct object of the com-
mand, but, what is infinitely less, as a prescribed
means to reach a certain end, namely, that of mak-
ing disciples.

7th. There is a succession in the two means pre-
scribed, and what goes first is baptism and after-
wards only teaching. There is nothing placed be-
fore baptism, unless it be the assent of the subject
to receive it, which, in the commission of Jesus, is
merely implied and not expressed, because it is a
matter of course. They then flatly contradict Jesus
Christ, who put before baptism either teaching, or
regenerating faith, or any course of catechization.
The Lord wishes that the Gentiles, in order to enter
his kingdom, should commence at the very first by
a ceremony of initiation, by the purifying water of
baptism given at the very moment that they consent
to receive it, and that the teaching should proceed
afterwards. There are some ordinances of the law
which he will not destroy, but confirm and enhance
in his new kingdom, and amongst these is the water-
baptism unto the purification of the defiled. His
Apostles are Jews ; to them the heathen are defiled.
They never could or would initiate them into the

THE COMMISSION GIVEN. 165

mysteries of the kingdom and to the promises of
Israel, as long as they remain in their state of
impurity. And therefore their Master commands
them, Go and first purify through baptism these
defiled heathen, and then teach them all I have
taught you. Is it not, then, disobeying the com-
mand of Christ to insist that teaching, conversion,
and faith shall precede baptism ? Is it not, in fact,
a complete perversion of the command ? Jesus thus
enjoins, in a very clear and very positive manner,
baptism before faith ; and his Apostles have strictly
obeyed the injunction, as we have recognized when
we passed under review all the baptisms which they
have conferred.

§ 70. Every Brother is a Disciple, but every
Disciple is not a Brother. — 8th. The name of
disciple is not synonymous with that of brother
or saint, but indicates an inferior religious degree.
Hence follows that in Scriptural language each
brother is certainly a disciple, but each disciple is
not a brother. This is already indicated by the
very meaning of the word disciple, both in the
original and in the version. A disciple is a pupil
who learns what his Master teaches him. The dis-
ciples of the Gospel are at the school of Christ,
taught either directly by himself or by those to
whom he has intrusted the discipline and the

166 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

teaching of the Gospel. A disciple may be con-
verted or not, but a brother is always supposed to
be. These crowds, which we have seen listening
with pleasure to the Word, and being baptized, al-
though in not one out of ten was the seed to spring
up and bear fruit unto life eternal, — these crowds,
say we, were composed of disciples, for they were
baptized and taught, and this, says Jesus Christ,
constitutes the disciple. " Make the nations dis-
ciples, baptizing them and teaching them." The
disciple has given to the Gospel an external and
formal assent through his baptism, and if he has
not yet the faith to be saved, he is at least in a
state of preparation for it, and on the only way
which may lead him, through perseverance, to the
new birth.

The twelve Apostles were called disciples so long
as they had not faith and remained unbelievers,
like Thomas (John xx. 29) ; unconverted, like Pe-
ter (Luke xxii. 32). They were just beginning
to believe when Jesus was about to die (John xvi.
31). Only after the resurrection of their Master,
only after their faith has been tried and brought
out, do they exchange the name of disciples for
that of apostles, brethren, or saints, which is never
ascribed to them before. " Jesus Christ baptized
more disciples than John." (John iv.. 1.) But.
John baptized them by crowds ; were such disci-

THE COMMISSION GIVEN. 167

pies brethren ? Far from it } they belonged to the
called, almost the totality of whom remained mi-
believing, and ultimately turned their backs upon
the Gospel. The commission which Jesus gave to
the eleven was simply the command to do amongst
the heathen nations what they had done hitherto
exclusively amongst the Jews ; namely, first to bap-
tize all the called that could be made to listen to
their appeal, and to teach .them afterwards. "We
are told (John vi. 6G) that several disciples went
back and withdrew from the Lord. Not only were
these disciples not converted, but they were even
rapidly losing the weak and temporary interest they
had taken in the doctrines of the kingdom. They
belonged, however, to the class of the baptized ; if
they withdrew, they still retained this external priv-
ilege, and when they returned to Jesus they were
not re-baptized, which would have been unavoid-
able were faith and conversion indispensable to the
validity of baptism. But as not only baptism, but
also subsequent teaching, constituted a disciple, the
name was not applied to those who, after their
baptism, did not undergo teaching and withdrew.
The disciples were all the baptized who persevered
in listening to the preaching of Jesus Christ and
his Apostles.

"When the disciples had become a great multitude,
when " the Apostles had taught much people," then

168 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

was the name of Christian applied for the first time,
at Antioch, to the increasing numbers of the called
who attended the meetings. (Acts xi. 26.) The
name of Christian was not therefore synonymous
with brother and saint, but it was the name given
to all that great people which attended the preach-
ing of the Gospel. Then, a great number of un-
converted were Christian. One was generally a
Christian before becoming a brother. There is no
sure evidence of the disciples being admitted to the
Lord's Supper, but they were to Agapes. " The
disciples came together to break bread." (Acts
xx. 7.) The best manuscripts, however, omit here
the word disciple. The name was extended even to
people who ignored that there was a Holy Ghost,
but who, however, notwithstanding their deep ig-
norance, professed some adherence to Christianity,
(xix. 1, 2.) Finally, Paul just after his conversion
is ranked amongst the disciples, and until he has
undergone trial for a certain time, he is not num-
bered with the brethren. (Acts ix. 19, 26, 30.)
At first they would not believe he was even a dis-
ciple. The Apostles and the brethren in Jerusalem
are alone consulted in church matters, and not the
disciples, (xi. 1.) But when there is question of
collecting at Antioch for the brethren in Jerusalem,
the brethren are not alone called for a contribution,
but all the disciples, as including the brethren

THE COMMISSION GIVEN. 169

(xi. 29), which is quite natural. However, in the
same way as he only is a true Jew who is such in
spirit and in truth, thus also the true disciple, the
true Christian, is only he who arrives at regenerat-
ing faith. In this sense could Jesus say to his dis-
ciples : " If ye continue in my word, then are ye
my disciples indeed. Bear much fruit, so shall ye
be my disciples." (John viii. 31 ; xv. 8.) They
were already the professed disciples of Christ when
he urges them to become truly his disciples.

^ 71. The Baptists suppress the Disciples. —

The difference which was made then between dis-
ciples and brethren is still carried out this day in
all disciplined churches, for there are the members
of the congregation distinct from those of the
church. In all such churches, the congregation,
that is to say the called, are taught indeed, but in
Pedobaptist churches alone have they been first bap-
tized to be taught according to the commission of
the Lord to his Apostles. It follows that, strictly
speaking, the regular congregation must be com-
posed of disciples, which is the case in a Presby-
terian church for instance, but not at all in a Bap-
tist one. Out of three classes of men, which the
Gospel recognizes everywhere, — the men of the
world, the called, and the chosen, or, in reference to
the church, the world, the disciples, and the breth-

170 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

ren, — the Baptists have entirely suppressed one,
namely, the intermediate class, that true nursery of
the Church. There is for them but the world and
the brethren ; besides an immersed church-mem-
bership, nothing but a class of unbaptized hearers,
which includes on the same level both the heathen
and the children of believers. And an arbitrary
suppression leading easily to another, all the Pedo-
baptist brethren are classed with the world, and de-
barred from the Lord's Supper and the privileges
of the Church. Virtually it comes to this, that
there are no genuine brethren but Baptists, and
that all the other churches are just the world.

§ 72. One can believe and be baptized wish
Water without being saved. — 9th. In the par-
allel passage of Mark xvi. 15, 16, the Lord issues
his commission without making baptism the subject
of any command. The commission given to the
Apostles bears exclusively on the preaching of the
Gospel, — " Go ye into all the world, and preach
the Gospel to every creature," — which confirms
completely that baptism is not the end of the
commission, but only one of the means to accom-
plish it. We have ascertained also in our first
chapter that the words which follow, " He that be-
lieveth and is baptized shall be saved," cannot be
understood of any baptism unless that of the Holy

THE COMMISSION GIVEN. 171

Ghost, for this alone is essential to be saved. Let
us add here, that to insist on applying these words
to the baptism of water would be to force a positive
falsehood upon Jesus Christ. For Scripture de-
clares, and in the very same words of the Lord, that
Simon Magus " believed and was baptized," and
yet he was not saved. " Thy money perish with
thee ! " said Peter to him. (Acts viii. 13, 20.)
Therefore, in Scriptural language, to believe and be
baptized with water does not imply saving faith ;
but to believe and be baptized with the Holy Ghost
is to be saved. Let this distinction be well remem-
bered when the account of the eunuch's baptism is
read.

§ 73. A Nation is not a Nation without the
Children, and the Baptism of Adults is not en-
joined in any way more than that of Infants.

— 10th. In order to complete our investigation of
the sole baptismal command of the Lord, we must
furthermore put the question, Does it imply or not
infant baptism ? This question introduces us rather
prematurely to a new point ; but while investigating
the commission of the Lord, we must completely
sift all that is implied in it. If the commission does
not go into many particulars, it has at least the
widest range ever contended for as to the subjects
of baptism. Nations are very certainly composed

172 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

of both adults and children, and the Lord orders to
baptize nations. The commission, therefore, leaves
to infant baptism the widest margin that it is possible
to desire or even to imagine. Infant baptism is
implied in the command just and exactly as much
as adult baptism. These two baptisms, which are
evidently but one in the mind of Christ, must here
stand or fall together. If one is denied, so must
the other be. Unless some posterior counter-order
is found elsewhere in Scripture, some restraining
declaration tantamount to a positive order of God,
we are bound to baptize children if we are not to
disobey the command of Jesus Christ. But it is
well known that no such exceptional injunction is
found in Scripture. What sacrilegious hand, then,
attempts to take away something from the words
of the command of Jesus Christ, and when he has
said, " Baptize all nations," presumes to rewrite
the word of God, and make Jesus Christ say : " Do
not baptize all nations ! Baptize but a part of
them ! Select the adults for baptism ! Leave out
the young rising nation ! Do not baptize them ! "
This sacrilegious hand is Baptist, Socinian, Mormon,
but it is above all things essentially Rationalist.

§ 74. The Baptism of Women is merely im-
plied, but not expressly commanded. — Just as,
in olden times, the Pharisees were asking as proof

THE COMMISSION GIVEN. 173

a miracle from heaven, which was never granted to
them, just so, now-a-days, the Baptists, not satisfied
with the amplitude of the command of the Lord,
insist on the urgency of some special order in refer-
ence to that portion of the command which does not
suit them, — namely, the baptism of infants. But
the Holy Ghost, silent before such an unbelieving
exaction, refuses to give the special order either to
baptize or not to baptize infants. The priests of
Rome also, not content with the amplitude of the
command, " Drink ye all of it ! " have long asked
for a special order to give the cup to laymen, and
the Word has not met that exaction. In both cases,
the Holy Ghost says to us, through his very silence,
The command of the Lord is sufficient. The com-
mission of Jesus Christ does not exclude the bap-
tism of infants any more than it does that of
women ; rather less ; for, indeed, a close adherence
to the letter might exclude women from baptism.
In the original, the words " baptizing them " refer
strictly but to the male sex, avrovs, and not to
the nations. Had it not been for two accounts
of women baptized in the Acts, our Baptist sects
would have felt bound, for want of a special order
to the contrary, to immerse only adult males, a
practice which would at least have in its favor the
advantage of decency.

It must be borne in mind that the order of the

174 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

Lord refers to the admission of the heathen into
the same covenant with the Jews ; that the eleven
Apostles, Jews themselves, and imbued with na-
tional exclusiveness, would never have thought of
initiating the Gentiles into the kingdom of Israel
without circumcising also all the males of the fam-
ily ; and that the Lord, in authorizing admission
through baptism alone, and without circumcision,
had specially in view the males, both adults and
infants. Had he, moreover, intended to exclude
infants, a very formal restriction would have been
indispensable, the idea of initiating the adults of
the family without the children being of course
something entirely new to the Israelites. The Lord
has really not ordained the baptism of women, but
he has not forbidden it. There is no indication,
however, that under his ministry or that of John
the Baptist a single woman had been baptized.
Their baptism is probably a development which
came later, as consequence of the spiritual nature
of Christianity, in which there is neither male nor
female, and because, also, the rite was practicable
on both sexes, while circumcision was not. The
first time women are baptized, the circumstance is
carefully recorded ; it was an innovation which had
Philip for its first originator, and was afterwards
indorsed and followed by the Apostles. " They
were baptized, both men and women." (Acts viii.
12.)

THE COMMISSION GIVEN. 175

§ 75. Baptists suppress the Half of the Com-
mand on Baptism, just as the Priests the Half
of that on the Holy Supper. But Jesus Christ
commands to baptize Children. — The commis-
sion of the Lord is of such supreme importance in
the question of baptism that we cannot leave it
without summing up carefully the conclusions just
reached. It is the sole command to baptize in the
New Testament. It does not institute baptism, but
supposes it as already instituted and understood,
either as to the mode or as to the religious mean-
ing, and for this sends us back to John the Baptist,
and he in his turn to the Old Testament. The
commission does not apply to the Jews, whose right
to baptism was already established ; it applies only
to the Gentiles, who had then never received Chris-
tian baptism, and who are thus placed on a level
with Israel. The order is strictly only that of
" making disciples " of the nations, and baptism is
implied but indirectly in the command, as a means
to execute it. The baptism precedes the teaching.
The command places no conditions previous to bap-
tism, not even assent, leaving this, however, to be
necessarily implied either in the adult or the parent
of the child. There is no command of the Lord,
either expressed or implied, restricting baptism to
believers. The commission sanctions baptism before
faith, as John the Baptist and the Apostles practised

176 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

it. Finally, it enjoins the baptism of infants just as
much as that of adults, and by no means separates
the nations into two classes, one of which is unbap-
tizable. Jesus Christ does not command the bap-
tism of adults one whit more than that of children
or infants ; the Divine authority is precisely equal
for the baptism of both. The priest who deprives
the laymen of the cup, and who decides arbitrarily
that " Drink ye all " means all the clergy, and that
a special order is wanted for the laymen, does not
trample upon the Word of God any more than the
Baptist does. If we baptize infants, it is because
Jesus Christ has commanded us to do so, and be-
cause we do not feel at liberty to disobey him. If
there is no authority for baptizing children, there
is none either for baptizing adults. The baptism
of infants, or no baptism at all, such is Scripture.
The sole restriction as to subjects, to which the text
might lend itself, is the baptism of males, which lit-
erally is alone prescribed, while that of women is
left unmentioned.

These conclusions are important ones ; not only
do they elucidate the subject, but they point out to
us in what direction we must pursue our investiga-
tions on baptism. A glance backwards on the Old
Testament becomes indispensable.

CHAPTER VII.

THE ANTECEDENTS OF EVANGELICAL BAPTISM.

§ 76. The New Testament is incomplete in

reference to Baptism. — "When Jesus Christ en-
tered on his ministry, he found the baptism of
water already established and practised by his fore-
runner ; he only continued it, limiting it to the
Jews while he lived, and extending it to the Gen-
tiles after his death. But of whom had John the
Baptist himself learned the ceremony ? Where did
he ascertain its mode, its religious import, and the
subjects who are to receive it ? Was a special reve-
lation made to instruct him in reference to this rite,
or did he find the practice already established, and
only continued it, and made it more special in con-
nection with the expected coming of the Messiah ?
Besides, was John himself baptized ? If he was
not, what right had he to impose on others as neces-
sary a ceremony which he had not himself under-
gone ? If he had gone through it, who then had
baptized him ?

8* L

178 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

Here are a good many questions, very important
and indeed essential to the study of baptism, which
without their solution can neither be understood
nor practised with any certainty ; and yet they re-
main without an answer in the New Testament.
John received no special revelation on the rite of
baptism. He only received the order to baptize the
people with water (John i. 33), but that was all.
This does not imply that lie was the first to baptize,
any more than the order given to Paul to preach
will show that no one had ever preached before
him. On the contrary, the order, to be understood,
supposes the practice already established. Now, it
is without precedent, and we might well say impos-
sible, that God should have instituted a new cere-
mony, without clearly explaining it, without stating
its religious import, without fixing its symbolical
meaning, and without prescribing its mode of per-
formance. When circumcision is first established,
into how many precise details goes Scripture, so
that there should be no room for doubt and uncer-
tainty ! See again, later, with what care, what pre-
cision, the sacrifices and all the ceremonies of the
law are introduced. And under the New Covenant,
notice how the same care, the same precautions,
are taken, in order to institute the sacrament of the
Holy Supper. Jesus prescribes the mode, he ex-
plains the import of the rite, and the Apostles, after

THE ANTECEDENTS OF EVANGELICAL BAPTISM. 179

him, repeat again to the faithful the very words of
Christ instituting the ordinance, so as to have it well
understood, But as to baptism, there are no words
of its institution, either from John the Baptist, or
from Jesus Christ, or from any of the Apostles ;
and the only command concerning it, that of the
Lord, prescribes solely the baptism of the heathen,
and implies the anterior existence of the ceremony.
Here and there you can catch in the Biblical ac-
counts of baptism, or in the allusions made to it by
the Apostles, some fragments of its doctrine or of its
practice, which are as so many dispersed rays of
light, which have to be gathered and concentrated
with great labor, but with only a partial success,
leaving ample room for fancy and discord. The
assistance of the Fathers is called in, and their ob-
scure statements, united to the incomplete data of
the New Testament, are used for the erection of a
baptismal scaffolding, and the higher it rises, the
more one feels that there is something wanting in
the foundations. Baptist or Pedobaptist, each en-
deavors to prop up his tottering edifice even with
the most flimsy materials ; but the moment the
wind blows fresh from the regions of criticism or
logic, the whole crumbles down.

§ 77. There are Three Alternatives : 1. Re-
ject Baptism altogether. 2. Conduct it on

180 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

Tradition and Fancy. 3. Connect it with the
Old Testament. — This gap, this great deficiency
in the Gospel, compels us to one of the three follow-
ing alternatives.

First alternative. — Leave the baptism of water
entirely aside, as impracticable for us. We should
in this case acknowledge, with Quakers and So-
ciuians, that it was a transitory rite, destined to
introduce Christianity into the world, but the prac-
tice of which belonged only to the beginnings of the
new dispensation, and that, if we have neither com-
mands nor positive instructions in regard to it, the
reason is that it was never intended we should prac-
tise it. Many Evangelical Christians in our days,
without professing openly this opinion, conform
tacitly to it. Shaken in their views through the
Baptists, but feeling considerable repugnance to join
them, they remain half-way in a practical negation
of baptism, having lost confidence in the one they
received, and refraining both from being re-baptized
themselves, or from having their children baptized.
This passive negativism, which is on the increase,
serves admirably the interests of the Baptists ; for
if it does not secure the parent to their church, it
at least forces adult baptism on his children. Ex-
tremes often meet, and unbelief promotes effectually
the practice of a baptism of believers only, for it.
cannot be denied that both infidels and Baptists are
perfectly agreed in rejecting infant baptism.

THE ANTECEDENTS OF EVANGELICAL BAPTISM. 181

Second alternative. — The attempt can be made
to construct the doctrine of baptism on the very-
incomplete data of the New Testament, by adding
materials drawn from the Fathers, and filling up
with hypothesis and probabilities. This is the fash-
ion of Baptists and Romanists, and unfortunately
also to some extent of Pedobaptists. But, as we
have seen, the materials drawn from the New Testa-
ment alone are totally insufficient, while those from
the Fathers are at least a whole century posterior
to the Apostles, and already well impregnated with
superstition. So that, when this second alternative
is adopted, the field is opened to imagination, and
a superficial but inventive mind will be able, with-
out much exertion, to construct either the baptism
of Romanists, or that of Greeks, or that of Luther-
ans, or that of Puseyites, or that of Baptists, or
again that of Mormons ; but such baptism will ever
be, in relation to Scripture, but a castle in the air.

Tliird alternative. — Finally, the origin of bap-
tism will be sought in an epoch anterior to John
the Baptist ; it will be ascertained whether the New
Testament does not connect the rite with something
antecedent, which explains it, and whether bap-
tism does not borrow essentially the character of
another ceremony, more ancient, to which it is first
associated, and for which it is then substituted. In
a word, the whole Bible, and not the New Testa-

182 THE BAPTISM OF WATER

ment alone, will be taken as the legitimate field of
investigation for baptism. In this case, neither the
mode, nor the meaning, nor the practice of baptism
shall any longer be vague, nor a theme for religious
fancy, but they shall be determined with precision
by antecedents. It will be readily understood that
we point here to the Mosaical ablutions, the cove-
nants, and circumcision. Indeed, with all this do we
connect baptism. Far more, we protest that there
can be no real knowledge of baptism without these
antecedents, that without them the rite becomes
uncertain and impracticable, and that all which is
constructed outside of these premises is not really
baptism, but another spurious ceremony, a fac-
simile of modern invention, to which a usurped
name, borrowed from Scripture, has been added.

CHAPTER VIII.

PUKIFICATION AND THE BAPTISMS OF THE OLD
TESTAMENT.

§78. The Baptism of Water is Purification

Symbolical and Religious. — "Christ has sancti-
fied and cleansed the Church with the washing of
water by the Word." (Eph. v. 26.) Or, more cor-
rectly, according to the original, " Christ has sancti-
fied the Church in purifying it by the washing of the
water in his Word." In these terms does Paul
allude to the figure of baptism. He calls it " a
washing of water which purifies," and elsewhere
" a washing of regeneration and of renewing."
(Titus iii. 5, original.) Purification was thus the
leading idea of baptism with the Apostles. First,
external purification of the flesh through the water,
then internal purification of the soul through the
Spirit. This is the thought of Peter, when he
speaks of water-baptism as " the putting away of the
filth of the flesh." This was the thought of Jesus
Christ when he washed the feet of his disciples, and

184 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

used the external purification of water as a type of
that internal purification, without which there is no
salvation. " If I wash thee not, thou hast no part

with me He that is washed needeth not save

to wash his feet, but is clean every whit ; and ye are
clean, but not all." (John xiii. 8, 10.) Finally, it
is only purification which both the disciples of John
and the Jews saw in baptism. " There arose a
question between some of John's disciples and the
Jews about purifying. And they came unto John,
and said to him, Rabbi, he that was with thee, be-
hold, the same baptizeth." The question of purify-
ing was thus one of baptism. (John iii. 25, 26.)
Water was kept in " water-pots of stone, after the
manner of the purifying of the Jews." (ii. 6.)
" When the Jews come from the market, except
they baptize, they eat not. They baptize also, cups,
pots, and beds." (Mark vii. 4, orig.) Pilate him-
self, though a pagan, in conformity with the popular
idea, washes his hands publicly, as a religious sym-
bol of innocence, of purification from the crime
which is about to be perpetrated. All these wash-
ings and baptisms with regard to purification were
religious customs of the Jews, long established, and
perfectly understood by the whole people, so that
to them the baptism of John needed no explana-
tion ; it was the purification of a people preparing
for the coming of the Messiah. But the custom

PURIFICATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 185

was not the creation of these Jews, they had inher-
ited it from their forefathers ; it was prescribed to
them by the law of Moses, although they had exag-
gerated it through their traditions. Thus also the
Epistle to the Hebrews, which connects so inti-
mately the New Covenant with the Old, has not
failed to speak of baptism in the same Mosaical
sense, as being an external purification, type of the
internal one. It says, " Having our hearts sprin-
kled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed
with pure water." (Heb. x. 22.-) Finally, the
same Epistle classes " the doctrine of baptisms "
amongst the elementary doctrines of Christianity
(vi. 3), and, referring again to these " divers wash-
ings " (in the original, baptisms), informs us that
they were ordinances of the law of Moses. In these
last two passages the original expressions are just
the same, " baptisms," and differ only in the ver-
sion. The last declaration on these " divers bap-
tisms " is formal, and sends us back unequivocally
to the Old Testament for their explanation. Let us,
therefore, conform to this valuable direction of the
Holy Ghost.

§ 79. The Baptism of a whole Nation before

Sinai. — The most ancient act of religious puri-
fication through water, mentioned in the Bible, is
that of the purification of the people at the moment

186 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

when the law is to be promulgated from the top of
Sinai : " Go unto the people, and sanctify them
to-day and to-morrow, and let them wash their
clothes." (Ex. xix. 10, 22.) The priests also
must be sanctified after the same manner. This
sanctification of the people implied a conformity
with the ordinances for purification, a partial wash-
ing of the body, without which the washing of the
clothes could not have sanctified them. Purified
clothes put upon an unpurified body would have
become instantly defiled again. " And thus shalt
thou do unto them to cleanse them ; sprinkle water
of purifying upon them, and let them wash their
clothes, and so make themselves clean." (Numb,
viii. 7.) A lustral sanctification of the whole peo-
ple then took place before Sinai. From necessity
this baptism was administered to all without excep-
tion, including women and even infants ; otherwise
the men, being alone purified, would immediately
have been defiled again by contact with their wives
and children, while they were to be kept sanctified
for two days. It was a similar purification of the
whole people, with the same object in view, and
with the same religious and symbolical import,
that John the Baptist was ordered from heaven to
perform. It was the external sanctification of the
whole people, intended, like that of Sinai, to pre-
pare for the promulgation of a new law, — that

PURIFICATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 187

of the Messiah, the Gospel. At the first purifi-
cation before Sinai there may have been some
moral compulsion, for he who would have refused
to let either himself or any member of his family be
sanctified, would have been cut off from the nation.
The second national purification — that of the New
Covenant — was, on the contrary, to be voluntary.
John was therefore ordered not to force it upon
the people, but to preach it, baptizing all who ac-
cepted his message. It is known how multitudes
listened to his voice, and how the people were bap-
tized in a mass. They seemed quite prepared to
forsake the Old Covenant and accept the long-prom-
ised new one ; but when the doctrines of the latter
were known to them, their carnal hearts rebelled,
as formerly Israel in the desert.

§ 80. The Initiating Baptism of the Priest-
hood. — After this general baptism of the nation
comes the special baptism of the priests, which is
the first act of the ceremony of ordination to the
priesthood. (Ex. xxix. 4.) The order given to
Moses was to sanctify Aaron and his sons, and their
consecration takes place through the water and the
blood successively applied to their bodies. Aaron
does not baptize himself, but Moses baptizes him
in the name of the Lord ; and Aaron and his sons,
in turn, baptize the future priests, (xl. 12-15.)

188 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

Moses, the first baptizer, had himself been previ-
ously baptized from the hand of God in the Red
Sea. After first receiving his baptism from the
hand of another, the priest must repeat it himself
each time he goes into the holy place, to indicate
that nothing impure or defiled shall enter the abode
of Divinity, and for this purpose a laver of brass
was placed at the door of the tabernacle. But this
baptism was not an immersion. " Aaron and his
sons shall only wash their hands and their feet, and
this shall be a statute forever, through all genera-
tions." (Ex. xxx. 18, 19, 21.) The water must
even be always poured over the body, and not the
feet and hands dipped into it, for otherwise the
laver would have become defiled. (Lev. xv. 12 ;
2 Kings iii. 11.) For the same reason, immersion,
which was used only for some inanimate objects,
always took place in running water. The baptism
of the priests was that of affusion or sprinkling.
Again, elsewhere, Moses thus ordains the consecra-
tion of the priests, saying : " Take the Levites from
among the children of Israel and cleanse them.
And thus shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them :
Sprinkle water of purifying upon them." (Numb,
viii. 6, 7.)

§ 81. The Baptism by S pi 'inkling in Purifi-
cation for Sin. — We pass in silence over the

PURIFICATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 189

lustra! purifications for the leper, dead bodies, im-
pure animals, and inanimate objects, to reach the
baptism of purification for sin. This baptism does
not take place without sacrifice. A heifer is immo-
lated, consumed by fire, and its ashes mingled with
the water of baptism, to be used by the congrega-
tion of the children of Israel and sprinkled over
them ; " it is a purification for sin." (Numb.
xix. 9.) This passage is very remarkable, for it,
with the whole context, explains both the essential
meaning of baptism and its mode. First it is called
hi the Hebrew and by the Septuagint a water of
sprinkling, and not, as in the version, " a water of
separation." At any rate, this water is only to
be sprinkled (ver. 13, 18-21), and it is also a
purification for sin. This baptism was obligatory.
" The man that shall not purify himself shall be cut
off from amongst the congregation ; the water not
having been sprinkled upon him, he is unclean."
(ver. 20.) This baptism was conferred upon all
with the greatest facility. The sprinkling of water
was made upon whomsoever was defiled (ver. 13),
and even upon all persons present in an unclean
place, without distinction of age or sex. Even in-
animate objects, supposed unclean, such as tents
and vessels, were baptized with the same sprinkling
(ver. 18). Children were then included in the
prescription, and baptized as well as the rest.

190 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

§ 82. In the Days of Jesus Christ a Baptist
would not have been understood, and would
have passed for a Monomaniac. — Such were
both the practice and doctrine of the Jews upon
baptism, from Moses to Jesus Christ. They were
all extremely familiar with baptisms, because they
had been ordered by God in the law. The novelty
of the baptism of John could consist only in the
modification of an ancient ceremony, which more-
over had its analogy in the baptism of the people
before Mount Sinai. This is why neither John, nor
Jesus, nor the Apostles explain the ceremony or
prescribe its mode. It would have been superflu-
ous to institute or to explain a religious usage
which was universal in their nation. If in the
Gospel times a single Baptist could have arisen,
no one would have listened to him, for no one
would have understood him. Clearly he would
have passed for a lunatic and a monomaniac who
should have made it a case of conscience not to
baptize children, when they baptized even tents,
tables, and pots. If John the Baptist, the Lord,
and the Apostles had wished to introduce Baptist
practice, they would have been obliged to give the
most formal instructions to overthrow the estab-
lished practice, and to combat the notions upon
baptism proceeding from the Old Testament. They
have not done it. It would have been necessary

PURIFICATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 191

to restrain, through severe rules of exclusion, the
great facility with which baptism was performed.
There is none, not even one. Not a word of re-
striction. At this period a Baptist would have been
a being entirely incomprehensible.

§ 83. The Baptism of the Gospel is prepared

through the Prophets. — The prophets prepared
the baptism of the Gospel by making the purifica-
tion of water the symbol of spiritual purification.
They say : " Wash you, make you clean." (Is. i.
16 ; iv. 4.) "I shall be sanctified in you ; I will
sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be
clean ; from all your filthiness will I cleanse you.
A new heart also will I give you, and I will put
my spirit within you." (Ezek. xxxvi. 23 - 27.)
" "Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and
cleanse me from my sin. Purge me with hyssop,
and I shall be clean ; wash me, and I shall be
whiter than snow." (Ps. li. 2, 7.) To these decla-
rations John could appeal in preaching his baptism.

§ 84. John the Baptist was himself baptized,

and that by Sprinkling. — At last the great proph-
et, John the Baptist, appears on the scene ; he
preaches that the coming of the Messiah is immi-
nent, that he will soon establish the promised New
Covenant, and he urges the people to prepare for

9 192 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

it by purifying themselves through a baptism of
water, as a sign of that purification from sins of
which the Messiah brings the remission. But what
right has he to baptize ? Has he been baptized
himself? Undoubtedly he has, for he is the son
of a priest, Zacharias, and as the priesthood was
hereditary, and he had been brought up under the
law, he must necessarily have entered the priest-
hood at the age of thirty (Numb. iv. 3), and have
been ordained to it through the baptism of initia-
tion. He had then received the baptism of priest-
hood, a unique baptism, which was never repeated
on the same subject. He was baptized before he
began his ministry ; he was himself baptized before
he baptized others, and the sole baptism which he
received was both a baptism by sprinkling and one
ordered by the law. The Jews and the multitudes
would never have acknowledged John's right to bap-
tize them if he had not been himself a priest, and
moreover a prophet, for all held him to be such.
This character could alone justify his mission before
the people, and confer upon him the authority, as
upon a new Moses, of purifying the whole nation
through baptism.

§ 85. John the Baptist innovates as to Bap-
tism, 1>> restricting the External Form and ex-
tending the Spiritual Meaning. — The baptism

PUBLICATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 193

of John, both as to its form and as to its symbolical
meaning, was deeply rooted in antecedents, and
evolved from the baptisms which had preceded,
which had been ordained of God, and more than a
thousand years in use. The new circumstances
under which baptism was imparted alone modified
the sense, while retaining the form. John baptized
for the remission of sins ; this was nothing new, it
was the old idea ; the novelty consisted in baptizing
upon a special reference to the coming of Christ,
and placed in his Messianic work the ground for the
future remission of sins. What was new is the
further development of the spiritual idea, the inti-
mation of a baptism of the Holy Ghost to be looked
for after the baptism of water, and that general
confession of sins, implied, it is true, in the baptism
of Moses, but not in such a decided manner. What
was new, again, is that John replaced all the " di-
vers baptisms " which had preceded by a unique
baptism of water, upon which he concentrated all
the religious ideas of former lustrations. While he
conferred upon the people a baptism of purification
of sins, he administered to Jesus Christ a baptism
of consecration to the priesthood. And we also, in
turn, are made priests with John the Baptist and
with Jesus Christ, in figure, through the baptism of
water, and in reality through the baptism of the
Holy Ghost which follows.

194 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

The baptism of John introduced also an exter-
nal innovation, not in the mode, but in the con-
comitant circumstances of baptism. He left aside
the blood, and retained but the water. At the
ordination of priests, the baptism of water was fol-
lowed with an aspersion of the blood of a victim ;
and under the Old Testament the ashes of a sacri-
fice were introduced into the water of the baptism
of purification for sin. John, as the prophet-Fore-
runner, sees henceforth no sacrifice but that of the
Lamb of God, without blemish and without spot.
He separates his baptism from sacrifice. What
John has done, is therefore but to simplify and to
restrict, in its external mode, an ancient ceremony,
and at the same time to impart a greater develop-
ment to its spiritual meaning. For this reason is
the institution called in the Gospel the baptism
of John, not only to distinguish it from the bap-
tisms of Moses, but also because John alone, and
not the Apostles, introduced the last modifications in
the baptism of water. It is also called the baptism
of repentance to distinguish it from the formal and
ceremonious baptisms of the Jews. But these very
names imply the existence of a baptism previous to
John ; otherwise the institution would have been
simply called the baptism, and this would have
been sufficient, if there had been no other practised
from which it had to be distinguished.

PURIFICATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 195

§ 86. The Baptism of the Death of Christ, —
the Consequence and the Complement of the
Baptism of Water. — This symbolical meaning of
the baptism of water, found in the Old Testament,
namely, that of an external religious purification,
casts a vivid light on some difficult passages. Thus,
these words of our Saviour, " But I have a baptism
to be baptized with ; and how am I straitened till it
be accomplished ! " (Luke xii. 50) ; and again,
when he says to the sons of Zebedee, " Are ye able
to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized
with ? " (Matt. xx. 22.) Let us insert here the
true meaning of the word baptize, namely, to puri-
fy, and thus regard it as signifying not only the
purification, but also the sacrifice for sin and the
consecration to the priesthood ; how clear and spir-
itual then becomes the import of these passages !
Here is the high-priest consecrating himself through
his blood, offering himself for the people as a pro-
pitiation for their sins, which he bears upon himself.
Sacrifice was wanting as an integral part of the new
baptism introduced under the Gospel ; Jesus Christ
will himself complete baptism. (Heb. ix. 24, 26 ;
x. 12, 13.) " He comes by water and blood, not
by water only, but by water and blood." He begins
his ministry by water, and he ends it by blood.
Henceforth baptism will remind us of the beginning
of his work, of the necessity on our part of repent-

196 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

ance, and the need of a remission of sins ; while the
Holy Supper will make us remember the end of his
work, its accomplishment through his blood poured
out. Baptism will be a look cast at the future ; the
Supper, a remembrance of the past. The Son of
man, loaded as he was with the guilt of mankind,
was straitened until his expiatory career was closed,
until he was purified and consecrated through a
bloody death. The sons of Zebedee were baptized
with water, but they had not yet been baptized with
this baptism which Jesus Christ expected. They
had not been baptized into his death, and yet Jesus
Christ announces to them that at some future time
they will share in his baptism : " Ye shall indeed
be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized
with." Yes, and every regenerated believer is bap-
tized into the death of Christ through the very fact
of his faith. He is crucified with him, dead with
him, and raised up with him. But this spiritual
baptism the Apostles received only long after their
baptism of water, and the thief on the cross shared
in this baptism, without having ever passed through
a baptismal ceremony.

§ 87. "Who are those who are Baptized for

the Dead. — The baptism for the dead (1 Cor. xv.
29), which has tortured so many commentators, and
upon which there are so many hypotheses afloat,

PURIFICATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 197

owes all its obscurity to the pertinacity with which
a Christian baptism has been sought in the practice
alluded to here. Paul refers simply to the Mosaic
custom of being baptized for the dead when defiled
by contact with them. (Numb, xix.) This custom
had already been called in the Septuagint " being
baptized from the dead" (see §20). The Apostle
employs here an argument ad hominem. Those who
denied the resurrection of the dead were the Sad-
ducees ; several of the disciples had once belonged
to that sect, and still retained more or less that
error. But these people continued to observe the
law of Moses, and undoubtedly, like other Jews,
attached much importance to their ablutions. Paul
therefore argues with them, saying: What signifi-
cance can a religious purification for the dead have,
if there be no resurrection of the body ? Impurity
is what ought not to be. But if death is the abso-
lute end of man, the permanent state to which he
is destined, it is no longer an impurity, it cannot
imply religious defilement. The doctrine of puri-
fications becomes an aimless folly, for it can have
sense only inasmuch as death is an abnormal state,
a thing not to be ; baptism for the dead, therefore,
inevitably implies resurrection. Such an argument
may appear singular to us, but it was probably the
strongest that could be employed on that point with
converted Jews. At any rate, the baptism for the

198 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

dead, being a Scriptural fact of the Old Testament,
it is not fair to set it aside in this passage, in order
to select one of the thirty and more groundless
hypotheses which have been proposed in explana-
tion.

CHAPTER IX.

BAPTISM, THE CHURCH AND THE FAMILY.

§ 88. The Question of Baptism ought not to
become complicated with that of the Church,
but should remain Distinct and Independent. —

The Church question interferes to complicate that
of baptism in most of the works on the latter sub-
ject. These make an ecclesiastical affair of baptism
by the following very logical reasoning : Baptism
is a sign of admission into the Church, and gives a
right of entrance there ; it is therefore an institu-
tion of the Church, which belongs peculiarly to it,
which it alone has the right to confer, which de-
pends upon it, and which cannot be separated from
it. Baptists and Pedobaptists are agreed on this
point, and connect their discipline more or less with
their baptism. We have nevertheless the temerity
to deny this relation entirely, and to believe that
baptism exists independently of the Church. Let
us not be condemned unheard ! Our reason for iso-
lating the study of baptism from all church theory

200 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

is very simple ; it is, that baptism existed and was
practised a long time before the foundation of the
Church ; it is then independent of it, and has its
own complete autonomy. Doubtless the Church
which is come after is bound to regard it, to recog-
nize it as the oldest evangelical institution ; it can,
and even ought to make it a preliminary condition
for the admission of its members. But it cannot
alter this rite, either as to its mode, or as to its sym-
bolical sense, or as to the class of persons to be its
recipients, for the rite is anterior to the Church.
Baptism can explain the Church, but the Church
cannot explain baptism. The Church can only
confirm this ordinance, lean upon it, and make use
of it. Many baptized persons never become mem-
bers of the Church, but all the members of a church
are baptized. Baptism then occupies a larger arena
than the Church.

Ecclesiastical preoccupations have proved fatal to
the study of baptism. By wishing to explain its
doctrine through that of the Church, it has been
embroiled, confused, and rendered more intricate,
by mixing it up with materials foreign to it. The
Church question is at least as doubtful, as difficult,
as much controverted now-a-days as that of baptism.
Therefore, by trying to make the one doctrine de-
pendent upon the other, uncertainty and confusion
have only been increased. No doubt that when one

BAPTISM, THE CHURCH AND THE FAMILY. 201

has on hand a ready-made church theory, the temp-
tation to impose it upon baptism, and put the lat-
ter into shape for propping up some ecclesiastical
organization, is wellnigh irresistible. But then the
object of convincing others in reference to baptism
fails, except in the case of those holding similar
ecclesiastical views, who are precisely those who
least need to be convinced. Indeed, the reproach
might be made to one of the most considerable
works published on baptism, that it is much less a
treatise on baptism than a treatise on the Church
with special reference to baptism.

§ 89. A Church does not haptize, and Bap-
tism does not introduce into a Church. — A

very evident fact is that a church never baptizes.
It cannot do so. But it is always an individual who
baptizes, either after the rules laid down by this or
that church, or independently of all these rules, and
upon his sole individual responsibility. It would
be an abuse of language to say that the Presby-
terian Church has baptized a child, because the rite
was performed by a Presbyterian minister. More-
over, there is not on earth one sole and universal
visible Church ; but there are several churches,
which often exclude each other, and whose baptisms
differ widely. Thus, if it were the Church that
baptized through its ministerial agent, it would be

202 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

entitled to baptize only for its own account, and
would impart, through baptism, no right of admis-
sion into other churches. A man baptized in the
Lutheran Church would belong to it, and should
be re-baptized before being received into another
church. Let a Nestorian priest baptize a child or
an adult while travelling in the United States, and
we shall ask, To what church has he initiated the
receiver of this baptism ? Shall the latter be con-
sidered as belonging to the Nestorian Church ?
Shall he be re-baptized for admission into one of the
churches of the country ? And supposing that the
baptizer should not himself belong to any church,
that, for instance, he has just been converted while
travelling, shall the validity of the baptism he has
conferred be disputed ? No, the baptism will be
acknowledged by all as valid, although it never
introduced the receiver into any church, just as the
baptisms of John the Baptist and of the Lord were
valid, although they did not admit into any church.
Thus baptism, as an initiation into a church, is a
dogmatic fiction. It is not found in Scripture, but
is an ecclesiastical rule subsequent to Apostolical
times. A church may with propriety admit only
baptized members into its bosom ; but Scriptural
baptism does not per se admit to any church-mem-
bership.

BAPTISM, THE CHURCH AND THE FAMILY. 203

§ 90. Baptism is above all the Institution of

tlie Christian Family. — But if baptism exists in-
dependently of all churches, it is certainly at least
an institution of the Christian family. It is even
here essentially that we recognize its importance.
We are convinced, from Scripture, that baptism is
not only the first external and formal bond which
ties man to his Creator, but that it binds also the
whole family to God, through its chief, and the
members of a household towards each other, and
that each man, woman, and child should receive
this sign and carry it with him.

We shall proceed still further, and show that,
whenever baptism is neglected as an institution of
the family, it is virtually denied by the head of the
house. We shall establish that there is no true
baptism except that in which all the members of a
Christian family are allowed to share, and that the
baptism which excludes children, namely, that of
Baptists, is vitiated through that very exclusion,
that it is for the parent who receives it a cere-
mony incomplete, unfinished, and therefore not
valid. Just as we hold that the communion which
proceeds as far as the bread, but stops there and
withholds the cup, is incomplete and virtually no
communion at all ; just so do we hold that the
baptism of a parent, which does not extend to his
children, but is purposely withheld from them, is

204 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

incomplete, is virtually no baptism at all. It will
follow that Baptist church-members may be held
as unbaptized Christians so long as they refuse to
complete the Christian rite by allowing it to be
extended to their household. This, it will be ob-
jected, is taking rather high ground, and going
much beyond Pedobaptists. We do not deny it ;
but let our proofs be carefully examined in the
following chapters.

CHAPTER X.

THE NATURE OF COVENANTS AND THEIR SIGNS.

& 91 . Every Covenant is necessarily confirmed
by a Seal, an Oath, or some Symbolical Sign. —

Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant, just as
circumcision is that of the Old. All are agreed on
this point, which need not therefore be proved.
They differ only on the relation and analogy exist-
ing between the two signs, some denying that the
one should have taken the place of the other, that
they should have the same import, and be conferred
upon the same subjects or according to the same
principles. We shall have to examine, therefore,
Bible in hand, what relation circumcision bears to
baptism ; but we must preface this study by anoth-
er, much more general and comprehensive, upon
the covenants themselves, upon the nature of their
signs of initiation, and upon the symbolical mean-
ing of the latter. We shall ascertain that there are
in the Bible, general principles, sure and necessary,
which apply to any covenant and to the imparting

206 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

of its sign. And we shall decide what rules Scrip-
ture lays down as to the signs of a covenant, and
as to the persons upon whom these signs are to be
conferred.

First, what is a sign given of God to man in
order to insure a promise ? Men vouch for their
most solemn engagements in various ways. First
through written agreements to which they append
their signatures. A higher degree of certainty is
imparted to the document when to the signature a
seal is added. As long as the seal is not broken, it
remains the material, unchangeable, and impassible
witness of a serious promise, and it binds the signer
more than the signature alone would do, because
it is a new and superadded sign of confirmation.
When to an engagement given verbally a solemn
gesture is added, such as a hand laid over the
heart, or any other external demonstration, this is
a sign which imparts more weight to the words.
Finally, men have instituted the oath as the most
solemn confirmation of a treaty, an alliance, or even
any serious engagement. But the oath is composed
of two distinct parts, — the word and the external
sign of gesture. The latter is used only to give
greater weight to the former ; it is of itself a lan-
guage understood of all, more awful and also more
precise and more true inasmuch as it leaves no
room for the ambiguity often concealed in words.

THE NATURE OF COVENANTS AND THEIR SIGNS. 207

This sign of the hand lifted towards heaven, while
the words of the oath are being uttered, binds man
both towards God and towards his fellow-men who
witness his gesture. God could not close an alli-
ance with man without introducing also some sign,
some religious symbol, less perishable than the writ-
ing and sealing of a document, which should be
distinct from the oath used in earthly transactions,
and which, however, should be sufficiently solemn to
bind man to God and to his fellow-men. Moreover,
it was proper that with each change of covenant
there should also be an external modification of the
sign, to express in symbolical language the religious
change in the alliance.

§ 92. The Three Covenants of the Lord, and
their Signs ; Baptists arbitrarily limit the Third.

— These alterations indeed took place, and while
undergoing three covenants with the Lord, man-
kind has also received three successive signs. First
in order comes the covenant concluded with Noah,
and which has for its sign the rainbow. This sign
is not put in the flesh ; God alone performs it, and
man has no hand in it. Then the second cove-
nant, the sign of which, circumcision, is placed in
the flesh, practised by men, but limited to one sex.
Finally, the third covenant, which has for its sign
baptism, is conferred upon both sexes. But here,

208 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

according to Baptists, God, in extending to women
the sign of his alliance, limited it on another side
by taking it away from children. Such curtail-
ment of religious privilege seems at the very first
glance incredible and monstrous, and it would re-
quire very solid proof and very formal declarations
to lead us to admit for a moment such a contra-
diction in the designs of God, such an abridgment
of his favors. But let us examine successively the
signs of each alliance and the conditions with which
they are connected.

§ 93. The First Covenant is concluded with
Noah, hut not without the Participation of his
Children. — The alliance of God with Noah ex-
tends to all his race, but is officially concluded only
with the males, Noah and his sons. " And God
spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying,
And behold, I establish my covenant with you, and
with your seed after you ; and with every living
creature. This is the token of the covenant which
I make between me and you and every living crea-
ture that is with you, for perpetual generations : I
do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a
token of a covenant between me and the earth."
(Gen. ix. 8 - 12.) The terms of this covenant are
very general : it includes very certainly children
and infants, since it extends even to the fowls of the

THE NATURE OF COVENANTS AND THEIR SIGNS. 200

air. It is not a covenant of spiritual salvation, but
a covenant of earthly salvation, a temporal mercy,
the right of living, the promise of preserving animal
existence. This covenant has not been abolished
by the accession of the two succeeding ones ; on
the contrary, it still lasts, it is perpetual. Its sign
is like the sun in the heavens, which shines for
everybody ; it extends to the whole of animated
creation, which is all included in this covenant.

§ 94. The Second Covenant is made with
Abraham and his Children. As the Third does
not annul the other Two, its Sign alone sut-
fices for and confirms all Three. — The second
alliance is concluded with Abraham ; not with
Moses, who came four hundred years later, and
whose law altered nothing in the conditions of
the covenant. Let us here authenticate at once
two important facts. One is, that the second cov-
enant did not annul the first, which continues until
now in full force ; the other is, that the abolition
of the law of Moses does in no way affect the sec-
ond alliance, or alter any of its terms, for it is
older than the law, and independent of it. When
the third covenant is introduced, it will let the
second subsist, and only be added to it, unless God
orders differently in very express words. But far
from this, the New Testament expressly reserves

210 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

the promise made to Abraham, namely, the second
covenant, as being permanent, and the inheritance
of Gentiles. The third alliance has only added to
the first two without taking away anything. Not so
with signs, otherwise called tokens. That of the
second covenant must needs have fallen into disuse,
for since the third covenant confirmed all the privi-
leges of the other two, the sign confirmatory of the
last alliance inevitably seals alone all that the first
two signs sealed.

§ 95. The Alliance made with Abraham
is perpetual, and is neither abrogated nor
abridged by a subsequent Alliance. — The cove-
nant entered into with Abraham, say the Baptists,
was a carnal alliance, referring only to the Jewish
race, and it is abolished. Not so does Saint Paul
understand it. (Rom. iv. ; Gal. iii.) He considers,
on the contrary, this alliance as essentially spiritual
and unchangeable ; and, indeed, as such did God
give it to Abraham. " The Lord appeared to him,
and said, I am the Almighty God ; walk before me,
and be thou perfect. And I will make my cove-
nant between me and thee, and thou shalt be a
father of many nations, and kings shall come out of
thee. And I will establish my covenant between me
and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their genera-
tions, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto

THE NATUEE OF COVENANTS AND THEIR SIGNS. 211

thee, and to thy seed after thee. Every man-child
among you shall be circumcised, and my covenant
shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
And the uncircumcised man shall be cut off from
his people ; he hath broken my covenant." (Gen.
xvii. 1 - 14.) We could not think of giving the
lie to God, and therefore we believe him upon his
own word when he solemnly declares that his cov-
enant with Abraham is an everlasting one. We
believe also, without the slightest hesitation, the
subsequent declarations of the Holy Ghost, when,
after the introduction of the third covenant, he
teaches us that the second is not abrogated, and
confirms unto us its spiritual import. We accept
also, without raising difficulties, the interpretation
which Paul gives of this text, when he explains that
this promise of becoming the father of many na-
tions does not concern the Jewish race, which forms
only one nation, but the Gentiles, and that this is
a paternity of faith. (Rom. iv. 12, 17, 18.) We
accept also his explanation that the promise made
in reference to the seed implies Christ, and that
through Christ all believers under the third cove-
nant are the seed of Abraham. " And if ye be
Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs
according to the promise." (Gal. iii. 15, 16, 29.)
We have therefore God's pledge that the alliance
has neither been abolished nor altered. The token

212 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

alone can have been modified, or rather absorbed
into a new token, without affecting in the least
the covenant itself.

§ 96. The Second Covenant, far from being
Carnal, is eminently Spiritual, the Promise of
Posterity signed through Circumcision having
Reference to Christ. — The attempt has been made
to lower the covenant made with Abraham, and in
order to show that it was carnal, its sign, circum-
cision, has been pointed to as implying above all
a promise of posterity according to the flesh, and
therefore without analogy with baptism. The objec-
tion, it must be confessed, is specious, but it is in
reality very superficial, and does not bear examina-
tion. When God spoke with Abraham, he resorted
to the language used and understood by the patri-
archs ; this language did not consist only of Hebrew
words, but also of the symbolical forms then in use,
and which in the East, more than elsewhere, are the
language of languages. In the opinion of these
times, and before circumcision was introduced, the
sexual organ of man represented both himself and
his family and his posterity in a figurative sense.
This figure was so literally true, that it was more a
reality than a figure. An alliance covenanted with
the head of a family, and embracing his posterity,
borrowed in the solemnity of the confirming oath

THE NATURE OF COVENANTS AND THEIR SIGNS. 213

the figure in use amongst the people of the East.
When Abraham made the ruling servant of his
house, who was to survive him, swear an oath
which concerned his posterity, he resorted to this
energetic figure. (G-en. xxiv. 2, 3, 9.) The Lord
borrowed for his covenant a symbol already under-
stood, established and practised as a sign of alliance
between men, introducing only a slight change in
the mode. He could not possibly have selected
then a sign more solemn, more eloquent, or better
understood.

The covenant, through its very sign, pointed to
posterity. And in truth the children, even the un-
born ones, were bound by the pledge of Abraham
" to walk before God and to be perfect." (Gen.
xvii. 1.) There is nothing carnal there, but, on
the contrary, an eminently spiritual covenant. But,
say the Baptists, this sign referred also to the seed
of Abraham, to the promise of the birth of a poster-
ity, and this part of the covenant was excessively
carnal ; such a covenant cannot concern us. Car-
nal ! no : for, says St. Paul, " this seed is Christ."
(Gal. iii. 16.) The promise of a Saviour who was
to come in the flesh, being the seed of Abraham,
carnal ! ! And the sign which seals this promise de-
graded below a water-baptism, because it does not,
like that rite, refer exclusively to justification by
faith, but implies also in addition the promise of the

214 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

birth of Christ ! Such infatuation does not deserve
the honor of any further notice, and we take leave
of it here.

§ 97. Circumcision was an immense Privi-
lege, — the Spiritual Bond which united all the
Members of the Family to God and to one
another. — Now, was circumcision a privilege, or
was it a burden of the law ? Such a question
seems almost idle. If the covenant is a grace, the
seal which confirms it can only be an additional
grace, and the Jews have at all times considered
circumcision as an immense religious privilege
which they enjoyed over other nations. But again,
this circumcision which was granted to Abraham as
a privilege, as a special act of favor, was it such
also for his children ? We shall answer through
another question. Are the signature, the seal, and
the oath, which confirm a future inheritance to a
child still a minor, of no advantage to him ? Cer-
tainly the child has an immense interest at stake in
the transaction, although totally unconscious of it.
He who would laugh at the process, and turn into
ridicule the signature made for a minor by his par-
ent or guardian, asserting that all proceedings of a
nature to bind should be stayed until the child can
himself sign, would decidedly not have the scoffers
on his side, and would very soon pass for insane.

THE NATURE OF COVENANTS AND THEIR SIGNS. 215

Let, at least, the same practical common-sense be
turned to what belongs to the covenants of the Lord
and to their signs !

The circumcision of a child was not only a privi-
lege to him ; it was also one to the parent. While
the latter rejoiced in the promise of the Lord, part
of his joy consisted in the assurance that the cove-
nant was a religious benefit which he was imparting
to his posterity. Just as worldly riches can scarcely
be enjoyed by a kind parent if he is debarred from
handing them over to his children, and the right
of legacy enhances their value, just so was it part
of the enjoyment of the possession of the covenant
to be able to transmit it as a sacred inheritance to
one's family and whole household. By circumcis-
ing his new-born babe, the parent was closing an
alliance with the Lord for the benefit of the child.
The latter was brought up in that covenant ; as
soon as he began to think and to speak, they incul-
cated upon him that he belonged to the Lord ; that
his father, using his paternal right, had bound him
to that holy service through a solemn act, and that
he could not escape the obligation as long as under
parental authority. If afterwards he did not follow
the ways of the Lord, he broke the covenant, and it
was his own doing. If he persevered, he continued
faithful to the Lord, and proved true to the engage-
ment entered into for him by his parents. The

216 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

parents, on their side, pledged themselves solemnly,
through the ceremony, to bring up their child in the
fear of God, to make him observe his commands,
and to compel him to fulfil all the obligations of the
covenant. This rite, through its consequences, was
an immense spiritual blessing for both parents and
children. It was the religious bond of the family,
which drew together all its members to God. This
consecration of each individual not only bound him,
but implied also his posterity. Nor should it be im-
agined, that because males only received the sign,
females were excluded from the covenant. All the
seed being covenanted in reference not only to the
present, but also to the future, and whatever was
born, male or female being that consecrated seed,
belonged by this very fact to the covenant of the
Lord.

& 98. It is tantamount to denying Scripture
and insulting: God to assert that the New
Covenant has lessened or suppressed the Privi-
leges of the Old one towards any Portion of
the Family. — Circumcision was then emphatically
the religious institution of the family. A spiritual
ordinance, the pledge of the Covenant, the symbol
of the faithfulness of God, it proved a glorious
privilege, which was dear to the heart of every
father and mother in Israel. But now comes the

THE NATURE OF COVENANTS AND THEIR SIGNS. 217

New Covenant, and it brings along a new token.
Then, according to the Baptists, Woe to Israel !
Woe to the believers ! Woe to their children ! A
magnificent privilege of God is going to be torn
from them, and nothing will be placed in its stead.
The Lord, if we are to trust them, is going to break
his covenant with the family, and henceforth he
will enter into no covenant engagement except with
adults individually. The Christian family is about
to be degraded below the Jewish household, and
placed on a level with the pagan family ! God,
who had promised an everlasting covenant to the
faithful and to his posterity, is going to lie, to with-
draw completely from the child the privileges he
had conceded to him, and to thus lessen also those
of the parent ! In a word, they make the Lord
say : " I extend hereafter the token of my covenant
upon women, but I take it away from children ! "
If this was only a Baptist fable, it would be bad
enough, but it is really an insult offered to God ;
it is denying his Word ; it is giving the lie to the
Apostles, who have assured us that the covenant
contracted with Abraham is neither broken nor
lessened, and that now as ever " the promise is
unto us and to our children." (Acts ii. 39.) The
covenants of the Lord will hold good until the end
of ages, and the privileges connected with them

shall never be lessened, but rather extended. It
10

218 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

is evident that, if the Apostles had preached the
Baptist doctrine, and refused to children the rite
of initiation to the covenant, the Jews would have
repelled their preaching, and would have been right
in so doing. Such was their attachment to circum-
cision, that the Apostles were obliged to allow its
practice to continue long after the foundation of
the Church, that Paul had to circumcise Timothy,
and that Jewish Christians would never have sur-
rendered this privilege, if baptism had not offered
to them a full equivalent.

§ 99. A Sign of Covenant which excludes the
Family is not valid, and the Baptism of a Par-
ent without that of his Children is incomplete
and of no Value. — Finally, we desire to draw
attention to a fact of the highest importance, which
seems to have escaped observation ; namely, that
when an adult was being circumcised, the circum-
cision of his children, if he had any, formed an
integral and indispensable part of the rite of his
own circumcision. There is no instance of a father
being circumcised without his children, and the
father who would have neglected to have his sons
circumcised would have thus impaired his own
privilege of circumcision ; he would have denied
the covenant through this very omission, and its
sign would have become useless to him. The rea-

THE NATURE OF COVENANTS AND THEIR SIGNS. 219

son of this is self-evident. The covenant is first
contracted with the parent, and not with the child.
"And I will make my covenant between me and
thee." (Gen. xvii. 2.) But the token shall be
placed upon everything that belongs to the family
and household of Abraham, — upon Ishmael, who
is excluded from the best promises, and even upon
the servants, who are not heirs to them. The idea
of a spiritual covenant corresponds, therefore, to
that of a political alliance between an inferior chief
and a sovereign, through which the chief is bound
to cause the treaty to be respected by all who are
subject to his own authority, and to make the
colors of the empire float over all his dominions.
But if the chief excepts from the alliance any por-
tion of his domain, or even the smallest number
of his subjects, although he may have signed the
treaty, the sovereign will take no account of this
signature ; he will consider it as being of no avail.
He will insist that the alliance embraces the whole
household of the chief, without exception, and every
household of each of his subjects. It will be neces-
sary that the entire population subject to the chief
enter into the alliance, or that not one of them
enters into it, and this alliance will bind the grown-
up man as well as the child in the cradle, and even
the unborn generation. A covenant without these
conditions is not a covenant. It is a worthless doc-

220 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

ument, to which in vain are attached seal and sig-
nature. Such, however, is the mutilated covenant
Baptists would persuade us that we have. It is a
nonentity. God cannot accept it ; and their bap-
tism, through its exclusion of infants, becomes in-
valid. It may be a baptism, but it is not the bap-
tism, the seal of the covenant, any more than was
the baptism of Pharisees. It is just as if Abraham
had circumcised himself alone, and had refused to
circumcise his household, for some plausible reason.
The alliance would not then have been ratified
between him and the Lord, through the sole fact
that his circumcision, having been made exclusively
personal to himself, would have been incomplete.
However sincere his love of God, yet his loyalty
would have been outwardly that of a rebel. This is
so true, that whenever a stranger was having him-
self circumcised, in order to celebrate the Passover
with the people, it was not granted to him, — that
is to say, he was not considered as truly circum-
cised, — unless he had at the same time caused
his whole household to be circumcised with him.
(Ex. xii. 48.)

§ 100. The Anger of the Lord is kindled
against the Baptist Practice of Moses. — This
view is further confirmed by a very remarkable
fact. Moses seems to have allowed himself to be

THE NATURE OF COVENANTS AND THEIR SIGNS. 221

carried away for a while with Baptist notions ; he
neglected or postponed the circumcision of his chil-
dren. We know too well the eminence of his relig-
ious character to doubt that in this he acted with
perfect sincerity. But, however sincere his error
might have been, God was extremely displeased ;
he saw his covenant virtually set aside ; and it was
not on the son, who was innocent, but upon the
father, the head of the family, that he resolved to
punish this neglect, and " the Lord sought to kill
him." The mother was what we call in modern
times a rabid Baptist ; she was very much opposed
to the child receiving circumcision, and became very
violent and abusive when her husband enforced his
paternal authority in this matter. She was, how-
ever, the daughter of Jethro, a man fearing God
and a priest ; but she had lived amongst the Arabs,
these Baptists of the desert, who never circumcise
before the age of thirteen, that at which Ishmael re-
ceived the rite, and she experienced the most lively
repugnance to allowing her son to be circumcised.
Probably the Baptist rationalism, which taxes with
folly the putting of the token of covenant on in-
fants, had taken hold of the mind of this woman,
and Moses, at a loss to answer her pungent ar-
guments, had given way to her and yielded to her
objections. Moses, like several Evangelical Chris-
tians of the day, must have thought that after all

222 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

the thing was of very little importance, or else he
would not have thus neglected it. But the wrath
of God was kindled against his neglect, however
plausible, and he imparted to him a severe lesson,
which the Holy Ghost has consigned to the pages
of Scripture for the instruction of all future ages
of the Church. (Ex. iv. 24-26.)

CHAPTER XI.

THE HISTORY OF THE COVENANT AND OF ITS SIGN
FROM ABRAHAM TO CHRIST.

§ 101. The Circumcision of Ishmael con-
fers upon lii hi none but Spiritual Privileges. —

The principles which we have laid down upon the
nature of a covenant and its token, are amply con-
firmed in the Old Testament, for there is no trace
in this Divine record of a single alliance contracted
between the Lord and an individual, which did not
include also the infants in a most remarkable man-
ner. In this connection let us pass under review
some facts subsequent to the instituting of the cov-
enant and of circumcision.

Ishmael when adult was expelled in spite of his
circumcision, for he had no personal claim to the
covenant. He had not been circumcised for his
own sake, but for the sake of his parent, Abraham,
because the token of the covenant was to be placed
upon every member of the household or upon none.
The only benefit which Ishmael could and did ob-

224 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

tain from circumcision, was a participation in the
religious discipline of the family, and this entirely
spiritual advantage was the only one accruing to
him. It was again more in view of the father than
of the child that God ordered Abraham to offer
Isaac as a sacrifice, in order to test his faithfulness
to the covenant through an act of obedience, and
thus renew and confirm it. Therefore God said,
" Because thou hast not withheld thy son, I will
bless thee." This feeling of Abraham, this " not
withholding his child from God," should be experi-
enced by every Christian parent when presenting
his infant to be baptized.

§ 102. Tlie General Profanation of the Rite
at Sichem was never used as an Argument
against the Institution.— A generation has scarcely
passed away since God gave to Abraham the sign
of circumcision, when it is profaned at Sichem by
the sons of Jacob, and its spiritual import set aside
to use the rite as a mere politico-religious ceremony.
(Gen. xxxiv.) Why then be dismayed if baptism
as well as circumcision was very early corrupted,
misunderstood, and turned to superstitious, profane,
or even political use ! The faithful of those days
did not, however, think to remedy the evil by spirit-
ualizing circumcision, and remodelling it by limita-
tion to adult believers. Moses alone tried this auda-

THE HISTORY OF THE COVENANT AND ITS SIGN. 225

cious and faithless scheme, and with what results
is known.

§ 103. Children and Infants compelled to
contract the Covenant. — That unconscious in-
fants really covenanted with the Lord through their
parents when circumcised, is confirmed by other
instances. When the Decalogue is promulgated
upon Sinai, all the people, as we have seen, includ-
ing women and infants, were present, and were also
all baptized. The observance of the Sabbath, par-
ticipating in the nature of a covenant, was extended
from the head of the family to every member of
the household. Children and slaves shall not be
permitted to have any voice in the matter, this
religious practice is forced upon them, they shall
observe it with the head of the family and even
against their consent. (Ex. xx. 10.) When, later,
God renews his covenant with Israel, he commands
that the heads of families shall not stand alone be-
fore him, but that their wives and even their little
ones shall appear to enter into covenant. (Deut.
xxix. 10 - 12.) One consequence of this entering
the covenant with a full household is explained a
little further (xxxi. 11 - 13) ; namely, that when
God's law shall be read publicly on solemn occa-
sions, children shall be present, that they may hear,

and that they may learn to fear the Lord their God.
10* o

226 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

They are to be recognized officially as disciples, or,
if preferred, as apprentice disciples. The children
who " have not known anything shall be made to
hear, and thus also to learn to fear God, and to do
all the words of the law." Observe that they are
disciples solely by the will and act of their fathers,
and in no sense by any action of their own.

§ 104. Moses does not prescribe Circumcis-
ion, but only enhances its Spirituality. — Cir-
cumcision is ordained but once in the law of Moses
(Lev. xii. 3), or, rather, is not ordained at all, but
receives a brief passing notice, in reference to an-
other ordinance, that relating to the uncleanness of
the child's parent. This shows that Moses consid-
ered the ordinance as anterior to his ministry, and
that it transcended his powers as lawgiver either to
ordain or alter aught in reference to an everlasting
covenant and its token. He only spiritualizes it, as
the Apostles afterwards spiritualize the new seal of
the covenant in speaking of the baptism of the Holy
Ghost. " Circumcise the foreskin of your heart.
And the Lord thy God will circumcise thkie heart,
and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God
with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou
may est live." (Deut. x. 16; xxx. 6.)

§ 105. Moses inflicts upon the People Forty

THE HISTORY OF THE COVENANT AND ITS SIGN. 227

Years of Baptist Practice as a Punishment
for Unfaithful Parents. — While in the desert,
the people rebel against God, and break the Cov-
enant. Then circumcision is suppressed during
forty years, from the time of the departure from
Egypt until the arrival in Canaan (Josh, v.), that
is to say, almost from the moment that Moses be-
came the spiritual conductor of the people, until
after his death. No one, therefore, was circumcised
under the ministry of Moses. He imposed upon
the nation for the space of forty years the genuine
Baptist practice of withholding from infants the
token of the Covenant. But this was a sign of
the wrath of the Lord, who thus was withdrawing
his covenant from the families of Israel. Many of
these uncircumcised children died before becoming
of age, many more became adult, and, although they
had never received the sign of the covenant, fell
while fighting the battles of the Lord. But when,
after long waiting, heads of families are for the first
time circumcised on their personal profession of
faithfulness to the Lord, their children and their
infants receive also with them the token of the cov-
enant. Adults are then circumcised, each with his
entire household, just as, later, the Apostles never
baptize the head of a family without baptizing all
the household with him. Without the participation
of their children in it, the token of the covenant

228 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

would have been incomplete to the parents them-
selves.

Now, to whom was this long withholding of in-
fant circumcision a chastisement ? To the chil-
dren ? No, for God replaced, by wonders, and by
a strict religious discipline, that education of the
covenant which their fathers had proved incompe-
tent to give them. Parents alone were thereby
chastised ; the prohibition from circumcising infants
meant that the parents were placed outside the cov-
enant, having broken it, and that the privilege of its
sign was taken from them. The value of the token
they had received was impaired by their not being
permitted to confer it upon their children. This
Baptist practice was imposed upon them as a pun-
ishment, and is called (Josh. v. 9) "the reproach of
Egypt." The evangelical minister who refuses to
baptize the child presented to him by a father who
is unbelieving, or a scoffer, or a rebel against the
Gospel, only follows the precedent of Moses, and is
justified by Scripture. The child must be pre-
sented for baptism only by such parent as has not
notoriously broken the covenant of God.

§ 106. Joshua renews the Covenant even with
Infants, and protests against the Baptist Prac-
tice. Josiah follovrs his Example. — Later, on a
solemn occasion, Joshua renews the covenant with

THE HISTORY OF THE COVENANT AND ITS SIGN. 229

all the congregation of Israel, and he compels them
to be present, " all the women and the little ones,
and even the strangers " ; for, free or bondsmen,
with or without understanding, they must all be
bound by the words of the covenant, — it concerns
them all. (Josh. viii. 35.) Then when he feels his
end drawing near, Joshua again gathers the people
together to urge them to remain faithful to the cov-
enant they have contracted through circumcision.
" Choose you whom you will serve," says he to
them, " but as for me and my house, we will serve
the Lord." (xxiv. 15.) Joshua expresses ener-
getically by these words the paternal authority over
the family in religious matters. This privilege, or
rather this responsibility, has never been abolished,
although under the benign influence of the Gospel
the woman may be called to share it with her hus-
band, provided it be with the full consent of the
latter. Baptists, however, teach the Christian par-
ent to say, " As for me I will serve the Lord, and
my house will serve whomsoever they choose ! "
We admire that noble resolution of Joshua, by
which he initiates into the covenant, and binds to
it his household by virtue of parental authority ;
but the heart becomes chilled at the sight of this
egotism, this spiritual Pharisaism, which would con-
tract a covenant with God for one's self alone, and
leave the family outside the covenant and its blessed
privileges.

230 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

When, under Josiah, Israel renews the covenant
with the Lord, children and infants are, as ever, in-
cluded. In these solemn times of repentance and
renovation, which correspond to our religious reviv-
als, the whole people gathered by households, and
the meeting included " all the people, great and
small." The words of the covenant were read
aloud, and the engagement was concluded with each
and every member of the family, even with the little
ones, who, however unconscious, were bound by a
religious tie, through the act of their parents. (2
Kings xxiii. 2, 3 ; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 30, 31.) Under
Ezra, on the contrary, when the people meet only
to be catechized, or to conclude some private alli-
ance, adults alone are required to be present.
(Neh. viii. 2, 3 ; x. 28.)

CHAPTER XII.

BAPTISM SUBSTITUTED FOR CIRCUMCISION.

§ 107. Circumcision is practised jointly with
Baptism during the whole Apostolical Age. — The

New Covenant is introduced by John the Baptist,
and adopts for its special sign a rite prophetically
enjoined by Moses, as a symbol of purification from
sin. The new token of covenant has the advan-
tage over circumcision of being, from its nature,
of a more easy and also of a more extensive appli-
cation, inasmuch as both sexes can receive it. But
the rite is slightly modified from its partial Messi-
anic fulfilment. The one sacrifice of Jesus Christ
renders all other sacrifices superfluous, and the
ashes of burnt-offering will no longer be mixed
with the water of baptism. As there is henceforth
one sacrifice, there shall also be but one baptism,
one single typical washing through the blood of
Christ, which need not be repeated. The law of
Moses has then come to an end, but the Old Cove-
nant remains standing and immovable, for God

232 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

has declared it everlasting. Nor is its token sup-
pressed, but disciples will be both circumcised and
baptized. Twenty years after the death of Christ,
at the time of the Council of Jerusalem, all the
Christians of the model church in that city were
still circumcising their children, and it is then
only that, with great painfc, and after much hesi-
tancy, Paul obtains an apostolical decision which
renders the practice of circumcision optional for
Gentiles, even after their baptism. It is decided
then, for the first time, that the practice shall not
be obligatory in the Church ; but it continues to
receive the sanction of the Apostles, and even
Paul, who made least of it, long afterwards cir-
cumcises his spiritual son, Timothy. Finally, the
practice continues more or less in the Church as
far as the historical accounts of the New Testa-
ment carry us. As soon after this as ecclesiastical
history supplies us with reliable information, we
find for the first time the circumcision of children
entirely suppressed, and generally replaced by their
baptism. The Abyssinians, however, have retained
circumcision with baptism up to the present day,
and practise both on the same person, on the
ground of conformity with the Saviour, — a prac-
tice for which they can scarcely be blamed if bap-
tism does not belong to all who had a right to-
circumcision.

BAPTISM SUBSTITUTED FOR CIRCUMCISION. 233

§ 108. The Old Bridge and the New Bridge,
with the Apocryphal Sign-board of the Baptists.

— Such is the history of circumcision in the New
Testament. It is not suppressed by any divine
order, it exists for a long time side by side with
baptism, it is acknowledged by the Apostles, and
both signs are practised. It is only by and by, as
a work of time, that circumcision falls into disuse,
and that baptism becomes fully substituted. The
concomitant existence of these two tokens of the
covenant will be best understood by means of a
comparison. The kingdom of heaven is similar to
a land of blessing, separated by a river from an
accursed region. A bridge of wood has been con-
structed in order to lead over to the blessed land.
This bridge is circumcision, it is narrow and diffi-
cult, and moreover it is reserved for the exclusive
use of a privileged race. In the course of time,
the Lord, mercifully anxious to facilitate the ap-
proach to his kingdom, orders a new bridge of
stone to be constructed, much larger than the first,
and of much easier access. He does not make
this bridge the exclusive privilege of any race, but
he invites " all nations " to pass over it, without
making the slightest restriction whatever. But he
does not destroy the old bridge, he allows it to
stay until, obsolete and antiquated, it may fall of
itself, and become gradually impracticable. For a

234 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

time, therefore, people will pass over both bridges ;
but when the old one is abandoned, they will have
to be satisfied with the new, which answers all
purposes. Thus far Baptists may perhaps agree
with us, but further we disagree. First they deny
that the new bridge has taken the place of the old,
because there is not a Scriptural sign-board, for-
mally saying, " Pass this way all of you who would
have passed over the old bridge ! " As for us, we
believe that it does not show a sufficient sense of
propriety and respect to exact from the Master of
the kingdom such a superfluity ; the fact that there
is no better bridge is quite sufficient, without any
special inscription.

Not content with this, the Baptists have presumed
to place at the head of the bridge their own sign-
board. " The nations shall not pass here ! Adults
alone shall pass, but not their children ! " They
want to exclude from the new bridge a part of
those who had a right to the old. Now we say that
this inscription is not of God, is not from the Mas-
ter of the bridge, and that therefore it should be
held of no account. We go beyond, and we say
that it is positively false, and against the will of the
Master, that the new bridge should have curtailed
the privileges attached to the old ; but that, on the
contrary, these have been enlarged, and that if for-
merly parents passed with their children into the

BAPTISM SUBSTITUTED FOR CIRCUMCISION. 235

Covenant, it is not the will of God now to separate
them, and to compel the children to remain behind
in the company of hardened heathen. We say
finally, that, if God had introduced such restric-
tions, the old bridge would be far preferable to the
new ; that it is incomprehensible it should have
been allowed to fall into disuse, and that we must
resort to it again, as we have the right to do. In a
word, let us have circumcision again, if we cannot
baptize our children !

It is with this just as with the institutions of Sab-
bath and Sunday. Both days were observed side
by side in the Church, until the Sabbath, without
being formally abrogated, fell into disuse, and was
superseded by Sunday. A great deal, however, that
is plausible and Scriptural can be said to show that
the Lord's day is quite a different institution from
the Sabbath. A strong argument can also be con-
structed in proof that there is no instance in the
New Testament of the Lord's day being sanctified
by any but believers, and that therefore children,
servants, and the unconverted must be allowed
freely to desecrate a day wWch does not concern
them. Indeed, a doctrine of " The Lord's day for
believers only," could easily be shaped into a much
more plausible system than that of " Baptism for be-
lievers only." But suppose the attempt once made,
and the heart and the practical sense of over nine

236 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

tenths of Evangelical Christians would hold that it is
better to return to the Jewish Sabbath, or if not, to
transfer to the Christian Sunday all the obligations
of the Jewish Sabbath. Thus have also the immense
majority of Evangelical Christians ever felt in refer-
ence to baptism and circumcision, and they repre-
sent, to say the least, the general feeling and the
common sense of Christendom. The doctrine of
the Seventh-day Baptists is only the logic of Ana-
baptism applied to the Sabbath, and these are cer-
tainly the most consistent of all Baptists.

§ 109. Baptism is neither greater nor less

than Circumcision. — All that the comparison of
the two bridges implies on the relation of baptism to
circumcision agrees in every respect with Scripture,
as we shall presently better see. First of all, the
two signs are equal in value. Baptism is not more
than circumcision, for then the brethren in Jeru-
salem would not have retained the latter so tena-
ciously, and endeavored to impose it upon Gentiles,
as if their baptism was insufficient to introduce
them into the covenant. Nor is baptism less than
circumcision ; for were this the case, the Church
would never have given up the latter, and.would
have claimed her apostolical right to practise it.
Baptism being, therefore, as a sign or token, neither
more nor less than circumcision, is certainly equal
to it in value.

BAPTISM SUBSTITUTED FOR CIRCUMCISION. 237

§ 110. The Identity of Circumcision and Bap-
tism deelared in Scripture. — The identity of
the two rites is otherwise very evident. It results
from the very nature of the covenants and their
signs, and we have already established it. Let us
now add some formal declarations of Scripture.
Paul expressly declares in the following passage
that we are circumcised by baptism : " In whom
also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made
without hands, in putting off the body of the sins
of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, buried
with him in baptism." (Col. ii. 11, 12.) Grammar
compels us to connect the last participle, " buried,"
with the preceding simple tense as an explicative,
and we read therefore, " In whom you are circum-
cised, by being buried with him in baptism." It is
true that reference is here made to spiritual circum-
cision and spiritual baptism ; but to concede that
in their spiritual meaning these two figures are
identical, is to concede that, in their highest bearing,
the one is the equivalent of the other, and that
when the first has ceased, the second must have
taken its place. If, with Baptists, and for the sake
of immersion, a water-baptism is seen in this pas-
sage, then the identity will be stronger still, since it
would apply even to the external ceremony.

Circumcision is called " a seal of the righteous-
ness of faith." (Rom. iv. 11.) There is nothing

238 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

said more elevated than this in reference to bap-
tism, which cannot therefore be more spiritual than
circumcision. That seal of the righteousness of
faith was placed formerly, by order of God, upon
infants, and circumcision cannot and ought not to
cease, without this spiritual seal being continued to
them under some new form ; but there is no other
than baptism. Baptism, therefore, takes the place
of circumcision, and is the seal of the righteousness
of faith upon infants, as well as upon adults. There
is nothing new here ; the novelty would be if the
seal were withdrawn from infants, and for this,
clear and special orders would be required. Only
on these terms is baptism practicable as the sign
of the New Covenant and the seal of the righteous-
ness of faith. Without these terms, baptism would
not only be extremely inferior to circumcision, but
it would not be a sign of covenant, it would be
nothing and worth nothing. Baptist books here
take pains to show that Abraham received circum-
cision only after faith, and that for this reason only
is the rite called a seal of the righteousness of faith.
Nobody will doubt this, but it is equally certain
that the seal of the justifying faith of the parent
was henceforth, by order of God, placed upon in-
fants. From the Baptist point of view, it was un-
doubtedly a very great impropriety thus to impart
the seal of justifying faith to infants ; but God knew,

BAPTISM SUBSTITUTED FOR CIRCUMCISION. 239

we trust, what lie was doing, and there is not a word
under the New Covenant to indicate that he re-
pented of this impropriety, or made any alteration
in regard to it. It is, therefore, now as ever, the
will of God that the seal of the righteousness of
faith under one form or another be still placed
upon the children of believers. No covenant is
visibly ratified with the parents themselves except
at this cost. He who denies the sign of the cove-
nant to his children, places himself with them out-
side.

§ 111. The Children of a Christian Parent
being declared Holy, should receive the Sign
of Holiness. — Circumcision was given only to
such children as were holy through the circum-
stance of their birth ; that is to say, born of cir-
cumcised or believing parents. (Luke ii. 23.)
Under the New Covenant, the children of a Chris-
tian parent are also holy. Paul, writing to the
saints of the church in Corinth, tells them : " The
unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and
the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband :
else were your children unclean ; but now are they
holy." (1 Cor. vii. 14.) The word employed here
in the original is saint, the very same which is
applied to the parents and to the members of the
church of Corinth in the second verse of the first

240 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

chapter of the same epistle. The believers are
saints, and their infants are also saints ; so says
the Apostle of the Gentiles, or rather the Word
of God. Baptists have made a great many far-
fetched hypotheses in order to explain away this
holiness of believers' infants, which absolutely can-
not be reconciled with their system. Let them
give whatever ingenious explanation they like
about the nature of this holiness, it matters not.
They cannot alter the fact established by the Apos-
tle, that the children of a Christian parent are
saints, and that this holiness, whatever it may be,
is not possessed by the children of the unbeliever.
This is more than enough to show that under the
New Covenant, as under the former one, children
are a privileged class, holy just as their believing
parents are themselves holy, and that therefore
they are entitled with them to the token of tiie
Covenant. Holy or saint means separated, set
apart from the world. " Holiness belongeth unto
the Lord"; and since it has pleased him to im-
part it to our children, there is a manifest impiety
in refusing to acknowledge it, and in placing our
children in the same class with unbelievers and
heathen. There is, on the contrary, a manifest
obedience to God, in consecrating our children to
his service by baptism.

BAPTISM SUBSTITUTED FOR CIRCUMCISION. 241

§ 112. The Identity of the two Institutions
proved by the Identity of their essential Fea-
tures. — Circumcision and baptism differ merely
as to the form, but they have all their symbolical
and spiritual features in common. They are both :
1st. The sign or token of a covenant ; 2d. A rite
of initiation ; 3d. A seal of the righteousness of
faith ; 4th. The symbol of an internal change ;
5th. They are conferred upon holy infants ; 6th.
given but once to the same individual ; 7th. They
neither save nor change the heart, but form only
an external people of the called ; 8th. They both
imply a solemn promise towards God. (1 Pet. iii.
21.) All these common features make them vir-
tually the same religious institution, with only a
modification in the external form, which is a mat-
ter of little importance. The Holy Ghost has not
given any directions in regard to baptism ; he has
not fixed any special age for its reception, because
the New Covenant implies a greater freedom than
the old, and because it was necessary that the new
sign should be liberated from all legal obstruc-
tion. Baptists alone have invented such, and seek
to place us again under a law of their own, having
put themselves in place of the Holy Ghost to fix an
age at which baptism can be received, and an age
at which it is forbidden to impart it. But this is

purely a human invention, without any weight, God
n p

242 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

having nowhere, either directly or indirectly, fixed
an age for the reception of baptism, or excluded
infants from the rite.

§ 113. Twenty Years after the Death of Christ
the Council of Jerusalem decides for the first
time that Baptism will he held sufficient with-
out Circumcision. — The primitive Church toler-
ated circumcision within its bosom, and here is
what passed in reference to this practice. Some
members of the church in Jerusalem came down
to Antioch, where there was a church composed
of converted and baptized Gentiles, and they
" taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be cir-
cumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be
saved." (Acts xv. 1.) These Christian teachers
from Judaea, it seems, placed baptism much below
circumcision, and did not hold it sufficient as a
sign of covenant. They were therefore at the
antipodes of Baptists, who exalt baptism above
circumcision. The question might have been con-
sidered settled long ago in the Church, for tins
happened twenty years after its foundation ; but
not at all ; they contend in Antioch about the
necessity of the rite, and cannot agree. The au-
thority of Paul and Barnabas is insufficient to
cause the claims of baptism to be respected. It
is decided at last to refer the case to the parent

BAPTISM SUBSTITUTED FOR CIRCUMCISION. 243

church iii Jerusalem ; but in this cradle of Chris- •
tianity the question is still vague and unsettled ;
they must meet and discuss. Those who insisted
upon circumcision were brethren who had once
belonged to the sect of the Pharisees, but had
believed, and they maintained, in reference to the
Gentile converts of Antioch, " It is needful to
circumcise them." (ver. 8.) For the rest, it will
be remembered that circumcision always included
the whole family, both adults and children. One
might expect that the Council of Jerusalem would
forbid them to be circumcised. Not in the least!
It leaves them perfectly free in this respect, and
merely forbids (ver. 19) that they should be trou-
bled by urging this rite upon them, and writes to
them only to abstain, out of regard to the feelings
of the Jews, from some defilements prohibited in
the law of Moses. Although baptism is not men-
tioned here, the decision of the Council came vir-
tually to this : " Considering that you have been
baptized, circumcision is supererogatory ; you can
lay aside the practice, without being troubled as
to consequences."

§ 114. Circumcision remains optional for bap-
tized Gentiles. — Later still, when the Galatians
were worked upon by Judaizing brethren who in-
sisted upon circumcising them and making them

244 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

keep the law of Moses, the circumcision of heathen
began to be the rallying point of a Pharisaic fac-
tion, and Paul opposed himself energetically to the
circumcision of Gentiles, saying to them, " I tes-
tify to every man that is circumcised, that he is a
debtor to do the whole law." (Gal. v. 3.) These
words appear in startling contradiction with those
of Rom. iv. and Gal. hi., where Paul shows on the
contrary that circumcision is the token of faith,
exterior to the law and independent of it. The
contradiction vanishes, when it is remembered that
those against whom Paul testifies are baptized
Christians. If, after their baptism, they make it
a case of conscience and of necessity still to re-
ceive circumcision, they declare by this very act
that they do not hold their baptism to be suffi-
cient, and in denying the sign of the New Cove-
nant they deny the Covenant itself. They place
themselves again by their circumcision under the
law of Moses, which preceded both baptism and
the Covenant of Jesus Christ. All this is very
simple.

After the Council of Jerusalem, however, Paul
circumcised Timothy, who had been a heathen.
Certainly he could never have done so, if circum-
cision was absolutely forbidden by the Holy Ghost.
Neither would he have done it, had he thought
that he was thus obliging Timothy to keep the

BAPTISM SUBSTITUTED FOR CIRCUMCISION. 245

whole law of Moses. He did it, therefore, because
circumcision was permitted to the Christian, and
he opposed the practice only when it was made a
symbol of party and sect, only when it was con-
nected with an idea of opposition to baptism and
to the New Covenant, and when, under the influ-
ence of Pharisees, the attempt was made thereby
to bind consciences to the law of Moses.

§ 115. All the Children of Church-members
were necessarily either Circumcised or Bap-
tized.— This perfect freedom in reference to cir-
cumcision, and the exceptional circumstances un-
der which alone Paul opposed it, are fully evi-
denced by the accusations brought against the
Apostle on this very point. " Thou seest, brother,
how many thousands of Jews there are which be-
lieve ; and they are informed of thee, that thou
teachest all the Jews which are amongst the Gen-
tiles, that they ought not to circumcise their chil-
dren," etc. (Acts xxi. 21.^ The accusation is
false (ver. 24) : " That all may know that those
things, whereof they were informed concerning
thee, are nothing." The Jewish brethren are thus
maintained by the Apostles in the privilege of cir-
cumcising their children, and no interference with
this freedom will be tolerated, although the Apos-
tles surely know that the practice is destined to

246 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

gradual extinction. At the same time, Gen-
tiles are written to that they need not observe it,
which means that the baptism they have received
is sufficient. They are not forbidden, however, to
circumcise their children, but only declared free
from those who would force the practice upon
them. There were, therefore, in the Christian
Church two classes of children. Those upon
whom the sign of the Covenant had been con-
ferred by circumcision, and those to whom it had
been imparted by baptism. Thus there was some
equality and community of religious privileges be-
tween those children. But, if we are to admit with
Baptists that no infant baptism took place, it fol-
lows that in every Apostolic church, that of Corinth
for instance, there were two distinct and unequal
classes of children, — those who were within the
covenant of God and had its token, circumcision,
and those who, being uncircumcised and also unbap-
tized, were outside of the Covenant, and had not re-
ceived any of its signs. Here is, therefore, a secta-
rian religious division in the midst of this Christian
youth. The " holy " children of this brother, who
will not even come in contact with the denied chil-
dren of that brother. The children of the Cove-
nant, belonging with their parents to the household
of God, and the uncovenanted children, ranked
contemptuously with a heathen world. These make

BAPTISM SUBSTITUTED FOE CIRCUMCISION. 247

two youthful castes, who can never associate to-
gether, and will grow up in mutual hatred ! One
must be remarkably credulous, to imagine that
Baptist principles could have existed in the days
of the Apostles. The converted heathen would
have had no alternative left to them but to circum-
cise their children, against the advice of the Apos-
tles, or else to create a schism and form a separate
church. But the Baptist schism is a modern de-
velopment, it did not exist then.

§ 116. Infant Baptism was indispensable to
the Unity of the Apostolic Church. The Baptist
Practice would have put out Baptism and per-
petuated Circumcision. — Infant baptism was the
only thing which could gradually reconcile this dif-
ference of practice, and bring external unity to the
Church. No one can ever make us believe that a
family of Christian Jews would have surrendered
the highly valued privilege of circumcision con-
ceded to them by the Apostles, except for a full
equivalent in behalf of their children. Baptist prin-
ciples would unavoidably have brought about the
gradual absorption of the rite of baptism into that
of circumcision, instead of circumcision being super-
seded by baptism. On the other hand, the Apostles,
who always spared the feelings of the Jews, and
respected their religious privileges, did not deem it

248 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

expedient to issue a special order for infant bap-
tism, nor to urge its practice. It would have been
a premature step, and they would have caused
themselves to be looked upon by converted Jews as
the enemies of circumcision, by pressing the substi-
tution of an equivalent. They left baptism to its
natural development, and gave up to the influence
of time and of the Spirit of God the care of harmo-
nizing in the Church the Hellenic and Judaical
elements. They knew that, sooner or later, baptism
would prevail exclusively as the only sign of cov-
enant with God ; but they also knew perfectly that
the circumcision of infants would never be surren-
dered, unless immediately replaced by infant bap-
tism. The latter practice was therefore insured
without the need of any special injunction. There-
fore, also, the oldest records of ecclesiastical his-
tory show it as generally established, and the
Fathers of the Church, beginning with the oldest,
such as Justin Martyr, state positively that it has
taken the place of circumcision. Not until two
hundred years after Christ, when the doctrine of
the Apostles had already lost much of its purity, do
we find the Baptist practice beginning to develop
itself as a fruit of superstition, and as the result of
the sacramental remission of sins, in a word, the
opus operatum.

CHAPTER XIII.

INFANT BAPTISM CONFIRMED.

§ 117. All the Baptismal Evidence of Scrip-
ture converges towards Infant Baptism. — All

the Scriptural paths that lead towards baptism
having been investigated, most of the facts, doc-
trines, and analogies which bear on the subject,
whether in the Old or in the New Testament,
having undergone a rigid examination, we have
reached everywhere the same conclusion, — the
baptism of infants. Everywhere we have had to
recognize that Baptist principles were not only
groundless, but stood even in flagrant contradic-
tion to the Bible, and we have not been able to
discover one solid argument in their behalf. The
principal results already reached in support of
infant baptism are the following : — 1st. Baptism
always given before justifying faith ; 2d. The bap-
tisms of the Old Testament conferred upon infants ;
3d. The whole people, with women and children,

baptized before Sinai ; 4th. The covenant of faith
11*

250 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

concluded with Abraham has never been repealed,
and subsists still ; 5th. It belongs to the very na-
ture of a sign of covenant, that the entire house-
hold should receive it ; 6th. The sign which the
parent denies to his family becomes thereby inval-
idated to himself; 7th. In the commission given
to the Apostles, Jesus Christ commands infant
baptism exactly as much as adult baptism ; 8th.
Baptism takes the place of circumcision, has the
same symbolical meaning, and is bound to the
same rule ; 9th. The children of a Christian par-
ent are holy, and set apart from the world, under
the New just as under the Old Covenant ; 10th.
They inherit the promises of the Covenant with
adults ; 11th. The Christian Church recognized the
privilege of the circumcision of infants, until this
rite was gradually replaced by baptism ; 12th. God,
in granting a New Covenant, has not abridged, but
extended, the privileges of the Old.

§ 118. The great Sophism, that because In-
fants cannot believe, they must not he Bap-
tized, brought under the Test of Logic. — To all

these already superabundant proofs, we are now
about to add a few more, of a different kind. But
before proceeding, let us inquire, Where are the
facts and proofs of Baptists ? They want to pro-
hibit the baptism of infants, but where in Scrip-

INFANT BAPTISM CONFIRMED. 251

ture is a formal interdiction ? Neither John the
Baptist, nor Jesus Christ, nor the Apostles have
uttered a single word against infant baptism. And
yet the token of the Covenant having thus far been
always placed upon infants, a counter-order, to say
the least, was indispensable.

Baptists have not a single Scriptural fact to bring
against this ancient privilege, which is traced as
far back as to the Father of believers. What, then,
have they? One proof, — yes, a single proof, and
a far-fetched one, — which after all is no proof at
all, but only a great rationalistic sophism. It is
this : Baptism is to be imparted only after faith ;
children have not faith, therefore they cannot be
baptized. The premises, as we have seen, are false,
for the Apostles have baptized again and again be-
fore faith ; but the reasoning on these false premises
will prove no better. Here is the same argument
again, under another favorite form. It is written,
" He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved " ;
therefore one must believe before he can be bap-
tized, and infants, being unable to believe, ought
not to be baptized. Here again the premises are
false, for this passage speaks of the baptism that
saves, namely, that of the Holy Ghost. Let us,
however, for a moment concede these premises, in
order to test what Baptist logic is worth, and take
up the reasoning again. Since the Baptists are de-

252 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

termined to conclude against infant baptism from
the above passage, let us at least have the whole of
it, and not a garbled quotation. " He that believeth
and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth
not shall be damned." (Mark xvi. 16, 17.) Now
let us follow the Baptists and conclude with them
in their own logic : " Infants do not believe, they
shall not be baptized ; infants do not believe, they
shall all be damned ! " What a comforting belief
for the heart of a parent is the Baptist doctrine
and its inflexible logic ! But fortunately the Gospel
does not damn infants ; far from this, it says that
for such as resemble them is the kingdom of heav-
en ; and evidently the whole passage in question
has not the most distant reference to infants. But
if it had, dying infants must undoubtedly all be
damned.

Let us apply another test to the Baptist argu-
ment : " He who does not believe should not be
baptized ; infants, therefore, not believing, should
not be baptized." Now, let us apply the very same
logic to a passage perfectly analogous in its form.
Scripture says, " This we commanded you, that
if any would not work, neither should he eat."
(2 Thess. iii. 10.) Infants will not work, neither
shall they eat, so commands Scripture. Here is
Baptist logic in its exactness, neither more nor
less. It is pure sophistry. There is just as much

INFANT BAPTISM CONFIRMED. 253

Biblical proof for denying infants food, and thus
starving them, as for denying them baptism. There
would be even more ; for Scripture at least has
never said or implied that believers alone should
receive the water of baptism, but it declares very
positively that he who will not work, neither shall
he eat. Here our opponents will probably exclaim:
" It is understood as a matter of course that infants
cannot be included in that command to work ; their
fathers are held to be working instead of them,
and thus insure them the right to eat ! " We are
agreed ; but pray, why should you have two weights
and two measures ? To be just, acknowledge also
that if Scripture had positively commanded to bap-
tize only those who believe (which, however, it has
not), this restriction could refer only to such as are
competent to believe, and not in the least to in-
fants, who cannot. It is quite sufficient that their
parents should believe, to admit infants to the ex-
ternal privileges resulting from faith, just as they
are allowed to eat because their parents work for
them. Scripture has denied to them neither food
nor baptism ; but if it has forbidden the one, it has
also the other.

After having exposed in its nakedness this soph-
ism, the only argument of Baptists, let us revert
to facts ; and in order to neglect nothing impor-
tant in the support of our cause, let us cumulate
additional proofs for infant baptism.

254 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

§ 119. One Million of Children baptized with
the Water of the Red Sea by the Lord himself.

— The Gospels relate to us that John the Baptist
baptized crowds, whole populations, — in a word, all
the people. (Luke iii. 21.) Must we believe that
amongst all the people, and amidst such wholesale
baptisms, there were no children, not even one
child ! It is for the Baptists to show that, when
all the people set forth for the desert to attend
John's preaching, they left all their children at
home, or at least that John excluded them, and,
indeed, every one of them, from the national rite.
Until such an exception is clearly made out, it
will be safe to take the most obvious meaning
of Scripture, and to admit that there were some
children amongst " all the people," and that there
was at least one infant " in Jerusalem, and all
Judaea, and all the region about Jordan," which
class it is declared were baptized. (Matt. iii. 5.)
In the mean time, Saint Paul " will not that we
should be ignorant that our fathers were all bap-
tized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea."
(1 Cor. x. 2.) We would like to be told whether,
when the fathers were sprinkled with the dew of
the cloud or with the foam of the surge at the
passage of the Red Sea, their children and infants
were with them or not ? The fact is, that there
were on these occasions no less than a million of

INFANT BAPTISM CONFIRMED. 255

children baptized by the hand of God, and who
were baptized in company with their parents, —
baptized just as much and after the same fashion.
These Israelites never dreamed of the Baptist no-
tion of leaving their infants behind them on the
Egyptian side of the Red Sea. They knew per-
fectly that God would not perform the baptism
of the parents without that of the children.

Although all were baptized, God did not take
pleasure in most of them. The baptism God gave
them was in no way different from the multitu-
dinous baptism of the present nations of Christen-
dom. But the subsequent unfaithfulness of the
people did not alter the fact that God had baptized
them all. Nor does, now-a-days, the unfaithfulness
of our Christian masses show anything against the
validity of the baptism they may have received in
childhood. And " these things " adds the Apostle,
" were our examples, and they are written for our
admonition " (ver. 6, 11). This is an example, a
type, and an admonition to us that we should not
think too much of our baptism. Paul says, " They
were all baptized, but with many of them God was
not well pleased " (ver. 2-5). In order to escape
from these conclusions, the attempt shall perhaps
be made to spiritualize the whole passage. But the
Apostle here does not spiritualize ; on the contrary,
he takes up very positive facts in the history of the

256 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

Jewish nation, and recognizes in the very material
circumstance of the sprinkling through the clond
and the sea, the sign of the covenant, the baptism
of water. If the baptism of which he speaks here
is not that of water, what is it ? That of the Holy
Ghost ? Certainly not ; for God rejected most of
these baptized ones. It is therefore a real baptism
of water which God conferred upon the fathers and
also upon a million of their children.

§ 120. The Laying on of Hands, conferred by
the Lord upon Little Children, implies much
more than Baptism. — We have already seen that
the children of Christians are placed, by formal
declarations of Scripture, in the same position to-
wards the Covenant as Jewish children formerly
were. They are declared holy, and the promise
belongs to them also. " For the promise is unto
you and to your children," says the Apostle Peter
(Acts ii. 39), which is equivalent to saying : " Your
children participate in the Covenant just as much
as you." Now, how has Jesus dealt with infants ?
Has he excluded them from his covenant ? Far
from it ; he has granted them infinitely more than a
baptism of water. He has conferred upon them a
special blessing ; he has publicly laid his hands upon
them. He has thus placed them higher than ever
did the old covenant, so much so that the Jews, and

INFANT BAPTISM CONFIRMED. 257

even his own disciples, were scandalized. Let us
bring the scene distinctly before our minds. Some
believing parents, who had the utmost confidence in
Jesus Christ, want to present to him their little chil-
dren. These were infants (jraiSta^ carried in the
arms. In their unbelief, the disciples repel them.
Moved by a true Baptist sentiment, by a rationalism
natural to the heart of man, they say to each other :
" What is the use of performing a solemn act upon
infants ? " But Jesus rebukes them : " Suffer little
children, and forbid them not, to come unto me ;
for of such is the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. xix.
13, 14.) Then, not content with this reproof, he
crushes the Baptist view arising in the hearts of his
disciples by a solemn act, which is a stronger pro-
test than any words could be. He takes to him
the infants, he blesses them, and lays his hands on
them. And later, when his disciples are more en-
lightened, when they have received the Holy Ghost
and administer the Church, they place that cere-
mony of the laying on of hands, which their Mas-
ter had conferred upon infants, far above baptism,
which will serve as a step to it. Only after dis-
ciples have been first baptized will hands be laid
upon them to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost. In
fact, after Philip has baptized the people of Samaria,
two Apostles must come down from Jerusalem on
purpose to lay hands upon these baptized ones, that

258 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

they might receive the Holy Ghost ; that is to say,
in order to confer upon them a higher degree than
baptism had bestowed. And yet this laying on of
hands, although superior to baptism, is of less value
coming from the Apostles than when administered
by the Son of God. He who had left water baptism
entirely to his disciples, as a ministry inferior to
his, does not hesitate himself to confer a sign of a
superior and more spiritual order, namely, the lay-
ing on of hands, and it is to little children that he
gives it. After this, will it be thought honoring
the Lord and following in his footsteps to reprove
those who present him their little children for bap-
tism ? The greater always implies the less, and
the laying on of hands implies baptism and much
more than baptism. The laying on of hands is
granted only to baptized disciples ; Jesus, therefore,
considered these little children as disciples, on ac-
count of their believing parents, on account of their
own circumcision, and perhaps also on account of
a baptism already received in company with their
parents. Therefore " is the kingdom of heaven
of such as these little children," which implies
that these infants already belonged to the kingdom,
for of such means they and those like them, as in
1 Cor. v. 11; 1 Tim. vi. 5.

§ 121. A great Baptist Miracle ! There was

INFANT BAPTISM CONFIRMED. 259

not a single little Child in all the Families
baptized in the Days of the Apostles. — Finally,
we reach, in reference to the baptism of infants, a
last class of facts. These are household baptisms.
Although not numerous, they form a considerable
portion of the accounts of baptism. Thus, in the
Acts of the Apostles, we have ten distinct cases of
baptism. Two only of these are baptisms of indi-
viduals in a state of celibacy, namely, those of Paul
and the eunuch, who had no family, and were bap-
tized in the most private manner, without so much
as a witness. Four are multitudinous baptisms of
crowds ; namely, of the three thousand, the Samari-
tans, certain disciples of John, and the Corinthians.
Then four more baptisms are those of family or
household ; namely, those of Cornelius, Lydia, the
jailer of Philippi, and Crispus. To these four bap-
tisms of families in the Acts must be added that of
the household of Stephanus, mentioned by Paul in
1 Cor. i. 16. Finally, there are three more families
whose baptism is not expressly mentioned, but is
implied, for there are Christian households to which
the Apostle sends salutations ; namely, the houses
of Onesiphorus, Aristobulus, and Narcissus.

All these household baptisms have in common
the characteristic feature that they take place im-
mediately and in great haste on the first assent
given to the Gospel by the head of the house ; and

260 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

in this particular they are the exact counterparts
of the circumcision of Abraham with his household.
In the account of one of these baptisms, that of the
keeper of the prison, the translation has misled
many to think that he believed with all his house,
while the original says merely that he rejoiced with
all his house, having believed. There is no mention
whatever made of the faith of his house, but only of
his joy amidst the family. It would be, indeed,
rather unaccountable, if all the members of his
family believed, that he alone of so many believers
is reported to have rejoiced. But if they were bap-
tized because he believed, it is natural they should
joyfully participate in the feast that followed his
baptism. Moreover, the original has, for " with all
his house," but a single word, which is an adverb,
iravoiiu, the exact meaning of which is by the house-
ful. Now, justifying faith is too personal and too
spiritual a thing for it to be said of any man that,
during the brief space of part of one night, he re-
pented by the houseful, believed by the houseful,
was converted by the houseful, and was saved by
the houseful. But this expression is used in Scrip-
ture with perfect propriety in reference to the bap-
tism of a man, because baptism is far below justify-
ing faith, and is the external token of the Christian
family, imparted to children without requiring even
their consent. The jailer, having believed, passed

INFANT BAPTISM CONFIRMED. 2G1

rapidly from anxiety to confidence. He felt happy,
prepared the table, and sat down to meat with the
Apostles and with his family, all rejoicing together,
although he alone had believed. (Acts xvi. 33, 34.)

The Greek word Oikos, employed by the Apostles
to designate the households that were baptized, is
one the meaning of which is perfectly ascertained
in the Septuagint, that guide to the religious lan-
guage of the writers of the New Testament. It
means a family which contains little children, and
here is an instance in point. " The house of Jacob,
which came into Egypt were threescore and ten,"
and elsewhere, the " households of his sons " are
reported to have included " their little ones and
their wives." (Gen. xlv. 18, 19 ; xlvi. 27.) There-
fore, if there is any value to be set on the words of
sacred writers, what the Apostles baptized, when
baptizing a household, was a man with his wife and
his little ones. To this must be added the impor-
tant fact, that there is not in Scripture a single in-
stance of the head of a family having been baptized
without his household. The only two solitary bap-
tisms are those of bachelors, Paul and the eunuch,
made in private, and all the others are baptisms of
households or crowds.

Now, in the face of such strong facts, the Bap-
tists assert that there were no children in any of
those households or families or crowds baptized by

262 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

the Apostles, — no, not even one single little child !
But fortunately a mere assertion is no proof, espe-
cially when it seems as incredible as it is ridiculous.
What queer households these first Christian families
must have been ! How barren ! Not one child in
the family of Cornelius, nor in that of Lydia, nor in
that of the jailer of Philippi ; amongst " all his "
who are baptized, not one child ! There is, again,
the same desolation in the family of Crispus ; then,
also, in that of Stephanus, and in those of Aristo-
bulus, Onesiphorus, and Narcissus ! Of whom was
composed the family of that poor Lydia, who must
have been a widow because she was the head of her
house ? She has no husband, no children, and yet
she has a family to follow her obediently through
baptism ! All this is decidedly so incredible that it
must be considered on a par with the miracles of
the Breviary. How credulous one must be to re-
main a Baptist ! !

We have attempted to estimate the probability
that there were no little children in these baptized
households, and, after making the most liberal allow-
ance to the Baptist hypothesis, here is the result.
We find, that, out of four families or houses in an
ordinary population, there are three at least with a
child below seven years of age, and under that age
Baptists would surely not baptize. If, then, the
Apostles had baptized but one household, the proba-

INFANT BAPTISM CONFIRMED. 263

bility that there would have been at least one child
in that family is as 3 to 1. Taking two households
into account, this probability is as 7 to 1. With
five households it would be as 19 to 1 ; and with
eight households as 31 to 1. The Pedobaptist opin-
ion has, therefore, in reference to these household
baptisms, just thirty-one times more probability than
the Baptist view. Such a probability is equivalent
to a certainty. It alone would suffice to justify the
practice of infant baptism. But add to it the mil-
lion of children baptized at the passing through the
Red Sea, without speaking of the mass baptisms of
the people under the Gospel, and then the certainty
of infant baptism, simply as a matter of fact and
independently of all command, doctrine, analogy, or
opinion whatever, becomes an absolute certainty.

§ 122. Some Indiscreet Questions addressed

to Baptists. — Having drawn our conclusions in
relation to the baptism of infants, we wish we could
question the Baptist reader, and ask him whether
our proofs satisfy him or not, and what more he can
desire. Perhaps he will attempt a last stand with-
in the following intrenchment : I want for infant
baptism a special command or a special example ;
without this, all other considerations will fail to
convince me. Very well ; but two can play at that
game, and you will please allow us to exact from

264 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

you the same condition which you exact from us.
We ask you, therefore, in our turn, for a special
command against baptizing children, or at least for
one instance of their being excluded from this rite
by the Apostles. Show us in Scripture a single
case of a parent baptized without his children !
You cannot bring forward a single word of prohibi-
tion or a single instance of exclusion. We are
thus quits ; your objection is neutralized, and there-
fore of no avail.

You will further allow us to address to you -a few
indiscreet questions. Where is the command to
baptize women ? There is none ; but there are two
instances of such baptism, and this suffices you.
To us, the example of so many more households
baptized is also quite sufficient. Where do you
find a single command or a single instance that
women should participate in the Holy Supper ? You
impart it to them, however, on the strength of some
considerations, some proofs of an order very infe-
rior to those we have adduced for infant baptism.
Where do you find a single command, or a single
declaration, or a single instance to the effect that
Sabbath has been transferred from the last day of
the week to the first ? For the fact that the Lord
rose on that day, and that church meetings were
held also on that day, proves nothing for a Sabbath
observance. You insist, however, that the day shall

INFANT BAPTISM CONFIRMED. 265

be observed, and you do right ; but you base its
sanction on proofs very much weaker than those of
infant baptism. Whence do you draw your rule, on
which all your church discipline rests, that the com-
munion must be granted only to such as are bap-
tized ? The New Testament contains neither com-
mand nor example in reference to this. The Old
Testament alone has a rule, that one must be cir-
cumcised in order to eat the Passover. Why do
you apply the rule of circumcision to baptism,
since you deny their relation ? And, again, where
do you find, in the New Testament, the command
that a man should have but one wife ? You are
satisfied with Scriptural reasons against polygamy
very inferior to those we have presented you in
behalf of Pedobaptism. Mormons are far more
consistent than you, or rather they are the only
consistent Baptists, for they not only immerse their
followers upon a profession of faith, but on the same
principle they practise polygamy and do not observe
the Christian Sabbath. According to your logic
and your own principles, they are right and you are
wrong. Since, without formal command or special
example, you acknowledge so many things as rules
of Scripture, binding on the conscience of the Chris-
tian, we urge you to be, if not consistent and
logical, at least simply honest, and not again assert

that, unless there be a formal and special command,
12

266 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

children ought not to bo baptized. But we have
the command of Jesus Christ to baptize nations ;
and the command which contains the whole con-
tains also each part. You know that a nation is
not a nation without the children ; and yet you
make an arbitrary exception to the command. The
Bible does not make it. You follow the example
of the priests of Rome when they take away the cup
from laymen. Their exception is at least as well
grounded as yours. But we cannot conscientiously
accept your authority as worth more against the
Bible than that of the priests of Rome.

§ 123. In the Kingdom of God, as elsewhere,
the Naturalization of a Parent always includes
that of the Children. — It is objected, that, if the
baptism of infants is to be practised, it is singular
that the Holy Ghost should have made no special
mention of it. It is at least just as singular, that,
if women are to take the communion, the Holy
Ghost should have made no special mention of it,
considering that Jesus Christ had given it only
to males. It may seem singular to some minds,
that all the members of a family should enter the
house through one door, and that there should
not be upon the street a special little door for
the children. But to us it will appear still more
singular to refuse entrance to children, because

ENFANT BAPTISM CONFIRMED. 267

the door through which the adults pass first is
too big for little ones. Such superfluities as are
d email de d would be a blemish in the Word of
God. Romanists might as well except from the
reach of the second command their idolatrous
worship of the infant Jesus, because there is no
special command against worshipping children or
their graven images. We have under our eyes
the naturalization papers of a British subject, the
head of a family. The document is long, goes
into details, and is enacted according to the most
strict legal form, and yet it does not contain a
word about the wife and children of the natural-
ized father. According to Baptist logic he alone
is British, while his wife and children still remain
foreigners ; but, according to the logic of common-
sense and experience, the whole family is natu-
ralized. The little children have not given a per-
sonal assent ; they have not even been consulted.
But they are subjects of the queen ; they have
entered into covenant with her through the act
of their father. They are bound by their parent
to be British subjects when adults, just as if they
had themselves applied for naturalization. They
may then refuse obedience to the laws of the em-
pire ; but in doing so they will be rebels, for their
father has naturalized them. If they ever claim
their right of British subjects, because made so

268 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

by their father, nobody will dispute the claim, or
exact a new act of naturalization. The baptism
of infants is just as clear and simple, just as
much a matter of necessity, as the naturalization
of infants with their father. It is not even easy
to conceive how a father can be naturalized into
the visible and external kingdom of God on earth,
and yet leave his children outside. In the Chris-
tian as well as in the political kingdom the natu-
ralization of a man must be invalidated by the
very fact of his excepting his children ; for his
loyalty must be too partial to be recognized. He
may mingle with the other subjects of the king-
dom, and apparently enjoy all their privileges, but
the legal document of his loyalty may all the time
be wanting, and his children be sooner or later
called to suffer for the neglect. If justifying faith
is not needed for baptism, but only an external
assent to the claims of the Christian religion, the
parent is perfectly competent to give that assent
for his child, and it is for the interest of the
latter, as well as for the glory of God, that it
should be done.

§ 124. Infants did not eat the Passover any
more than they now participate in the Com-
munion, and these two Institutions correspond
to each other just as Baptism and Circumcision.

INFANT BAPTISM CONFIKMED. 269

— The time has now come to take up a specious
objection often made against infant baptism. It is
said that, in the absence of any formal prohibition,
the communion might be given to infants as well
as baptism, and that it is an inconsistency on the
part of Pedobaptists not to do so ; for if baptism
has taken the place of circumcision, so has the
Lord's Supper taken that of the Passover, which
latter the children used to eat with their parents.
We fully admit that the Lord's Supper corresponds
to the Passover, for " Christ is our Passover," says
Scripture. And the primitive Church for a con-
siderable time observed the Passover as well as
the Lord's Supper, just as circumcision was re-
tained by the side of baptism. It was only after
the lapse of time that the two signs of the Old
Covenant fell into disuse, and were replaced by
the corresponding signs of the New. But we ut-
terly deny that infants ate the Passover, although
almost every Baptist work makes the assertion. It
is true that children participated in it ; but what
children ? Children who questioned, who argued,
and who received religious instruction from the
head of the family (Exodus xii. 26, 27-; xiii. 8, 9,
14) ; children who obeyed the commands of God,
for no other were permitted to eat the Passover ;
children who were capable of having their loins
girded, their shoes on their feet, and their staff in

270 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

their hand, and who could sit up all night thus
equipped and in a state of watchfulness (xii. 11).
All Evangelical churches will give the communion
to such children. Let us add, that the Lord's Sup-
per is a commemoration, — that is to say, a remem-
brance of the past, a remembrance of the death of
Christ for such as have already experienced the
effects of it, and have already known their Mas-
ter ; this alone excludes infants and little ones
through sheer incapacity of participating in this
remembrance. Circumcision and baptism, on the
contrary, refer both to the future ; it is the en-
trance into a covenant of promises which are not
yet realized. The Passover and the Holy Supper
both refer to the past, as the remembrance of an
accomplished fact ; namely, the exodus from Egypt
and the salvation through the blood of the Lamb.
Baptists have failed to see the magnificent arrange-
ment by which the two sacraments, first under the
Old then under the New Covenant, complete each
other, mutually fit and answer to one another as
the two symbolic halves of one religion, the one
pointing to the future and the other to the past.
They have flattened down this divine structure ;
they have rendered insipid the spiritual and rela-
tive meaning of baptism and the Holy Supper, by
binding both to the past and to the same fact,
the death of . Christ. And they have added to

INFANT BAPTISM CONFIRMED. 271

their spurious baptism the stamp of absurdity, by-
asserting that a whole ignorant people was buried
by baptism witli Jesus Christ, years before the
Saviour died, and before his nearest disciples had
even understood that he was to die and be buried
for the redemption of their sins.

But these remarks lead us to a closer investiga-
tion of the innermost spiritual meaning of baptism,
and to this the next chapter will be devoted.

CHAPTER XIV.

INNERMOST MEANING AND VALUE OF BAPTISM.

§ 125. Vagueness, Diversity, and Contradic-
tions amongst both Baptists and Pedobaptists,
as to the Spiritual Value of Baptism. — What
is the use of baptism ? "What is it worth ? "What
grace does it impart ? What is the risk in dispens-
ing with it ? In a word, what is its religions value ?
It seems as if the answer to this question should
have been the first point considered in this work,
and that it is necessary to know first what a cere-
mony is worth before undertaking long investiga-
tions concerning it. But the importance attached
to the subject was sufficiently justified from the first
by the sad contentions it has caused ; and one re-
sult of our investigations is the power correctly to
determine its precise worth in a Biblical point of
view.

Unfortunately great vagueness prevails as to the
religious value of baptism, and it is under the cover
of this misty vagueness that a great variety of opin-

INNERMOST MEANING AND VALUE OF BAPTISM. 273

ions have arisen, which testify to the general uncer-
tainty on this subject. Quakers altogether reject
the baptism of water, and recognize only the baptism
of the Holy Ghost. Socinians see in baptism only
a ceremony of initiation to Christianity for Jewish
and heathen proselytes, and declare that baptism
should not be given to the children of Christian
parents. Socinians are therefore a Baptist sect.
Zwingle recognizes in baptism only an external
mark of admission into the Church. Calvin sees in
it a grace received at the moment of performance,
but on condition of faith, without which the grace is
not imparted. Luther places in the rite a grace in-
dependent of faith, and inherent to the word of con-
secration ; baptism, moreover, at the moment when
performed, takes away the penalty of original sin.
The Episcopal Church, in England and in the United
States, is still discussing whether baptismal regen-
eration is necessarily part of its doctrine or not.
Romanists make baptism a condition of salvation,
and connect with its reception a magical grace, an
opus operatum ; the Greeks, without being so pre-
cise, follow at a distance the baptismal doctrine of
Rome. As to the Protestant Pedobaptists of France
and Switzerland, they hold at present a variety of
opinions on baptism, all extremely indefinite, and
thus highly favorable to the spread of Baptist prin-
ciples. The same might be said to some extent of

12* R

274 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

English and American Pedobaptists. The want of
careful discrimination in some passages between
the baptism of water and the baptism of the Holy
Ghost opens a wide range for attributing to the rite
various degrees of mysterious efficacy short of bap-
tismal regeneration, although this latter is the only
true result of the confusion of the two baptisms.

It is not astonishing that this vagueness, this
uncertainty, these diversities, and these contradic-
tions in Pedobaptism, disgust many evangelical
Christians, and carry them over to Anabaptism,
where they imagine they shall find perspicuity, pre-
cision, and the absence of all sacramental mysti-
cism. But here again disappointment awaits them.
They will find that the system rests upon the out-
ward form, but that the spiritual idea of baptism is
as vague and indefinite there as elsewhere. They
will find that, amongst Baptists, some hold to the
idea of Zwingle, while others see in baptism a
spiritual conformity to the death of Christ ; others,
a burial, literal, real, and material ; others, a special
grace conferred ; others, a simple act of obedience,
without the communication of any special grace ;
others, baptismal regeneration ; finally, all attach to
it an excessive importance, which raises baptism to
the level of the fundamental doctrines. We have
just mentioned Baptists as believing in baptismal
regeneration. Let this astonish no one ; it is the

INNERMOST MEANING AND VALUE OF BAPTISM. 275

culminating point towards which the whole Baptist
system tends, and where it is always sure to arrive
sooner or later. A large division of American
Baptists, very active and very respectable, is now
constituted on this very basis. These are the Camp-
bellites, who number already about four hundred
thousand, and who have it for their doctrinal device
that water-baptism and regeneration are one and
simultaneous, and that baptism is essential to salva-
tion. The other Baptist sects are not quite so far
advanced in theory ; but in practice they have
already, with little exception, reached this platform,
and in their eyes a man is truly a Christian only
after having undergone immersion. Anabaptism is
thus the great bridge by which to return from Prot-
estantism to Romanism, through sacramental regen-
eration. We say nothing here of Mormon Baptists
and of the old Anabaptists, to whom baptism by
immersion is the initiation to carnal life.

§ 126. The only Escape from Uncertainty
offered by the Bible is to connect Baptism
with Circumcision. — Now there is one way, and
only one Scriptural way, to fix with precision the
true meaning of baptism, and to avoid this labyrinth
of vague, mystical, or superstitious opinions, and
that is to connect it closely with circumcision.
This is what we have already done ; and we need

276 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

not return here to our proofs. Circumcision had a
clear and precise meaning. It was the seal of an
alliance concluded between the Lord and the family
of a believer ; a solemn ratification, a symbolical ex-
pression of that covenant ; an engagement on the
part of the head of the house, binding both him and
his to the service of the Lord ; a religious promise
for the future. Now, we say that baptism is this, —
all this, and nothing but this. It differs from cir-
cumcision only because it relates to another cove-
nant ; but it binds to that new covenant, in the same
manner, and with the same results, as circumcision
bound to the old. It is neither more nor less
than the sign of a covenant. "We go still further,
and assert, that if baptism does not hold under the
New Covenant the place which circumcision held
under the old, its value becomes unknown. The
New Testament not having fixed this value, baptism
will be whatever you please. It will be like one of
those gutta-percha figures which you can by pulling
cause to assume any shape and any expression.
Baptism will have to undergo, as indeed it does
already, all sorts of modifications to suit various
doctrines, systems, or ecclesiastical forms. Tertul-
lian, Socinus, Luther, Mennon, Carson, Campbell,
Rome, and the Mormons can each and all set up
their views with impunity ; for to their baptisms can
only be opposed other theories, more or less plau-

INNERMOST MEANING AND VALUE OF BAPTISM. 277

sible, but which are at best only probabilities, un-
supported by Scriptural proof.

§ 127. The Grace of Covenant imparted
through Baptism. — If we are asked, Does bap-
tism confer any special grace, or does it save ? we
answer, As much as circumcision, and no more.
Circumcision, well understood, was a great privi-
lege and blessing to a family, for by it God was
bound to the parent and also to the child who
received it. The Lord had connected his prom-
ises with the token of covenant. This condition
once fulfilled by the parent, the Lord was solemnly
bound by his own promise. But the special grace
imparted by God did not consist in an internal
change of the soul, effected suddenly at the mo-
ment of circumcision. There was neither magic
nor sacramental virtue in the ceremony. No, not
any more than in the seal which is affixed to a
treaty, or in the flag hoisted on a foreign land as
a sign of taking possession. The grace, consisting
in an engagement on the part of God, commenced
with the sign, in order to last during the whole
life, or at least as long as there was no open re-
bellion or positive unfaithfulness on the part of
the circumcised. The grace was like that of a
treaty or a political alliance which confers certain
privileges. The privilege becomes operative from

278 THE BAPTISM OF WATER,

the moment the treaty is duly signed and sealed,
and in that sense the signature and the seal con-
fer the grace ; but it is only the beginning of a
grace, which may be developed and confirmed by
time and practice, or which, on the contrary, may
grow weaker, and become ineffective by neglect
and unfaithfulness. Such, on the part of God, is
the grace of baptism ; it is easily understood, and
from this simple point of view there is room in
that ordinance for neither mysticism nor sacra-
mental superstition.

This grace of baptism has been very much ex-
aggerated both by Romanists and Baptists. The
former hold it to be indispensable to the salvation
of a child ; the latter, by making it an effective
burial with Christ, have also unavoidably made it
the principal sacrament. While the Holy Supper
is but a remembrance of the death of Christ, their
baptism is that death itself, dramatically under-
gone by the believer. But it is when considered
in connection with their discipline that the sacra-
mental virtue, the opus operatum, which they un-
consciously attribute to baptism, is most clearly
seen. Previous to having received immersion, the
most pious and devoted servant of God is consid-
ered too unfaithful a Christian to be allowed the
communion or the privileges of the Church of
Christ. Before the Lord's table he is ranked

INNERMOST MEANING AND VALUE OF BAPTISM. 279

with infidels, and forbidden to commemorate the
Saviour's death. But let him consent to be
plunged, and the moment he has undergone the
Baptist ceremony he becomes suddenly a good
Christian, and is entitled to all the privileges of
the kingdom of God. Now, immersion must have
transformed the moral character of that man, in-
stantaneously changing him from a bad man into
a good Christian. This is truly a miracle wrought
by the Baptist minister, and very similar to that
of the priest in the mass. In both cases, the tes-
timony of experience and of the senses, which
affirm that the bread remains the same, and that
the man is the same after as before his immer-
sion, is rejected, in order to enhance the fictitious
value of the ceremony.

§ 128. The Baptism of the whole Family has
most important Results upon the Education of
Children. — Besides the grace of closer relation to
God by means of baptism, there is another subor-
dinate one in reference to the Christian family-life.
Circumcision did not only bind the child to God,
it also bound the parent to the child. The lat-
ter, in consequence of the token of covenant, was
obliged to obey the Lord from his earliest youth ;
he had to be brought up in the fear of God, to
consider him as his Master, to feel bound by a

280 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

former engagement to be his, and to regard dis-
obedience to his commands in the light of a re-
bellion, the infraction of a family compact, the
breaking of a sacred covenant. This view was a
most elevated one, and so highly beneficial to re-
ligious education that nothing could replace it ;
and yet it is this magnificent domestic privilege
which Baptists would take away from us ! Bap-
tism places us in precisely the same religious po-
sition towards children as circumcision formerly
did ; and, had it been otherwise, it is certain that
the latter would never have given way to the
former, but would have been maintained to this
day. Clearly for this reason are parents told " to
bring up their children in the nurture and admo-
nition of the Lord" (Eph. vi. 4), or, more cor-
rectly, according to the original, " in the discipline
and teaching of the Lord." But this discipline,
or rather this discipleship, of the child implies a
covenant, a taking possession of the little ones by
the Lord, as belonging to the household of faith ;
otherwise it could not exist, or at least would be
but an unconditional slavery, without reward or
promise. For this reason, again, does Peter speak
of baptism as " the pledge of a good conscience
toward God." (See 1 Pet. iii. 21 in the original.)
In effect, baptism binds man and pledges him with
his offspring to a Christian life, which must be

INNERMOST MEANING AND VALUE OF BAPTISM. 281

realized first in his own family. The baptism of
the whole household is so really included in that
of the head of the family, that Holy Writ, in re-
lating such baptisms, deviates from the ordinary
mode of language, and, instead of saying, " they
were baptized," states that "he was baptized, — he
and all his" (Acts xvi. 33), — the baptism of his
family being treated only as a necessary part of
his own.

§ 129. It is False that a Child has no Re-
ligion. — Since infant baptism exerts a blessed in-
fluence upon the education of the family, it must
be inferred that a consistent Pedobaptist household
is the best regulated of any. There alone can pa-
ternal authority claim its full and legitimate sphere.
The Pedobaptist father, like Abraham and Joshua,
has imposed his religion upon his family, and made
them by paternal authority the disciples of the Lord.
On the other hand, the wide spread of Baptist prin-
ciples is not without its influence upon that early
emancipation of children and disregard of parental
authority which so often painfully strikes the Euro-
pean visitor in America.

Baptism implies the adoption of a religion, not
only for the person baptized, but for the house of
which he is or may become the head, as far as his
authority extends. This is not only a doctrinal, but

282 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

also an experimental truth. Nothing can be more
false than the notion that a child may remain with-
out adopting a religion until he is an adult. The
celebrated Jean Jacques Rousseau, in his Enrile, has
carried out this Baptist idea, and it is known what
a sad failure it has proved. A child has always
some kind of a religion, borrowed from those who
educate him. The child of the Jew is a Jew, the
child of the Romanist is a Romanist, the child of
the heathen is a heathen, — this is seen everywhere.
The very earliest education of a child, even when
silence upon religious subjects is observed in his
presence, will always reflect the principles of his
educators, and imply some belief, true or false, like
theirs. Many children of Christian parents, even at
the early age of three or four years, have a faith in
the Lord Jesus Christ that is infinitely superior to
that of the ignorant and hardened crowds which
John baptized. Now the child of a Christian being
neither a Jew nor a heathen, we ask, What is his
religion, unless it be the Christian religion ? and
then, why deny to him the external sign of a cov-
evant that he is compelled to keep ?

§ 130. The Faith of Parents is efficacious to-
wards their Children, and by Baptism is con-
firmed and receives a determinate Impulse. —

This excessive aversion to let the faith of parents

INNERMOST MEANING AND VALUE OF BAPTISM. 283

extend over children, and operate in their behalf,
may appear eminently spiritual to some ; but the
fact is, that it is very carnal, that it is an ill-dis-
guised unbelief, for the Gospel exhibits by many
striking incidents the spiritual efficacy of the faith
of parents in behalf of their children. Now it is
the faith of a father, now that of a mother, which
delivers a child from the possession of a devil that
vexed him (Matt. xv. 22 ; xvii. 18) ; and the faith
of the parent operates most effectually by simply
presenting the child with confidence to the Lord.
Now it is the faith of the master of the house that
avails to cure his servant. (Matt. viii. 1.) And,
again, it is the faith of believing parents, who force
their way to Jesus in spite of the opposition of mis-
taken disciples, which procures to their little ones a
special blessing from the Saviour. Thus we find
in the Gospels numerous instances of the faith of
parents, masters, and protectors operating for the
spiritual benefit of their charge, and why then in
the name of individual faith take umbrage at the
baptism of infants ? Through these incidents the
Gospel affords for the faith of the parent, acting
instead and in behalf of the child, a scope far
more ample than is required for infant baptism.
Only an external assent to Christianity is needed,
which any parent not an infidel is entirely com-
petent to give for his child, and which will be bind

284 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

ing upon him as a matter of fact and experience,
as well as of doctrine.

§ 131. Whatever Exertions are made to smug-
gle Children into the Covenant, they are never
deprived of Baptism with perfect Impunity. —

We shall probably be told that many Baptist parents
bring up their children in the fear of the Lord,
without having conferred baptism upon them. This
is true, and is a very happy inconsistency. It is a
silent admission of the truth of Pedobaptism to
endeavor to bring one's children into the covenant
of God as it were contraband, and without resort-
ing to the ordinance which he has prescribed for
their introduction into it. WJien the thing itself is
desired, it is at least unfair to raise so many ob-
jections to the sign that represents its possession.
Why impose one's religion upon a child, and im-
agine that the claims of individual faith are saved
by refusing him the badge of the service to which
he is compelled !

But, again, it will be said, that these unbap-
tized children do not fare any worse than others ;
that the religious influence is precisely the same
for them as if they had been baptized. This we
deny ; there is an important difference. A sim-
ple promise is not equal to an oath. The hold-
ing of a property in the absence of all regular titles

INNERMOST MEANING AND VALUE OF BAPTISM. 285

and forms can never be equal to its possession
according to the rules of the kingdom, with signa-
ture and seal. There is always an uncertainty and
a secret suspicion of a flaw in the title, and this
feeling, which cannot be altogether banished, spoils
the enjoyment of the property ; it does not, perhaps,
destroy, but it at least mars its benefits, and lessens
the value of the whole. A Christian who volun-
tarily and on principle abstains from the Lord's
Supper, as do the Quakers, may boast that he pos-
sesses Jesus Christ and the sanctifying influences
of the Holy Ghost as fully as his evangelical breth-
ren, and yet there is a difference which sooner or
later will manifest itself by unfavorable results.
Experience shows that one can be an excellent and
devoted Christian, and yet abstain for conscience'
sake from ever partaking of the Lord's Supper, but
it is nevertheless true that Jesus Christ has insti-
tuted that sacrament for the good of the faithful,
and that it cannot be neglected with perfect impu-
nity. The faith of a pious Quaker would only be the
more lively, and his spiritual enjoyment the greater,
if he could participate in this holy ceremony. This
conscientious abstaining is after all a blemish in his
Christian character, and an element of weakness in
his piety. It is the same thing with the neglect of
infant baptism. The Baptist parent may be as
devout a Christian as the Quaker; he may even,

286 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

with a happy inconsistency, rear his children under
the holy influences of the Covenant, while denying
to them its sign, and they, notwithstanding this
neglect, may inherit the piety of their parent ; but
nevertheless a means of grace intended for them has
been set aside or postponed, and their spiritual ad-
vantages have been so far diminished and set in
danger. If the piety of many Baptist brethren is
a sufficient proof that infant baptism may be neg-
lected with impunity, so may the piety of many
Quakers be considered an equal proof against the
ordinance of the Lord's Supper. The parent who
causes his child to be baptized, contracts before God
and man a solemn engagement, which strengthens
faith and the sense of Christian duty in the education
of the family. The omission of the sign may only
diminish in the minds of some parents the feeling
of religious responsibility towards their offspring,
but in others it will totally destroy it. The result
in any case will prove injurious to the family ; the
consequences may not be developed immediately, it
may be years before they become apparent, but then
they will be serious and irreparable.

§ 132. God takes Baptist Parents at tbeir
Word, and their Children do the same. — There
is another mischievous consequence resulting from
the neglect of the baptism of children, and which

INNERMOST MEANING AND VALUE OF BAPTISM. 287

unfailingly manifests itself in them as soon as they
are old enough to think. It is impossible to conceal
from them the fact that they have not been baptized,
while other children have. Although unable fully
to appreciate the import of baptism, yet they feel
that they are placed in an exceptional position, that
the children of other evangelical families are one
step in advance of them in the external profession
of Christianity. They question their parents, and
soon ascertain that they are on a level with the
unconverted world, and that until the distant and
uncertain event of their becoming believers takes
place, Christian duties are not and cannot be binding
upon them. They understand very well that their
parents have placed them outside the covenanted
obligations of the Gospel, and that they differ from
the children of heathen only by a greater knowl-
edge. With children of a happy and docile tem-
perament, this dangerous feeling may not obtain
the mastery, and they may in spite of it attach
themselves to their parents' religion. But in the
majority of cases, it will strengthen the natural
repulsion of the heart to the Gospel, extinguish
the sense of religious duty which parents will in
vain strive to awake, and the child will persistently
remain exactly where his parents have placed him,
— outside the covenant of the Lord, its customs
and its obligations. Indeed, this feeling will often

288 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

deepen into aversion to the Gospel. One needs
only to live in a place where Baptists are numerous
to become convinced by personal observation of the
truth of these facts. Indeed, these alarming results
are so evident as to prevent many parents from
openly turning Baptists, although pretty much so in
theory. This explains also why Baptist sects have
ever been unable to sustain themselves by means of
conversions from the world or from the children of
Baptist families. They are always making inroads
upon other evangelical churches, and seeking to
recruit from amongst them disciples, whom they
profess to baptize for the first time by immersing
them after years of conversion and Christian life.
It is even confidently asserted, that, on an average,
four fifths of the members of Baptist churches were
baptized in childhood, and afterwards re-baptized,
which shows how much that Pedobaptism has been
blessed to them which they foolishly imagine it
their conscientious duty to spurn. Let all the
Christian churches of a given country become Bap-
tist, and let them thus lose the opportunity of re-
cruiting their members amongst Pedobaptists, and
the decline of these churches will be rapid, while
the country returns gradually to heathenism and
unbelief.

§ 133. By calling Baptism a Righteousness,

INNERMOST MEANING AND VALUE OF BAPTISM. 289

tlie Lord places it on a JLcvel with the Cere-
monies of Purification in the Old Testament.

— Our Lord Jesus Christ calls the baptism of water
a righteousness. (Matt. iii. 15.) This expression,
which must not be confounded with the righteous-
ness of faith, casts some light on the value of bap-
tism. Righteousness is an expression borrowed
from the Old Testament, which expresses the ex-
ternal duties of religion according to the law.
(Deut. vi. 25.) Circumcision was a righteousness,
and our Saviour, because the son of man, had to
receive it, although in some sense it was unworthy
of him. In the same manner and for the same rea-
son he received baptism ; because this ceremony is
" a righteousness, and it become th him to fulfil it."
But the expression used here by our Saviour im-
plies also that baptism is connected with the Old
Testament as an external purification of the flesh,
ordained by the law of Moses, and only such a water
baptism could Christ receive with any propriety, as
he had no sins to repent of, like the rest of the peo-
ple that were baptized. In that sense also does
Peter understand the baptism of water, and he
speaks of it with little reverence, as a ceremony
" for the putting away of the filth of the flesh."
(1 Pet. iii. 21.) From this point of view, it is easily
seen how fitting it was that a Gentile be intro-
duced to the kingdom of God by a baptism which
13 s

290 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

would symbolically purify his flesh from its cere-
monial defilement. We see why the Apostles, being
Jews, would never teach a Gentile until after he
was baptized, and why their Master commanded
them to follow that rule, " Baptize and teach."
We understand also how, as a purification of the
flesh, baptism is appropriate to infants, who are the
flesh and bone of their parents, and who, being born
in corruption and defiled, need very early that same
symbolic and lustral purifying. This is, indeed, the
lowest aspect of baptism, but it is one set forth by
the Lord and by Peter, and one which must never
be lost sight of while endeavoring to take a higher
view of the rite. Moreover, as a ceremonial right-
eousness, baptism should not be denied to infants,
for no one has yet asserted that babes should not be
washed until they are old enough to appreciate the
advantages of cleanliness. They must be washed
for the parents' sake if not for their own, and bap-
tism is after all a religious washing of the flesh, and
not of the soul.

§ 134. The Baptism of Fire is not that of
the Holy Ghost, hut is the Baptism of Hell.—

John the Baptist said, " Jesus Christ shall baptize
you with the Holy Ghost and with fire," and the
Jacobites, thinking to be very Scriptural, take this
passage as literally and materially as the Baptists

INNERMOST MEANING AND VALUE OF BAPTISM. 201

do that on the burial with Christ by baptism. Ac-
cordingly they do not baptize without marking, with
a red-hot iron, a cross on the forehead of their chil-
dren. Their practice is fully as justifiable and as
Scriptural as that of immersion.

Fire and the Holy Ghost have generally been
understood in this passage as synonymous, or at
least as referring to the same spiritual baptism.
This view seems confirmed by the baptism of the
Holy Ghost received at Pentecost, where tongues of
fire were seen to rest on the heads of the Apostles.
We must, however, differ from the common inter-
pretation, and see in the baptism of fire the opposite
of that of the Holy Ghost, namely, the baptism of
Hell. We consider that sound criticism compels us
to accept this interpretation, which is in fact given
by John himself. For he has no sooner mentioned
this baptism of fire, than he immediately states in a
parallel sentence what he means by the fire with
which the Messiah is to baptize. " He shall baptize
you with the Holy Ghost and fire ; — he will gather
his wheat into the garner, but he will burn up the
chaff with unquenchable fire." (Matt. iii. 11, 12.)
There is no reason for taking the word fire in two
totally different meanings in the same passage, and
therefore John evidently means a baptism of un-
quenchable fire. Indeed, this throws a beautiful
light on the spiritual and symbolical sense of bap-

292 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

tism. Christ is both to save and to judge the world ;
he is himself to baptize every man ; no one will
escape from his baptism, — a baptism of the Spirit
and of mercy to the one, a baptism of fire and dam-
nation to the other, and both these future baptisms
of Christ were prefigured in the water-baptism of
John. Had the fire been mentioned here only as a
qualification of the Holy Ghost, John would scarcely
have spoken the truth to the crowds around him, in
promising them this baptism of spiritual grace, for
very few of them indeed received it. But there is
an awful and stern reality in his preaching to the
people that their expected Messiah is coming to
purify the world, for such is the essential mean-
ing of the word baptize (§ 78). He shall indeed
purify either by the Spirit or by fire, either by mer-
cifully washing away their sin, or by burning it in
the unquenchable fire of damnation ; but through
one or other of these two baptisms shall the world
pass and be purified. The same idea may be im-
plied in the tongues of fire, symbolic of the mission
of the Apostles, whose tongues cannot preach mercy
without also implying damnation to those who re-
main hardened.

This idea of purifying, which is the predominant
one in the word baptize, throws a spiritual light on
several passages. For instance, take these words,
" He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,"

INNERMOST MEANING AND VALUE OF BAPTISM. 293

(Mark xvi. 16,) and substitute purify for baptize,
and you read, " He that believeth and is purified
shall be saved." A meaning as simple as it is beau-
tiful, referring to the spiritual purification of sin by
the agency of the Holy Ghost. Again, the baptism
for the dead, ordered by Moses and alluded to by
Paul, means that purification is necessary after con-
tact with the dead. This world is a world of the
dead ; it is defiled by sin, and death is the consum-
mation of sin. Christian baptism is a baptism for
the dead ; it expresses the spiritual idea that man,
nay, the very infant, is defiled by contact with the
world, and by belonging to it, and that he needs to
be purified by Christ before he can draw near to
God.

§ 135. The Baptism of the Gospel is intended
to prepare the Way for the Coming of the Lord,
aud, as such, suits Infants better than any other
Class. — The baptism practised by John the Baptist
was intended to prepare for the coming of the Lord ;
this is an essential feature of the ordinance, which
deserves our attention. The mission of John con-
sisted in being the Forerunner of Jesus Christ, and
was wholly symbolized in his baptism. He baptized
the people that they might be prepared to receive
the Messiah, and his baptism is considered as the
very beginning of the Gospel. (Mark i. 1.) When

294 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

the eleven Apostles met to elect the twelfth, the man
of their choice must be a witness of all the facts of
the Gospel, " beginning from the baptism of John."
(Acts i. 22.) Finally, we have the declaration of
John himself : " And I knew him not ; but that he
should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I
come baptizing with water." (John i. 31.) He
baptizes, therefore, with reference to a Saviour not
yet revealed, and for the express purpose of making
him manifest to those whom he was baptizing. Ac-
cording to the Baptist view, he should have baptized
only in reference to a Saviour already manifest and
crucified, so that he might have buried the people
into his death. But no ; the Gospel places baptism
before the manifestation of Jesus Christ, for which
it is intended to prepare the way. This leading ob-
ject is attained by infant baptism, while it is missed
by baptism after faith. Little children are, like the
Jewish people, in a state of expectancy of a religion
which is about to be made manifest unto them, and
for the reception of which it is proper they should
be prepared, and prepared according to the Gos-
pel, by baptism. As Jesus Christ ordains it in his
commission to the Apostles, they must be made
disciples ; that is to say, they must be introduced
into the Covenant by being first baptized and then
taught. Baptism is the beginning of the beginning
of the Gospel, the very first step, and that step only

INNERMOST MEANING AND VALUE OF BAPTISM. 295

one of preparation. Blessed be the parent who in
the first days of his child is anxious to prepare him
by this initiatory ordinance for an early reception
of Jesus Christ !

§ 136. The Gospel knows no other Baptism
than that of the Called, who have not yet ob-
tained the Remission of Sins. — The baptism of
John was identified with his preaching. " He has
preached the baptism of repentance," says Scrip-
ture in many places. And he preached that bap-
tism and conferred it for the remission of sins.
(Mark i. 4, 5.) Observe that he did not baptize,
as Baptists do, those who were thought to have
already obtained remission of sins, but a totally
different class, — those who were seeking that re-
mission, and who resorted to baptism as a means
to obtain it. Baptism by water was therefore the
symbol of the preaching to the unconverted, and
an effective instrument for calling sinners to the
Saviour, who would impart to them the true wash-
ing of sins figured by that of water. The moment
a man was pricked in his heart at the hearing of
the Gospel, and asked, What shall I do ? he was
answered, Receive the baptism of repentance as
the first step towards obtaining remission of sins.
Then persevere, be faithful to the pledge of thy
baptism, and thou shalt find what thou seekest,

296 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

even the gift of the Holy Ghost. Such is the lan-
guage which Peter holds to the three thousand who
were baptized in one day. (Acts ii. 37, 38.) This
is also the language of Ananias at the baptism of
the alarmed but unconverted Paul : " Arise and be
baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the
name of the Lord." (xxii. 16.) Thus the Gospel
knows only a baptism of the called, but the Baptists
only a baptism of the elect, which is even farther
removed from truth than Mass is from the Holy
Supper.

§ 137. No Theory of Baptism is true unless it
fully accounts for the Haste and Precipitancy
of the Apostles to confer it. — Let us connect here
with this preaching by baptism another very remark-
able fact, — that of the great haste with which that
ordinance was applied, and which we have noticed
elsewhere. We have seen that baptism was never
refused to any one who applied for it ; for, although
John said to the Pharisees who came to him, " 0
generation of vipers ! " there is no indication nor
probability that he refused baptism to any of them.
Neither did they ask it, for they had no confidence
in it ; they secretly despised it and left it to the
common people. We have ascertained, moreover,
that there is not one single instance of a man bap-
tized later than the very day and the very hour

INNERMOST MEANING AND VALUE OF BAPTISM. 297

when he gave his first assent to the preaching of
the Gospel. In the night, amidst the ruins of a
prison which had just crumbled on its founda-
tions, the household of the jailer hear for the first
time the preaching of the Gospel, and they listen.
Straightway, at the very instant (Trapa^prjiJia)^
without waiting for daylight, without preparations,
without catechizing, the jailer is baptized with all
his. If, as Baptists assert, this baptism was an im-
mersion, the precipitancy is far more remarkable ;
for supposing, which is impossible, that the prison
of a Roman province enjoyed the comfort of a
bath-room, it must have been at any rate difficult,
amidst the confusion of that terrible night, to clear
the rubbish and to procure the immense quantity
of water necessary. On the other hand, if the
jailer sent to awake the inhabitants of the town
in the middle of the night, to borrow from them
instantly a large tub capable of accommodating at
least two persons, it would show still more the im-
mense importance which the Apostles felt that there
should not be the slightest delay in the performance
of baptism.

All the narratives of baptism found in Scripture
witness to the same precipitancy. They all convey
the same idea of haste : " And now why tarriest
thou ? arise, and be baptized ! " (Acts xxii. 1.6.)
Were we to admit, with Baptists, the baptism of

13*

298 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

believers only, Scripture will even then declare,

" When they believed they were baptized."

(Acts viii. 12.) At the very moment they believe
what they are told about Jesus Christ, they are bap-
tized without delay. But the Baptist practice is in
direct opposition to this, and would alter Scripture
to " After they had believed for some time, they
were baptized." It is owing to this precipitancy,
to this Apostolic duty of haste, that there is not a
single instance in Scripture of a baptism performed
at a meeting of the church, or by a special appoint-
ment made beforehand, as is the practice with Bap-
tists, who make of this rite a public profession of
faith similar to that of the Lord's Supper. Baptism
was performed on the spot where it was first thought
of, in the private household, or in the desert, or on
the road-side. It was often given without any wit-
nesses, as in the case of Paul and that of the eunuch.
This ordinance was as domestic and as private as
that of circumcision, of which it takes the place.

This promptitude, this haste, this precipitancy,
forms therefore a characteristic feature of the ordi-
nance of baptism. Any theory of baptism, to be
credible, is bound fully to account for this invari-
able fact, to explain it, and to show how such a
practice necessarily results from the doctrine. But
neither Baptists nor Pedobaptists seem to have taken
the slightest notice of this important element of doc-

INNERMOST MEANING AND VALUE OF BAPTISM. 299

trine and practice in their baptism of adults after
faith. Where the Apostles have practised haste and
precipitancy, they place delay, waiting, examina-
tion, and discipline ; but surely it is not the Apos-
tles who were mistaken. The attempt has been
made to explain away this haste, by saying that the
Apostles had the power to read the heart, and for
this reason needed no probation of the convert's
faith. But even this would not account for the
extreme haste displayed ; moreover, all apostolical
precedents for baptism, or anything else, would be
invalidated and become of no avail to us, if it were
once admitted that miraculous powers dictated all
their actions, and that, instead of imitating them,
we must act differently. Finally, it is not true that
in baptism they could read men's hearts, for even
in this ordinance they were deceived. Philip has-
tened to baptize Simon Magus, who proved a few
moments afterwards to have been a hypocrite.

The great systematizer and observer of facts,
Agassiz, says : " The criterion of a true theory con-
sists in the facility with which it accounts for facts
accumulated in the course of long-continued investi-
gations, and for which the existing theories afforded
no explanation." This is as true of the facts of the
Bible as of those of nature. Now, our doctrine on
baptism is the only one which will satisfactorily ac-
count for the great fact of haste, and this is a confir-

300 THE BAPTISM OF WATER,.

mation of its truth and genuineness. This haste is
explained only when baptism is, like circumcision, an
initiation to a covenant, — a solemn pledge, a treaty
concluded with the Lord, the first tie of the Gospel,
the earliest bond between God and the family, which
precedes justifying faith and leads to it.

§ 138. The Haste to baptize finds its Analogy
and its Justification in the Enlistment of the Sol-
dier by the Recruiter. — We find this same haste
practised by men in other circumstances, which ex-
plain its motive and its object. When you exert
yourself to convince a man that he should do this
or that thing, you hasten to take advantage of the
first moment when his resistance is shaken, or when
conviction manifests itself, to bind him by a promise,
or by a signature placed at the foot of a document ;
for you know that the obtaining of his signature is
a great point gained. He is pledged to a certain
course by his signature and seal, in a far different
and stronger manner than by a mere verbal assent,
which might easily be revoked. Again, when you
seek to enlist a soldier in the service of the king,
(and Christians are the soldiers of Christ,) you
speak to him, you set before him the advantages
of the service of the king, and it is usual, on the
very first mark of assent, to hasten to enlist him, by
handing to him the shilling which is the symbol of

INNERMOST MEANING AND VALUE OF BAPTISM. 801

his enlistment. He fully understands that accepting
your shilling pledges him and his family, if he has
any. After being solemnly pledged, however, he is
a soldier only in perspective, for he must be taught.
After his enlistment he finds himself a military dis-
ciple, and only later can he expect, if he perseveres,
to be incorporated into a regiment. Thus the Chris-
tian receives first the pledge of baptism, then he is
taught ; after which he may be received, if worthy,
as a member of this or that church. This figure
of the soldier, which is strictly Biblical, perfectly
unravels to us the importance of haste in conferring
the sign of the Covenant. This haste is for the in-
terest of the service, for the interest of the king,
and even for that of the future soldier, if the service
is to be advantageous to him. By neglecting to im-
part the token immediately on the very first oppor-
tunity, many excellent recruits would be lost to the
kingdom ; and although all who have undergone the
formality of enlistment do not approve themselves
good soldiers, although many show little disposition
to be taught and trained, although many more be-
come unfaithful and desert, still it remains true
that there is great advantage in promptly binding
by a symbol any one who feels disposed to enter the
blessed service of the King of kings.

Another instance of the same haste is supplied
us by the missionaries of temperance societies, who

302 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

preach to the crowd and centre all the efforts of
their eloquence upon one point, that of bringing
their hearers to sign a pledge, or to make a solemn
promise by means of some symbolical signs, deemed
efficacious to bind their conscience more than simple
words. This token of pledge it is considered im-
portant to administer immediately at the close of
preaching, and before the meeting breaks up. Haste
is made to bind the people before their compunction
has time to cool down ; and this haste is displayed
by the preachers, not only from zeal for the cause,
but also in the well-meant interest of the hearers, so
as to fix permanently the impressions received, and
transform a conviction more or less vague into a
positive and real fact. The pledge of the parent
extends also, of course, to his little ones, who have
not been consulted, nor will it be deemed inappro-
priate if they bear the same badge with their father,
considering they are all together enlisted in the
same cause.

§ 139. This Haste to enlist the Unconverted
is an essential Feature of Baptism, and forms
just the Reverse of the Baptist Practice. — Such
is the reason why the Apostles always hastened to
confer baptism at the close of their preaching, and
urged their hearers to take that step before separat-
ing. This promptitude was for the good of souls

INNERMOST MEANING AND VALUE OF BAPTISM. 303

and for the glory of the Master. They ever made it
a point to change a recent and vague assent to the
Gospel into a fact and a reality which would bind
their hearers. The object was " to compel them to
come in," (Luke xiv. 23,) willing or unwilling, to
commit them to the cause of Jesus Christ, to hurry
them by the bridge of baptism within the cove-
nanted precincts of the kingdom, to bind them to
the discipline of the Gospel, they and theirs, by a
solemn and symbolical pledge, which should be
irrevocable. They must be urged to an act of
adherence to the Gospel, and must also be supplied
with the most prompt and ready means of definitely
declaring themselves. They were first enlisted as
disciples by baptism, then bound to the teaching of
Gospel truth ; then, when they were favored with
the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and had identified
themselves with Christ by a living faith, they were
admitted to the Holy Supper and to the participa-
tion of all the privileges of the Church.

§ 140. The Grace of Calling: conferred by

Baptism. — The Gospel narrative informs us that
John the Baptist, very unlike the Baptists, baptized
first and then preached his baptism ; namely, the
doctrines of repentance and remission of sins by the
Lamb of God, to those whom he had baptized.
" John did baptize and preach the baptism

304 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

And he preached, saying, I indeed have baptized
Xpu with water," etc. (Mark i. 4, 7, 8.) The
greater number of those he baptized did not perse-
vere, and ultimately drew back, for there were
many called, but few elect, — few true disciples,
ready to endure persecution and to join the small,
new-born churches. They had, however, received
by baptism a special grace of calling, which turned
to the benefit of several. Thus the Gospel narrates
that " all the people that heard Jesus, and the
publicans, justified God, being baptized with the
baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers
rejected the counsel of God against themselves,
being not baptized of him." (Luke vii. 29, 30.)
The people and the publicans were not regenerated
believers, but the baptism they had received had
done them good, brought them one step nearer the
truth, committed them to welcome Jesus. They
listened accordingly with pleasure and profit to the
teaching of Christ, while that teaching was unprofit-
able to those who had not received the baptism of
repentance. This grace of calling is also imparted
to little children through the baptism that their
Christian parents secure to them. It is a grace of
the future, which is developed and perfected with
the growth of the child. Parents thus place their
child from his early youth in the position of one-
called, of a disciple. They bring him up as such,

INNERMOST MEANING AND VALUE OF BAPTISM. 305

train him in the practice of the rules of the cove-
nant, that is to say, in the discipline of the Gospel ; ,
then, at a later period, explain to him that he is
bound to the service of God, having been conse-
crated to him from his earliest days. There is
in this a blessed influence and a precious privi-
lege, which sincere Christians never discard unless
through ignorance, and because they have not suf-
ficiently understood the nature of their relations
with the Lord.

§ 141. Although the Time most propitious to
Baptism is before Faith, it had better be re-
ceived late than never. — It follows from the
above, that for an adult who was never baptized,
the most propitious time to receive baptism is that
of the first religious awakening of his soul. At a
later period, and after he has obtained the baptism
of the Holy Ghost, that of water becomes to him
of less spiritual value. Yet for all this it ought
not to be neglected, the external reception of the
token of covenant is always advantageous, as an
act of consecration to the Lord, as an example,
and because, as said Jesus Christ, it is becoming
thus to fulfil all righteousness. He whose baptism
has been retarded is like a volunteer who fights by
the side of the other soldiers without having been
embodied into a regiment. If all did the same,

306 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

disorder and anarchy would soon prevail, The
sooner his name is inscribed on the roll, the sooner
he sets himself right, the sooner he submits to the
form of taking an oath of allegiance which has long
been in his heart, the better for him and for the
service. This remark applies also to parents, who
through doubt or indifference may have neglected
the baptism of their children. The sooner they sub-
mit to the ordinance of the Lord, the better it will
be for them, for their families, and for the Church.

§ 142. It is as a Sign of the Future, and the
Seal of a Covenant, that Baptism is conferred
hut once. — Baptism is administered but once to
the same individual, precisely because it is a sign
of the future, the token of a pledge taken once for
all, and which the whole life must realize and carry
out. This predominant idea of a pledge in baptism
explains why the Apostle said to the Corinthians,
" Were ye baptized in the name of Paul ? " which
means, When I baptized you, did I pledge you to
me or to Christ ? Baptists have made of this ordi-
nance the same thing as the Lord's Supper, a figure
of the past, the external and carnal burial with
Christ of him who has already been buried spirit-
ually with his Saviour. Such a view would require
baptism to be repeated as often as the Holy Supper ;
one should be baptized every Sabbath, or at least

INNERMOST MEANING AND VALUE OF BAPTISM. 307

every month. The same might be said of any bap-
tism which is supposed to convey some special and
instantaneous grace at the time of its being admin-
istered. If baptism is a means of sacramental
grace, a means of regeneration or of edification re-
served to the believer, it should be often repeated.
God would certainly not have placed within our
reach such a valuable means of edification, of dying
to the world and being buried with Christ, and yet
forbidden us to use it more than once. But if bap-
tism is the signature and seal of a covenant, like
circumcision, then it is easily understood why the
covenant need not be signed and sealed over again
after it has once been done.

§ 143. In the Case of a doubtful Baptism, the
Conscience of the Individual should decide
whether he be re-baptized or not. — As baptism
must be granted but once, a second baptism anni-
hilates the first. By causing himself to be re-bap-
tized, one professes that he does not believe he had
really received the token of the covenant before,
and that he was not bound to God by any formal
pledge. This is the subjective point of view, which
in very many cases must decide concerning the pro-
priety of re-baptizing such or such persons whose
baptism may be considered doubtful. This is es-
pecially the case in conversions from Romanism.

308 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

The Reformers have acknowledged the baptism of
Rome as valid, while most of the American Presby-
terians re-baptize the convert from Romanism before
admitting him to their churches. From the objec-
tive point of view, there is cause to re-baptize, for
the baptism of Rome not only differs from that of
the Gospel by many superstitious additions, but is
also celebrated in an unknown tongue. It is not a
baptism at all in accordance with Scriptural rules ;
it is to say the least doubtful. But if baptism is
considered from the subjective point of view, which
forms the essential object of the ordinance, it be-
comes impracticable to lay down a general rule.
In spite of many additions, the external form hav-
ing been followed, with an honest intention of in-
itiating into Christianity and consecrating to the
God of the Gospel, it only remains to ascertain
whether the receiver of that baptism considers him-
self pledged by it, and whether his conscience thus
possesses the essential result of baptism. It must
be ascertained also whether the religious commu-
nity with which he associates considers his baptism
valid and binding. It is in reference to this sub-
jective conviction of both the individual and the
community that it should be decided whether to
re-baptize him or not. When circumcision had
been administered to the people of Israel in times
of darkness, ignorance, and superstition, they were

INNERMOST MEANING AND VALUE OF BAPTISM. 309

not circumcised again when there came a season of
religious revival and renewal of faithfulness to the
covenant, because every Israelite felt conscientiously
bound to the covenant by the circumcision received
from his parents. The Reformers received no other
baptism than that of Rome, and it was sufficient to
them, because they felt bound for all their lifetime
by that ceremony of consecration, however imper-
fect it had been. And, still later, Evangelical Prot-
estants have felt bound and pledged to the covenant
by a baptism which they received when children,
and which is too often conferred without all the
solemnity, the conviction, and the light desirable,
but yet is performed with an honest and sincere
intention of initiating into Christianity. Indeed,
the most imperfect Protestant baptism will still
come up to the mark supposed to have been exacted
in that of the eunuch, for no nominal Christian
will hesitate to repeat such a simple profession of
faith as " I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of
God." (Acts viii. 37.)

§ 144. "When the Unconverted make a Sincere
Profession their Children ought to he baptized.

— But should the children of the unconverted be
baptized, or only those of believers ? Should god-
fathers and godmothers be allowed ? These ques-
tions have troubled the conscience of several minis-

310 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

ters, and helped to bring them over to the Baptist
view. However, when the nature of baptism is
well understood, the answer is not difficult. "We
say, yes, the children of the unconverted must be
baptized if their parents appear sincere in their pro-
fession of Christianity. We have no right to exact
from them more than Philip did from the eunuch.
" I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
The question to us is not whether the parents are
regenerated or not, which God alone knows. The
question is : Do they acknowledge the claims of
God upon themselves and their families ? Notwith-
standing their unconverted state, do they admit the
truth in reference to sin and its remission through
the blood of Christ ? Do they express an external
adherence to the Gospel, the sincerity of which can-
not be doubted ? If they only do this, it is enough.
The Apostles baptized heathen and Jews, who gave
no evidence of having reached a higher spiritual
degree than most of our nominal Protestants. But
the forms generally used, even the liturgy of estab-
lished churches, demand, before baptism can take
place, a certain profession on the part of the parent,
and some pledge that the child will receive a Chris-
tian education. The moment the parent consents
and promises, the minister is shielded from respon-
sibility, and the administration of the ordinance will
supply him with an excellent opportunity to preach

INNERMOST MEANING AND VALUE OF BAPTISM. 311

the Gospel under peculiarly favorable circumstances,
when he may expect to secure the ear even of indif-
ferent parents.

§ 145. The Custom of having; Godfathers and
Godmothers is not opposed to the Gospel, and,
if well managed, may offer great advantages ;
but the Rite of Confirmation impairs the Value
of Infant Baptism. — The custom of having god-
fathers and godmothers is neither mentioned nor
even alluded to in Scripture, unless Paul acted as
godfather in circumcising Timothy ; nor of course
is it forbidden. And yet learned disquisitions have
been written to show that the practice of sponsors
must be wrong, because there is no trace of them
in Scripture. But there is no Apostolical precedent
for churchwardens, the wedding ceremony, white
cravats, black gowns, pulpits, organs, spires, and
bells ; but these things, not being forbidden nor
contrary to Scripture, are left as a matter of Chris-
tian liberty, and so should also sponsors be. The
practice has been abused ; but there is nothing to
prevent its being brought back to its original purity.
The fact is, that if a little child has lost his parents
previous to being baptized, it becomes indispensable
that he should be brought to the ordinance by the
person who ranks nearest to him, and assumes to-
wards him the place of a parent. This person is

312 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

to all intent and purpose a genuine sponsor, and
has been very properly called a godfather or a god-
mother. To God he pledges himself to stand in the
stead of father or mother to the forlorn child. He
will consider the latter as one of his household, place
upon him the seal of the covenant, and engage that
he shall serve the Lord and be brought up in his
fear. And not only death, but absence, sickness,
and other causes frequently incapacitate the parent
from pledging his child to God in baptism. Thus,
in spite of all prejudices, sponsors become an un-
avoidable but also blessed fact, although they may
not assume the name. It is very natural, however,
that a parent should not trust to chance the choice
of a sponsor, and should prefer, while present and
alive, to select him, and thus guard against all con-
tingency. If, at the baptism of the child, some
trusty friend or relative will voluntarily participate
in that bond of covenant with the Lord, and pledge
himself, in case of the parents being incapacitated,
to see that the child is brought up under the disci-
pline of the Gospel, this is a decided religious ad-
vantage to the child, an important guaranty for the
family, the pastor, and the Church. We must be
permitted to state here a fact within our personal
experience, which will illustrate the advantage that
may be derived from this custom when properly
managed.

INNERMOST MEANING AND VALUE OF BAPTISM. 313

A Protestant father, married to a Roman Cath-
olic, urged us to baptize his child. He was a very
honest man, but one whose unbelief and scepticism
were the more conspicuous because he occupied a
high social position. We positively declined, and
told him that such baptism would be hypocrisy.
The father, however, felt very reluctant to call the
priest, and again insisted. We then proposed to
him that he should select amongst his relatives
as godfather a person whose Evangelical faith was
known to us, and that he should let the godfather
present the child. We exacted, moreover, on the
part of the parents, a solemn pledge that they would
cause the child to be brought up in the faith of his
godfather, and that they should grant the latter full
right and power to see to this. The condition was
accepted. At the baptism, the fundamental truths
of the Gospel were clearly stated, the pledge of the
covenant given by the godfather, while a solemn
yes of assent and confirmation was uttered by the
father and the mother in presence of witnesses.
Who will dare to assert that a baptism performed
under such circumstances, with the resort to a pious
godfather, was not an immense privilege conferred
upon the child, a religious advantage upon which
his future career may essentially depend ?

The rite of confirmation adopted by several Prot-
estant churches has no Scriptural ground. Some
u

314 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

Continental Presbyterian churches practise it under
the inoffensive name of " ratification of the vow of
baptism." Nor can we say that it is beneficial, or
even harmless. It favors the spread of Baptist no-
tions, by creating a vague impression in the minds
of the people that infant baptism is not quite suffi-
cient as a pledge or token of covenant, and that its
validity must be propped up afterwards for adults
by a special ceremony. Confirmation impairs the
value of infant baptism, and contains the so-called
" believer's baptism " in germ.

But we have carried these details on the relation
of baptism to the religious life of the family far
enough. We have only, before closing our inves-
tigations, to offer some remarks on the manner in
which baptism is related to church discipline.

CHAPTER XV.

BAPTISM AND ECCLESIASTICAL DISCIPLINE.

§ 146. Slight Differences among Pedohap-
tists in Regard to the Relation of Baptism to
Admission to the Church. — There is a difference
of opinion amongst Pedobaptists as to the right of
admission into the Church which baptism confers.
Some look upon children as officially introduced
into the Church by their baptism, and when be-
come adults let them claim the communion and
church privileges as a second degree of initiation
only, and not as a formal admission into the body.
Others, not considering baptism as equivalent to an
admission into the Church, but only as a prelimi-
nary requisite, oblige those previously baptized to
apply for admission, and receive them into mem-
bership according to certain rules of discipline.
We have already expressed our view that the
practice of the latter is more in accordance with
Scripture, which nowhere considers baptism as an
admission into the Church. This difference, how-

316 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

ever, is of small importance, and experience shows
that churches following the one or the other basis
of admission may be very pure and very Evan-
gelical. Thus the Presbyterian and the Congrega-
tionalist churches, which represent the two opin-
ions, are both generally distinguished for a fulness
of Christian life and activity.

§ 147. Baptist Multitudinism is more dan-
gerous to Piety than any other. — Several of our
brethren in France and Switzerland have taken a
great aversion to the multitudinous baptism which
they see practised around them in the established
churches, apparently without any beneficial result,
and they feel therefore secretly drawn towards Bap-
tist principles. We understand their aversion, and
we share in it. Evidently, here is an abuse which
calls for correction, for it is not the intention of the
Lord that baptism should degenerate into an empty
form. But we are equally convinced that the rem-
edy for the abuse does not lie in Anabaptism, and
that to adopt it would be going from bad to worse.
Anabaptism, by undermining the religious obliga-
tions of the Christian family, will never edify the
kingdom of Christ more successfully than Pedo-
baptism. It may accomplish a beneficial work on
missionary ground, for Baptist Christianity is after
all Christianity, which under its most unfavorable

BAPTISM AND ECCLESIASTICAL DISCIPLINE. 317

aspect must bring remission of sins to the heathen.
But whenever it displaces Evangelical Pedobaptism,
instead of Heathenism or Romanism, it will prove
a loss and not a benefit to the cause of Christ.
And yet, unfortunately, its great aim is to destroy
and supplant the other Evangelical churches, the
members of which are all placed under the ban
of Baptist discipline. This sectarian exclusivism
has always been a characteristic of most forms of
error, and the common feature of all narrow-minded
sects, from the Manichaeans to the Mormons, the
Irvingites, the Darbyites, &c, &c. While aiming
at greater purity, Anabaptism has after all resulted
in a multitudinism of the worst kind. Families
inherit Baptist ideas, but not piety. Wherever this
principle has full sway over a community, the indis-
criminate baptism of all adults at a certain age,
converted or not, has become the fashion. The
multitudinous baptism of supposed believers has
taken the place of infant baptism. In Alsace, Ger-
many, and Switzerland, numerous Baptist churches
have perpetuated themselves as a family inherit-
ance, after the complete extinction of all religious
life, and in our days it has become necessary to
send missionaries to preach the rudiments of the
Gospel to these formalists, who have become more
dead spiritually than the established churches, which
they traditionally considered as the world, while they

818 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

still imagined themselves to be the only true bap-
tized believers.

Moreover, sectarian enthusiasm and zeal for im-
mersion render one rather unscrupulous in regard
to admissions. A Baptist agent, in the pay of a
Baptist society, understands very well that the value
of his services is measured by the number of im-
mersions performed in the year. No concern is
manifested, no inquiries made as to where he en-
lists his candidates, whether from the world or
from Evangelical churches. The essential question
is, how many people he has immersed, and those he
has immersed he is held to have also converted.
Hence, the notorious fact that the piety of a great
proportion of these new church-members never goes
beyond their immersion. They think themselves
sufficiently Christianized by the great ceremony
they have undergone, which is to them the culmi-
nating point of all religion. Thus, the statistical
numbers of Baptist churches in the United States
are swollen by nearly a million of black slaves, who
lie in the most profound ignorance, and who have
caused themselves to be immersed from the natural
impulse of their sensual nature, and because of the
fascination that there is in a great exciting ceremo-
ny, which attraction they do not find in the other
Protestant denominations. Here there is a mul-ti-
tudinism more repulsive than that which prevails in

BAPTISM AND ECCLESIASTICAL DISCIPLINE. 319

established churches, and perhaps the very worst in
existence. The Gospel can be preached with some
success to an unconverted Protestant baptized in
infancy ; but to preach the Gospel to a man im-
mersed, but unregenerated, is lost labor ; his immer-
sion is to him a passport to heaven. You will never
be able to persuade him that he still needs a change
of heart. He has been publicly acknowledged as
a believer, and has been with great display buried
into the death of Christ. He belongs to the only
faithful church, ranks above the most pious non-
immersed Christians, and henceforth his self-right-
eousness is beyond that of Pharisees. He is a
being inaccessible to the Gospel.

§ 148. Baptists aim at a Medium between

Fanaticism and Incredulity. — Our Baptist friends
must not conceal from themselves the fact that they
extend one hand to the most extravagant sects, and
the other to the impiety of the age, thus finding
themselves the centre of a fearful multitudinism.
It is unnecessary here to pass in review all the in-
famous sects which, from the German Anabaptists to
the American Mormons, have constituted themselves
on the Baptist principle. Even the Druses, that
nation of brigands and assassins, conform to Baptist
practice under the legal sanction of the govern-
ment j for, the Turkish law exempting Christians

320 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

from military service, and acknowledging as Chris-
tians only such as are baptized, the Druses as soon
as they become adults are baptized by a Christian
priest on profession of faith. Here is a bad multi-
tudinism on Baptist principle, and acknowledged by
law. Our Evangelical Baptists originated as a mod-
erate party in the midst of a most repulsive Ana-
baptist development, which they have neither begun
nor ended. On the other hand, our Baptist friends
never argue against the baptism of infants — never
attempt to ridicule it and show its inefficacy — with-
out having on their side, the applause of all mod-
ern infidelity. Socinus and Servetus were already
theirs, and the latter brings forward the authority
of the Sibyls and of Hermes Trismegistus to show
that the heathen themselves, long before the Bap-
tists, conferred upon adults alone their sacred ablu-
tions, and that Christians ought not to be less
rational than heathen. All modern unbelievers
ridicule infant baptism. Jesuits themselves can-
not help openly applauding the Baptist doctrine,
and rejoicing at its progress, as being an element
of rationalism well calculated to enervate Protes-
tantism.

§ 149. The Remedy for Multitudinism does
not lie in Baptist Antinomianism, hut in the
Preaching of the Gospel. — Evangelical Christians

BAPTISM AND ECCLESIASTICAL DISCIPLINE. 321

are very much mistaken when they think they see in
Anabaptism the panacea for the spiritual evils aris-
ing from multitudinous baptism. The true remedy
lies in the preaching of the Gospel, in the teaching
of truth, and in faithfulness. It is by such means
that Christians must gradually be led to understand
the solemnity and the obligations of infant baptism.
Often in the history of the people of God did
circumcision degenerate into a mere form. Once
there were but seven thousand faithful amongst
those multitudes who had received the seal of the
covenant. This multitudinous circumcision must
have been very revolting to the religious feelings of
pious men who were true to the covenant. Just as
now-a-days we have to preach to nominal Christians
that their baptism does not save them, did these
men also teach the unfaithful multitudes that their
circumcision would not avail with God, unless their
hearts were also circumcised. But for all this, no
prophet laid a sacrilegious hand upon the ordinance
of God, none inveighed against the circumcision of
infants and the covenanting of households, none
sought a violent remedy for the unfaithfulness of
the multitudes by administering the rite according
to the dictates of human wisdom. But they ap-
proached their covenanted co-religionists by tell-
ing them, " Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in
heart ! " Let us preach after the same fashion to

14* u

322 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

the unconverted masses, telling them that their
baptism will not save them as long as their hearts
are unbaptized with the baptism of the Holy Ghost ;
but let us resist the rationalistic impulse that would
lead us to snatch from the family the pledge of the
covenant which God has mercifully allowed them,
and by which the most degenerate Christian nations
of the day are after all infinitely superior to the
heathen. In the most hopeless times of national
unfaithfulness the prophets respected infant circum-
cision ; let us also, while groaning over the degen-
eracy of many churches, beware of increasing the
evils of apostasy by wantonly suppressing infant
baptism.

Pedobaptism has its abuses ; but there is no cere-
mony, no religious practice, which has not. It will
never be safe to conclude from the abuse of a privi-
lege against its very existence ; otherwise the Church
and Christianity itself would ultimately have to be
suppressed. There is some cowardice, as well as
superficiality, in being so utterly dispirited before
abuses as^to want to destroy everything, in order to
rebuild anew with dangerous novelties. It is more
according to the Gospel to prune, correct, and re-
dress, while retaining the old foundations. Our
Reformers would never have succeeded in reaching
the bright goal of their arduous undertaking, had
they not proceeded with their reforms in a conser-

BAPTISM AND ECCLESIASTICAL DISCIPLINE. 323

vative spirit. To state the whole truth, there is at
the bottom of the Baptist tendency Antinomianism
and a certain contempt for the Old Testament
which discloses ignorance and superficiality. The
New Testament, however, is incomplete and uncer-
tain without its basis, which is the Old. All the
strong declarations of the Gospel concerning the
binding authority of Scripture refer exclusively to
the Old Testament, which was then the only Scrip-
ture. The Lord has ordained that we should resort
to the latter for our information on the sign of the
covevant, its nature and its spiritual sense ; and he
has condemned to serious error, to schism and secta-
rian spirit, him who despises the old covenant, and
wishes to isolate himself from it to give free scope
to his fancy and personal sense. He who neglects
the Old Testament lays aside what is emphatically
the Scripture to which our Master has referred us.
And no one can throw himself with impunity into
such a practical Antinomianism.

§ 150. Anabaptism lias a regular, certain, and
perfectly logical Development, which leads un-
failingly to the most Sectarian Bigotry. — But

we have not yet spoken of the Baptist discipline,
which is a point of high importance in our inves-
tigation, as the fruit, the net result of the system
we oppose. Here, then, is set before us, from un-

324 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

deniable facts, the phenomenon of the progress and
development of Anabaptism. In its early begin-
nings, it is innocent and peaceful as a lamb ; this
is the case at present in France and Switzerland,
except perhaps where Baptist agents are sustained
by foreign societies. When it has taken sufficient
root as a latent principle, it organizes itself into an
ecclesiastical body, and begins immediately to be-
come intolerant, but with moderation, as long as it
is weak. This is the case in England, where, being
as yet but a small minority, it is half tolerant, half
exclusive. But when Anabaptism has obtained a
full success, when it is strong and independent,
when it has attained all its free development, then
it becomes the most exclusive of all the sects. Its
disciples glory in the name of Strict Baptists, and
consider themselves as the only true Baptists. Such
is the case in the United States and the neighboring
British Colonies. It is there that we must study
the discipline and constitution of Anabaptism in all
their purity ; for everywhere else it exists but in
germ, or is still in the way of progress and develop-
ment, without having reached its maturity.

American Baptists are all but unanimous in re-
fusing to participate in the Lord's Supper with a
brother who has not been immersed, and moreover
immersed after faith. Still more will they refuse
to admit into the Church any member except those

BAPTISM AND ECCLESIASTICAL DISCIPLINE. 325

immersed. The most questionable convert of yes-
terday, if only immersed, is welcome to all church
privileges ; but the most faithful Christian, even
after a life of marked devotedness to the cause of
Christ, will be sternly denied even the privilege
of sitting at the Lord's table, and ranked outside
in a class with the heathen, because he has failed
to discover immersion in the Gospel. This close
communionism once caused a large-hearted Baptist,
Robert Hall, to deny that a supper laid exclusively
for immersionists could be the Lord's table. But
they justify their exclusivism and their bigotry by
a course of reasoning which is perfectly logical.
They say : " Pedobaptist churches are agreed to
receive as members, and to admit to the commun-
ion, only such as are baptized. We do precisely
the same thing, neither more nor less. To us, there
is no genuine baptism but that of the believer, and
moreover that given by immersion. Adults who
have received infant baptism, or have been baptized
after faith but by sprinkling, are not in our view
baptized at all ; their baptism is no baptism. We
should be unfaithful to our principles if we ac-
knowledged their baptism as valid ; we owe it to
our conscience and to the truth to exclude them
from church-membership, and even from the com-
munion, as being unbaptized." This reasoning is
as clear, as logical, and as unanswerable as that of

326 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

the strict slaveholder : " You do not admit to your
table and to citizenship your cattle, but only beings
with a human skin. We do precisely the same
thing. For it is our settled principle that no man
is a man unless he has a white skin. To us your
man with a black skiu is cattle. We should go
against all truth, conscience, and principle were
we to admit him to our table and to the privileges
of citizenship." Such is the power of this logic,
that neither Baptists nor slaveholders are ever con-
vinced by arguments ; but the latter are not fruit-
less if they only serve to circumscribe the area of
slavery and Anabaptism.

§ 151. The Christian Heart in vain attempts a
Compromise with Baptist Discipline and Logic.

— The premises once granted, it is hopeless to con-
tend against such logical reasoning, and moderate
Baptists have no solid ground on which to stand;
and, therefore, it is morally certain that either
themselves or their successors will always eventu-
ally become strict Baptists. Rigor, bigotry, and
sectarianism are the unavoidable result of consistent
Baptist principles. Moderate Baptists are in a false
position ; they are in a state of transition, and they
endeavor in vain to arrest and steady themselves
upon the slippery declivity. The true Baptists de-
nounce them. as lax, pusillanimous, and unfaithful

BAPTISM AND ECCLESIASTICAL DISCIPLINE. 327

to the truth, and exert upon them a constant pres-
sure, to which, after a while, the greater number
succumb. A few Baptists, painfully aware of the
strong contrast existing between their principles
and the communion of saints, and unwilling to
break the best bonds of fraternal union, have
thought to separate admission to the Lord's table
from admission to the Church ; to be strict for the
last, and lax for the first, and thus give to bigotry
and fraternity each its share. But this distinction
is without any foundation in the Gospel ; for he
who is a sufficiently good Christian to participate in
the highest privilege, the Lord's Supper, is a suf-
ficiently good Christian to be also a church-mem-
ber. The Apostles never knew these two distinct
admissions ; they are a recent fiction, the only
value of which is to show to what a degree the
innermost Christian feeling unconsciously protests
against the Baptist practice.

That same love of Christ has led several of the
most pious Baptists to protest involuntarily against
their doctrine, by a ceremony of consecration of
infants, destined to take the place of baptism. That
is to say, they have first taken away from the family
the ordinance of Jesus Christ ; then they have felt
uneasy at having lowered the children of the prom-
ise to the level of those of heathenism ; then, in order
not to contradict themselves, they invent a new

328 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

ceremony, which they put in the place of baptism ;
and, finally, they persuade themselves that they are
very evangelical, when in reality they walk in the
footsteps of Romanism by creating ceremonial novel-
ties, and substituting them for the ordinances of the
Gospel.

§ 152. Baptist Zealotry proceeds from an ex-
aggerated and false Importance attributed to
Baptism. — A ceremony which Jesus Christ never
consented to practise himself, which the Apostle of
the Gentiles generally abandoned to his subordi-
nates, and which the Apostle of the circumcision
calls a mere putting away of the filth of the flesh,
should evidently not obtain the exaggerated impor-
tance which Baptists have arbitrarily given to it.
Which Baptist pastor or agent could candidly and
cordially say, like Paul, " Christ sent me not to
baptize, but to preach the Gospel " ? Which of
them would spend eighteen months in a city like
Corinth, founding a church, effecting numerous
conversions, and yet baptizing but three families ?
Which of them could thank God that he baptized
none other ? Which of them could attach so little
importance to a rite requiring great preparations, as
not to be able to remember whether or not he
buried with Christ this or that brother ? Which of
them could say, " I baptized none of you but two,„

BAPTISM AND ECCLESIASTICAL DISCIPLINE. 329

and I baptized also a third, the household of Stc-
phanus ; besides, I know not whether I baptized any
other " ? Which of them would justify such care-
lessness and indifference to the exalted ordinance,
by stating that baptism is of little consequence, that
it is no object for a missionary of Christ, " For
Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the
Gospel " ? (1 Cor. i. 11 - 17.) With what intense
disgust would the Apostle Paul contemplate all that
Baptist fanaticism, that zeal of proselytism, which
impels them to rend asunder other churches, in
order to build upon another man's foundation !
With what burning indignation would Peter see the
■washing of Moses and John, against the undue im-
portance of which he had warned all ages, set up by
a society of Christians as an idol, at the altar of
which the unity of the Church and the communion
of saints are daily sacrificed ! It would be difficult
to imagine a sadder position for a Christian than
that of a missionary agent, salaried by a Baptist
society, and obliged to deserve the favor of his
patrons by reports showing how many immersions
have been performed during the year, and endeav-
oring by clever insinuations to make recruits for
the great ceremony amongst the weak minds of
other Evangelical churches.

§ 153. Anabaptism is, by its exclusive Alio-

330 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

gance, the petty Rival of Popery. — Strict Bap-
tists have exalted their peculiar doctrine to the
rank of fundamental truths. They have excom-
municated all Evangelical Christians but them-
selves. They will neither let them participate ir.
the communion in their own churches, nor go and
take it with them in theirs. Luther, Calvin, Wes-
ley, and all brethren from Pedobaptist churches, are
excommunicated ; there is not one of them worthy
to sit with Baptists at the table of the Lord, for the7
are all indiscriminately disobedient and unfaithful
Christians, refusing to submit to the positive com-
mand of God to let themselves be immersed. Could
the host of martyrs, who, from the days of -the
Caesars to the dragoonades of the Huguenots, have
sealed with blood their witness for Christ, rise from
their tombs and present themselves at the Baptist
communion-table, they would be told, " Stand aside,
you unfaithful and unworthy disciples ! the blood of
Christ is for us, and not for you ! " They would
hear language addressed to them that would grate
on their ears very much like " God, I thank thee
that I am not as other men." And such is the
rigor of this discipline, that even a Baptist is liable
to excommunication for taking the Lord's Supper
with his Pedobaptist brethren.

Thus have the strict Baptists, the only true ones,
reached the maturity of their principles by virtually

BAPTISM AND ECCLESIASTICAL DISCIPLINE. 831

seceding from Protestantism to return to the plat-
form of Popery. For what are the other Protes-
tant churches, the Lutheran, the Presbyterian, the
Methodist, the Congregationalist, etc., but churches
entirely made up of excommunicated people, from
the pastor to the last member ? Is an assembly
of the excommunicated a church ? Can a body
of excommunicated clergymen form an evangelical
ministry ? In a word, can a society of people, not
one of whom is worthy to be received as a member
of the Church of Jesus Christ, not one of whom is
entitled to the Christian sacrament, compose an
Evangelical church ? Evidently not. Therefore
the Baptist Church is absolutely the sole Christian
church in the world. Virtually there is no other
church, no other evangelical clergy. Is not this
pure Romanism ? It may seem incredible that the
Baptists should really have inherited the arrogance
of Rome, and have set up rival claims with the Pope.
It will be thought that, if our conclusions are strictly
logical, Baptists at least do not make them. But
let our friends be undeceived. Of course there are,
thanks to God, inconsistent Baptists, as there are
inconsistent Romanists, whose hearts get the better
of rigid sectarianism. But the Romish platform is
openly advocated by the leaders of the Baptist de-
nomination. For instance, on the 12th of June,
1858, the Tennessee Baptist Association, a leading

332 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

one iii the United States, voted to refuse all pulpit
exchanges with Pedobaptist ministers as unbaptized
persons. And in the same year a Baptist quarterly,
the Christian Review, said to be the highest author-
ity in the denomination, in a leading article, un-
churched all Pedobaptist churches, declaring that
true Baptists " should never admit Pedobaptist
societies to be churches."

Daniel Webster, when remonstrating with the
arrogance of Austria, reminded her that she was
but a speck on the map of the world, and that her
overbearing conceit was not in keeping with her
real importance. Need our Baptist brethren be
reminded that they also are but a speck on the map
of eighteen centuries of Christianity, and that their
exclusive and arrogant claims more than border on
ridicule ?

§ 154. The present Baptist Doctrine and
Practice date back but two Centuries, and
have been fomented by the Jesuits. — But who

are those who thus assume to be alone the true
Church ? They are but of yesterday. For fifteen
hundred years Christendom ignored their existence
and their claims ; indeed, we have already shown that
Tertullian and other Fathers scarcely held a single
principle in regard to baptism in common with our
modern Baptists. The Waldenses, those apostolic

BAPTISM AND ECCLESIASTICAL DISCIPLINE. 333

witnesses, have always practised infant baptism, as
is shown from their oldest documents. The attempt
has been made to trace the existence of Baptist
principles among some of the ephemeral sects of the
Middle Ages, but unsuccessfully. For they either
rejected baptism altogether, and along with it all
sacraments, even marriage, or else if they re-baptized
people they meant only to protest against Romish
baptism, just as American Presbyterians re-baptize
Romanists. Anabaptism originated in Germany
after the Reformation, and with the avowed pur-
pose of supplanting it. In this it fails, but succeeds
effectually in obstructing and stopping the work
begun by Luther, and which would otherwise have
spread all over the world. When triumphant, Ana-
baptism plunders, murders, sanctions polygamy, and
revels in debauchery, until exterminated in a cru-
sade undertaken in the name of public morality. To
the timely appearance of the Baptist principle, three
hundred years ago, does the Romish Church owe its
present existence. Baptists may boast of having
checked the progress of the Reformation and con-
solidated the See of the Pope by throwing back into
his conservative arms an indignant and affrighted
world. After a while, a Catholic priest, Menno,
resuscitates Anabaptism under a more moderate
form, but connects with it heresies upon which
modern Baptists are silent. He ordains, amongst

384 THE BAPTISM OF WATEE.

other things, the frequent practice of the washing
of the feet as an important sacrament of the Church.
His followers quarrelled together, and divided into
several little sects, bearing different names, and all
stained with gross errors. Most of them have sunk
into complete infidelity while retaining their forms,
and thus present a Baptist multitudinism.

It is not there that we must look for the parentage
of our present Baptists ; they are far more modern,
and sprang up in England about two centuries ago.
But, while they repudiate the Anabaptists of Ger-
many, they are scarcely conscious of their own ori-
gin, which we must be permitted to mention here.
Under Cromwell, the Non-conformists, being tri-
umphant over both the Romanists and the Episco-
palians, it was seen that the only way to weaken the
Evangelical churches was to divide them, and that
this must be done at any price. Baptist principles
were beginning to peer out here and there, imported
from Holland, but very vague, unsectarian, and un-
organized. A bishop of great celebrity, J. Taylor,
saw with his friends that it was only by a question
of doctrine and conscience that these stern Puri-
tans, so united together in evangelical bonds, could
be divided. It was evident that Anabaptism, which
had had the power to wreck in part the Lutheran
reformation, was the best and strongest expedient.
Bishop Taylor accordingly consecrated his leisure

BAPTISM AND ECCLESIASTICAL DISCIPLINE. 335

and science in preparing a work, since famous,
advocating Baptist principles. He threw it into
the midst of the evangelical churches, and the bomb
burst with perfect success. It was by far the most
powerful and convincing work which had ever
appeared in behalf of Anabaptism. The discussion
was entered into by the Non-conformists, and Bap-
tist bigotry spread its venom amongst them. The
Jesuits took heart again, and gave all their support
to the Baptist opinions, asserting that the Bible
was Baptist, and that only by the authority of the
Church could infant baptism be justified. The
Baptist preacher who was then the most zealous,
and obtained immense success, was Captain Eve-
rard, a Jesuit in disguise, who later threw off his
Baptist mask. A Jesuit father on his travels hav-
ing been arrested and searched, his trunk was
found full of Baptist pamphlets. In the course of
time, the artifice of Bishop Taylor met with com-
plete success ; the Puritans were divided, and suc-
cumbed. When the mischief was done, and the
Episcopalians had regained their power, the Bishop
publicly avowed himself the author of the popular
Baptist work, and felt it his duty himself to publish
a refutation. But his Baptist book was so plausi
ble, so well written, and had met with such suc-
cess, that the celebrated Doctor Hammond thought
it necessary, to the great mortification of the Bishop,

336 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

to write also a learned answer. We are indebted
for these interesting details to an Episcopal source,
Wall (II. 15-17).

§ 155. Why the Baptist Schism is the most
suitable Expedient for weakening Evangelical
Churches. — This worthy Bishop Taylor showed
great tact, and a deep knowledge of human nature,
in understanding that one of the best artifices for
dividing Evangelical churches is to put forward
Baptist views. Experience, from the days of Luther,
shows that there is no surer, no more efficacious pro-
cess for creating schisms, acrimony, exclusivism, and
anathemas in the midst of a religious revival, or in
the bosom of Evangelical churches enjoying calm
and peace, than the arrival of a Baptist agent, who
comes to preach his Anabaptism as if it were a new
Gospel. The Baptist schism, moreover, has this
element of permanency above all others, that it
assumes a very concrete and material shape, per-
petuating itself by means of an external ceremony,
— immersion. Doctrines and abstract notions are
changeable, and may pass away, but ceremonies
remain, and are most tenacious. Indeed, both
Romanism and Anabaptism owe the greater part of
their vitality to the ceremonial element, which takes
a strong hold of weak human nature. The Bishop
and the Jesuits have, therefore, admirably sue-

BAPTISM AND ECCLESIASTICAL DISCIPLINE. 337

ceeded, and their work, which is that of the great
enemy, is perpetuated up to this day. Modern
Anabaptism owes to them, in great part, its exist-
ence, and, transferred to the fertile soil of Amer-
ica, it has won astonishing success. But let it no
longer be asserted that this ceremonial delusion is
the work of God ; we know whence it comes, and
how the enemies of the Gospel have promoted it
as an instrument to reach their unhallowed ends.

We cannot without regret and sadness see re-
spectable and conscientious brethren thus let " Sa-
tan get an advantage of them, though they should
not be ignorant of his devices," and through their
Baptist zealotry allow themselves very honestly and
unknowingly to become the tools and agents of the
Jesuits. This painful feeling is increased by the
conviction that it is almost hopeless to expect from
them a return to wiser counsels. The experience
of the Church, in all ages, teaches that when a
mind, however honest and sincere, has once become
entangled in the meshes of some sectarian doctrine,
it scarcely ever extricates itself. To speak only of
our own times, it is a notorious fact that neither
Mormons, nor Shakers, nor Millerites, nor Perfec-
tionists, nor Darbyites, nor Baptists, nor Irvingites,
nor Swedenborgians, etc., are ever brought back
from their errors by any book written for them, nor

by any course of argument, nor by any declarations
15 v

338 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

of the Word of God, nor by the sight of the worst
consequences resulting from their system. They
are proof against any change of conviction, and die
deploring that the world would not appreciate their
peculiar doctrine, which to them is emphatically
the truth and the Gospel. All that should be at-
tempted when a conflagration rages, and cannot be
put out, is to circumscribe the flames, to prevent
the destroying element from spreading to exposed
materials, and to make the latter secure and fire-
proof. In proportion as this can be accomplished
will the scourge be checked, and gradually die out
for want of materials to consume. It is, there-
fore, the duty of all Pedobaptist ministers to be
thoroughly posted up on the leading points of the
Baptist controversy, and to impart to the people
under their charge instructions of a clear and
definite character, sufficient to make them proof
against the proselytizing attempts of their Baptist
brethren, who enjoy the superior advantage of
having made the question a specialty. Unfortu-
nately this duty has been too much neglected. Min-
isters have entertained too vague ideas on the
subject, or have laid it altogether aside with con-
tempt, as unworthy of much attention. Hence the
progress of Baptists, hence these frequent and dis-
couraging desertions of pious church-members, who,
unable to defend the cause of infant baptism, con-

BAPTISM AND ECCLESIASTICAL DISCIPLINE. 839

scientiously surrender their bodies, and with their
bodies also their souls, to immersionists. Were it
not for this culpable neglect and this defenceless
condition, Baptists would make but few or no re-
cruits, and the day they cease to live by piracy
upon Evangelical churches, they will rapidly dwin-
dle away. That the neglect has been great, and
that in consequence there is an alarming amount
of latent Baptist principle among some Pedobaptist
churches, is a fact that cannot be denied, and which
is even susceptible of statistical proof. Thus, while
the Episcopal Church in the United States has one
infant baptism in the year to every four communi-
cants, the Methodist Church has but one baptism to
twenty-one communicants. We have not Presby-
terian returns of baptisms, but if Congregational-
ism must be judged from its last statistical returns,
it is in a fair way of becoming a nursery for Bap-
tists. These returns show in Maine, for the whole
year, but one infant baptism for each forty-five
church-members ; in Illinois, one to fifty-eight ; and
in Massachusetts, only one to sixty-two ! These
numbers, if reliable, reveal a most deplorable state
of things, which calls for immediate and most ear-
nest attention on the part of ecclesiastical bodies.

§ 156. The Baptist Babel, with its Schisms of
Schisms, should serve as a Warning to Evan-

840 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

gelical Christians. — Fortunately sectarianism and
fanaticism carry with them their own chastisement.
Thus Anabaptism, which promised to re-establish
the primitive Church, to be a panacea for the
scourge of multitudinism, and to baptize all Chris-
tians into one body, is after all nothing but a house
divided against itself. Never has any other relig-
ious community, founded upon any principle what-
ever, undergone such internal schisms. Among
them are divisions without end, and schisms of
schisms. In Holland, their original cradle, where
they once attained great numbers and correspond-
ing influence, they have divided among themselves,
until, like impalpable dust, they are fast disappear-
ing and mingling with other religious elements ; a
fate which probably awaits English and American
Baptists, when, after another century, they will
have reached the present mature age of their Dutch
brethren. Among the weak remnants that still sur-
vive, the following may be noticed: — 1st. The origi-
nal Mennonites. 2d. The Refined, or Old Flamin-
gians. 3d. The Gross or Fatherlanders. 4th. The
Apostoolers. 5th. The Sonnites, whose symbol is
the sun. 6th. The Galenists. 7th. The Lammists.
8th. Baptist Remonstrants. 9th. Baptist Collegi-
ants. 10th. Baptist Unitarians. 11th. Baptist Ar-
minians. 12th. Baptist Socinians. 13th. The Chris-
tosacrums, etc. The list, although incomplete,

BAPTISM AND ECCLESIASTICAL DISCIPLINE. 341

is instructive, and carries a lesson with it. A sum-
mary review of the Baptist schisms of another single
country, the United States, will be no less edifying.
We have, — 1st. The Regular Baptists of the South,
who acknowledge slavery as a Biblical institution.
2d. The Regular Baptists of the North, who excom-
municate those of the South. 3d. The Anti-mission
Baptists, who are opposed to missions. 4th. The
Freewill Baptists, who are Arminians. 5th. The
Open-communion Baptists, who still keep up a lin-
gering existence, but are on the eve of disappear-
ing. 6th. The Six-principle Baptists (Heb. vi. 13),
who practise the laying on of hands. 7th. The Sab-
batarian Baptists, who keep Saturday, and work on
Sunday. 8th. The Seventh-day Baptists, originally
German, who perform three immersions, dress as
monks, and exalt celibacy. 9th. The Tunkers, —
three immersions, washing of feet and long beards.
10th. The Particular Baptists, who have particular
ideas on Atonement. 11th. The Original Menno-
nites, who have bishops. 12th. The Reformed Men-
nonites, whose principle is non-resistance. 13th.
The Hooker Mennonites, who make it a case of con-
science not to wear buttons to their coats, and who
protest by their hooks against all the other Baptists
as conforming to the world. These spiritual Bap-
tists have no less than five thousand church-mem-
bers, and over a hundred clergymen, all with hooks

15*

342 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

and no buttons. 14th. The Quaker Baptists, who
have borrowed from the Quakers all their principles,
except the suppression of baptism. 15th. The Bap-
tists calling themselves the Church of God, who
excommunicate all who do not practise total absti-
nence from wine. 16th. The Campbellites, or Dis-
ciples of Christ. They believe that regeneration is
effected by baptism. Faith alone cannot save, but
immersion by its efficacy washes away sins. They
do not believe in the Trinity. Their schism has
had only thirty years of existence, yet they already
reckon about four hundred thousand members, over
two thousand churches, and as many clergymen.
They are the Baptists of the future, and threaten
to swallow up all the other Baptist sects by their
unparalleled success. 17th. The Rogerenes, who
observe the seventh day and have spiritual mar-
riages. 18th. The Mormons, the last Baptist nov-
elty, — immersion, prophets, polygamy, incest, etc.
Elder Orson Hyde and Prophet Rigdon, who were
once shining lights in the Baptist Church, state that
all consistent Baptists are bound to become Mor-
mons, as they did. We might still mention the
Ironside Baptists, the Baptist Adventists, the Im-
mersionist Plymouth Brethren, the Winebrennari-
ans of Pennsylvania, and other minor Baptist sects,
which we pass in silence. This list is sufficient ; it
possesses the eloquence of facts. It disposes very

BAPTISM AND ECCLESIASTICAL DISCIPLINE. 343

summarily of the arrogant claims of Baptists. Each
of the sects we have just enumerated has its own
body and its separate existence. Nearly all excom-
municate and anathematize each other. They are
but of yesterday, and yet, with their common ex-
orbitant claim of being each the only true Church,
they are split up into schisms of schisms.

§ 157. The Heaven of Baptists is a Sad man-
sion. — Arrived at the close of our investigation,
let us cast a glance beyond the veil, and depict to
ourselves what the heaven of Baptists must be. A
heaven of the excommunicated ! All the Christians
of the first fifteen centuries of the Church — nearly
all, without an exception — excommunicated on
earth and yet members of heaven ! All the Evan-
gelical Christians, since the Reformation, with the
exception of the insignificant fraction of scarcely
one thousandth, also excommunicated ! The true
Church lost for sixteen centuries and found again
by the Baptists ! And heaven peopled with un-
worthy Christians, rebel apostates ! What uneasi-
ness, what loathing, will seize upon the strict Baptist,
the only true one, when he shall draw near to the
gate of heaven ! How can he pass through it with-
out renouncing his favorite creed ! Who people
heaven? Precisely those whom he has excommu-
nicated here below ; those whom he has constantly

344 THE BAPTISM OF WATER.

repelled, those with whom he has ever declined to
form one body, nay, even those with whom he would
not deign to break the bread of salvation ! Truly,
to live henceforth with the excommunicated, to
make one body with them, to find one's self absorbed
in their overwhelming numbers, is a sad fate !
From the Baptist point of view, heaven is an apos-
tasy, a kingdom of God overturned, a place where
the faithful could find neither peace nor happiness.

§ 158. The Touchstone offered hy Jesus Christ

to simple Christians. — We close by a last argu-
ment, more simple, but also more powerful, than all
others, — a unique argument, by which many pious
and excellent brethren have reached the same con-
clusions as ourselves, probably with less light, but
with more rapidity and equal certainty. They have
chosen to abide by the sublime precept of Jesus
Christ, " You shall know the tree by his fruit." They
have tasted of the bitter fruit of Anabaptism, and this
has sufficed them. They have experienced, or at
least witnessed, its narrow-mindedness, its acerbity,
its spirit of division, its bitter zeal of proselytism, its
fanaticism, its extravagances, its formalism, and its
Pharisaical self-righteousness. At this sad spectacle
they have stood aghast, and several of them, already
carried away towards Baptist views, have halted,
turned back, and attached themselves anew, as it

BAPTISM AND ECCLESIASTICAL DISCIPLINE. 345

were by Christian instinct, to the ancient doctrine
of Evangelical churches. They have said within
themselves, as their Master taught them, that, the
fruits being corrupt, the tree also was certainly
corrupt ; that the Baptist principle, however spe-
cious it seemed to them at first, absolutely could
not be the truth. Controversy and theological re-
searches have been superfluous to them ; they have
preferred to give their time, their attention, and
their heart to what edifies. But the conclusion on
baptism which they have reached is entirely safe
and perfectly solid. It has first the approbation of
Jesus Christ, then that of experience and of that
practical common sense which the Gospel does not
disdain. This conviction suffices for many Chris-
tians ; it might have sufficed for us, but it does
not satisfy all minds, and therefore we have writ-
ten this work.

To Him who baptized not with water, but with
the Holy Ghost, — to Jesus, the Mediator of that
New Covenant of which baptism is the sign, — be
glory for ever and ever ! Amen. .

THE END.

Cambridge : Stereotyped and Printed by "Welch, Bigelow, & Co.

■ '

. - . . .

■

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Baptism, the covenant and the family"

See other formats