CHRISTIAN
BAPTISM
A
DISCOURSE
OF ACTS 2: 38,39
AN
ATTEMPT IS MADE TO INVESTIGATE THE NATURE AND PERPETUITY, THE SUBJECTS, AND THE
MODE
OF
CHRISTIAN
BAPTISM
1837
ABRIDGED
AND EDITED
BY
JEFF PATON
Preface
I
posted this article for several reasons. The first reason is because of its
rarity. The work is long out of print and I wished to make it available to the
public once again. Secondly, while his views are not necessarily unique, the
style and information are
priceless. The article starts slow, and then quickly becomes challenging and
colorful. I find the method of arguing his case for infant baptism to be of
interest to this current generation who believe they have figured out everything
there is to know about baptism, and have heard little or nothing but the one-sided
argument
of immersionism.
Editors
Note: The
Sermon
“Then
Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of
Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the
Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that
are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call,” Acts 2:38, 39.
Our text is among the
numerous passages in the New Testament which may be adduced to prove the divine
authority, the importance, and the perpetuity of Christian baptism. That by
baptism water baptism was intended by the apostle must be sufficiently obvious
to every one who will be at the pains to examine the text: as persons addressed
were required to be baptized, that they might receive the remission of their
sins, and
the gift of the Holy Ghost; that
is, spiritual
baptism. (Editor’s Note: This
is an example of using the language of responding to the Gospel as a synonym for
baptism, and should not be confused with the idea that water baptism in any way
saves you). This
baptism was enjoined upon these persons on the day of Pentecost, after the Holy
Ghost was given to the church, by one who was under the influence of the plenary
inspiration of God; which is indubitable proof that water
baptism is not done away, or superseded, by the baptism
of the Spirit. It is therefore, the duty of all who will be disciples of
Christ to be baptized with water in his name, or into the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
That baptism is a sacrament
of the gospel, that it is an ordinance of great importance, and that it was
designed by Christ to be perpetuated in the church, are propositions which may
be proved by such evidence as ought to satisfy every inquirer after truth, and
which nothing but an unreasonable prejudice can induce any man to reject. The
proper subjects of this ordinance, and the mode or modes in which it may be
validly administered, are also of some importance; and being matters concerning
which there is a disagreement among Christians, and have heated controversies,
need to be carefully examined and well understood. To these topics we shall
direct our attention in the present discourse, viz., the nature and perpetuity
of Christian baptism,-the proper subjects of this ordinance,-and the mode or
modes in which it may be validly administered.
Point
One: The nature and perpetuity of Christian baptism.
This,
it is presumed, will not be denied, and therefore need not be proved. The sign
is water applied by the authority of Christ, in the name of the father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. The thing signified is the renovating influence
of the Holy Spirit. Ministers of the gospel only
are authorized to administer Christian baptism, as is evident from the
commission given by Christ.
3.
Baptism is a means of
communicating grace to such as are the proper recipients of it. (Editor’s
Note: A “means of grace” is effectual for several reasons. First, the
recipient is submissive and obedient. Their heart is prepared to receive grace,
and God is able to convey grace because of their willingness to receive it. What
God conveys to the believer may vary as individually as their needs. Just as in
our participation in the Lord’s Supper, we approach God humbly in repentance,
reflecting upon the work of Christ which is the whole of our salvation; nothing
we do, for it is all of Him. It is not that performing these acts we move God,
but that we in these means of grace approach God in a way that He can use us.
Our hearts are prepared to receive and obey).
Thus
we see that baptism is a sacrament of the gospel, inasmuch as it was instituted
by Christ Himself as the initiating rite into his church, and is a visible sign
or symbol of divine grace, a means of communicating grace to such as are the
proper recipients of it, and a pledge of this grace which Christ has given us to
assure us that all the benefits of his salvation shall be secured to us on the
conditions of the gospel.
5.
Baptism was instituted by Christ, with design that it should be
perpetuated in his church to the end of the world.
This is provable from Matthew 28:19, 20, where our Lord commands his apostles to go and disciple all nations, baptizing them… The commission includes all nations, or every creature, to the end of the world; and therefore, the obligation to baptize and to be baptized is binding upon every minister of Christ, and upon every person who is to become a disciple of Christ to the end of the world.
This
sacrament was instituted by our Lord following his resurrection from the dead;
and there is no shadow of proof, or of probability, that the apostles baptized a
single individual between the time of its institution and the day of Pentecost,
when the dispensation of the gospel was fully opened up. The apostles and other
Christian ministers of that age were in the constant practice of baptizing their
converts; and it does not appear that any were admitted to the communion of the
church in an unbaptized state. True, the Apostle Paul thanks God that he had not
baptized many among the Corinthians; and says that Christ sent him, not to
baptize, that is, not only of chiefly, but to preach the gospel. But that was
not on account of his believing baptism to be unnecessary; but less the
schizmatical Corinthians should charge him with proselyting persons to himself,
instead of converting them to Christ. (Editor’s
Note: Notice that if Baptismal Regeneration saved people, it would be “the
Gospel,” and Paul could not preach Gospel without baptism. The author
clarifies himself in the following statement). If we take into account these
observations of the Apostle Paul, when properly understood, so far from proving
that baptism was done away during the apostolic age, will prove the contrary.
That
the primitive church continued the practice of baptizing after the apostles’
days is attested by the early Christian writers, without contradiction of any of
their contemporaries. And this continued to be the practice of the church; and
it is not certain that it was opposed by any, except from the most absurd
fanatics prior to the seventeenth century. With the exception of the Quakers,
and a few others, baptism has been acknowledged by all who have borne the
Christian name from the first age of Christianity to the present time.
Let
us put this argument in syllogistic form. None are to be baptized but such as
are believers; therefore, none are members of the
Infant
children of baptized parents are as proper subjects of Christian baptism as
adult believers, is maintained by us and denied by the Baptists. Here,
therefore, we are plainly at issue. Let us hear the grounds on which the
Baptists rest their objections to the baptism of infants.
3.
The
evidence on which the right of infant baptism is founded.
Finally
I conclude that, if the Antipaedobaptists can find an express precept I 1 Cor.
11:28, “Let a man
examine himself, and so let him
eat of that bread and drink of that cup:” he might find still more
express
precept in, “Go, and disciple
all nations, baptizing them:” and, therefore, that he ought not to
reject infant baptism, on the allegation of the want of express precept or
example in the Scriptures, and for which there is no precept equally express
with the one before us for
infant baptism.
4.
That God instituted a visible church in the family of Abraham, and that this
church was composed of adults and infants, though denied by a certain
Antipaedobaptist writer, will be made evident by the testimonies hereafter to be
adduced. This church was founded on the evangelical covenant, and was the
same as the church which now exists under the gospel dispensation. In proof of
these propositions, your attention is directed to the following scriptures: Gen.
17: 4,5,7,10-14. God, in addressing himself to Abraham, for a father of many
nations have I made thee. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee,
and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be
a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. This is my covenant which ye shall
keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee; every man-child among you
shall be circumcised. And it shall be for a token (or sign) of the covenant
between me and you. And he that is eight days old among you shall be
circumcised, every man-child in your generations. He that is born in the house,
or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. And my covenant
shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the un-circumcised
man-child shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. Again,
in verses 19-21, “And God said, Sarah shall bear thee a son indeed, and thou
shalt call his name Isaac; and I will establish my covenant with him for an
everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.”
From
these passages we learn that God took Abraham and his family, including both
adults and infants, into a visible covenant-relation to himself, by
circumcision; and that this covenant was confirmed unto Isaac and his
descendants. This covenant is so repeatedly declared to be an everlasting
covenant that we have reason to think, from the very face of the texts
themselves, without looking for farther evidence, that is was to be designed to
be of endless duration. The terms of this covenant do also indicate that it was
designed to extend to other nations besides those who should be the natural
descendants of Abraham. And this view of the subject is more fully confirmed by
collating these passages with Gen. 12: 3, 18:18, and 22:18, which in all these
places God declares to Abraham that all the nations of the earth shall be
blessed in him or in his seed. Now
the covenant thus explained directs us necessarily to Christ as that seed of
Abraham in whom all the families of the earth were to be blessed; and confirms
the truth of the foregoing propositions, viz., that God instituted a visible
church in the family of Abraham, which was composed of adults and infants; and
that this church was founded on the evangelical covenant, and is the same as the
church presently exists under the gospel dispensation. If the latter of these
propositions should not appear to be clearly established by these Scriptures
authorities as the former, it will be abundantly confirmed, as well as the
preceding, by the testimony of the Apostle Paul. In
From
these authorities we learn that the covenant between God and Abraham was the
evangelical covenant; and that it was by grace, through faith, that Abraham was
justified;--that circumcision was the seal which God put on Abraham and his
seed, to confirm their right to the covenant blessings;--that this covenant
looked directly and especially to Christ; and that it included both Jews and
Gentiles in him;--that the Mosaic covenant, which was four hundred and thirty
years after this, could not disannul it;--that the Abrahamic church is the
church of which the Jews, as the natural descendants of Abraham, were members;
but that some of them were excommunicated from this church in consequence of
their infidelity concerning the Messiah; and the believing Gentiles were brought
into the same church from which the unbelieving Jews were separated;--that
believers, whether Jews of Gentiles, are the spiritual seed of Abraham, being
united as one body in Christ, the middle wall of partition which separated them
being taken down;--that baptism is now substituted for circumcision, so that as
many as are baptized into Christ are Abraham’s spiritual seed, introduced into
the Abrahamic church, and constituted heirs of the covenant blessings, in like
manner as those who were introduced into this visible church, under the
Abrahamic dispensation, by circumcision. Now, as the Abrahamic and Christian
church are the same, only under different dispensations, and infants are
constituted members of this church under the Abrahamic dispensation by the
visible initiating rite as equally as are adults; unless it can be made to
appear that the rite of church membership is taken away from infants under the
gospel dispensation, or that they are nor to be constituted members of the
church without any such rite, it will clearly appear that infants, as well as
adults, must be baptized. It properly belongs to the opposers of infant baptism,
therefore, to show that the right of infant church-membership has been taken
away, or that though they are to be received as members into the Christian
church, they are not to be baptized. When the Baptists shall have done this, we
will cease to baptize infants. (Editor’s
Note: It appears that even though such proof has never come forth, the vast
majority of Wesleyans have surrendered to the Baptist view without a fight).
But until this be done, we dare not deprive them of the only means by which they
can be constituted members of the visible church of Christ, seeing God has
expressly secured this right to them. Here, therefore, we might rest our cause.
But lest any should still suppose that they right of infants to church
membership has ceased under the gospel dispensation, it may be observed,
5.
That the right of infant church-membership, so far from being taken away under
the gospel dispensation, is abundantly confirmed.
In
Matt. 19: 13-15, we are told, “Then were brought unto him little children,
that he should put his hands on them and pray; and the disciple rebuked them.
But Jesus said, Suffer the little children and forbid them not to come unto me,
for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands on them.” (See
also Mark 10: 13-16, and Luke 18: 15-17). By the kingdom of heaven in this
passage, and the
We
prove the right of infant church membership from their right to membership in
the Abrahamic church, and their right to Christian baptism from the circumcision
of infants under the Abrahamic dispensation. We should, therefore, take the
subjects of baptism in as wide a sense as we find the subjects of circumcision
to extend according to the original covenant on which both are founded. Now God
says, in Gen. 17: 12,13, “He that is born in the house, or bought with money
of any stranger, which is not of thy seed, must needs be circumcised. And in the
10th verse, he says, “Every man child among you shall be
circumcised.” These two precepts certainly require that the children belonging
to every circumcised person should be circumcised, whether they were his natural
offspring or the children of strangers, or servants, who were placed under his
authority. Here, then, we have the law in the case. And this law constitutes all
infants, who are placed under the control of baptized adults who have not
renounced their baptism, proper subjects of the ordinance.
6.
In farther confirmation of the right of
infants to Christian baptism, it may be observed that there is strong
presumptive evidence that the apostles did baptize them.
In
Acts 16: 15, we are informed that a certain woman, named
The
probability that the apostles did baptize infants is greatly strengthened by the
practice of the primitive church, and the testimony of early Christian writers.
This
testimony is just such as we might expect on the principles of Paedobaptism; but
it is altogether unaccountable on the opposite principles. If the practice of
baptizing infants was introduced after the apostolic age, how does it happen
that we have no account of this innovation upon the usages of the primitive
church? It cannot be denied that there were heated controversies among the early
Christians concerning subjects of much less consequence than this; and men were
denounced as heretics by the early Christians for introducing new doctrines and
usages into the Christian church. Therefore, if infant baptism had been
introduced in this manner, we should have received some information respecting
it, as there would have been controversies on the subject at the time of its
introduction; and by some, at least, it would have been denounced as a heresy.
But who ever heard of such a controversy among the early Christians, or
of the heresy of the Paedobaptists? Surely no one; or the information would have
come down to us; and some one among the numerous modern Antipaedobaptist writers
would have brought it to light. We therefore conclude that no such controversy
ever existed among the early Christians. Now the entire absence of evidence that
infant baptism was an innovation upon the primitive usages of the Christian
church is of itself strong presumptive proof that it was an apostolic usage. And
farther, that the most early Christian writers have observed such a general
silence on the subject of baptism, can only be accounted for on the supposition
that there was an entire agreement among them respecting it; and, therefore,
they had no occasion to mention it in their writings, And when it began to be
mentioned, it was for the purposes that that of correcting the errors of the
Antipaedobaptist Christians as there were none such at that early period in
existence.
Justin
Martyr, who was converted to Christianity in A.D. 132, suffered martyrdom in the
year 167, a man of great learning and piety, in his dialogue with Trypho, a Jew,
says, “We also who by him (Christ) have access to God, have not received this
carnal circumcision, but the spiritual
circumcision, which Enoch and those like him observed. And we have
received it by baptism, by the mercy of God, because we were sinners; and it is
enjoined upon all persons to receive it in the same way.”
In
his first apology to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, speaking of the manner in which
persons are discipled to Christ, among other things he says, “We bring them to
some place where there is water; and they were regenerated by the same way of
regeneration by which we were regenerated; for they were washed with water in
the name of the father and Lord of all things, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ,
and of the Holy Spirit.” And farther on he says, “There is invoked over him
that has a mind to be regenerated, the name of God the Father…” (Editors
Note: Much of the way that many early writers connect baptism and salvation is
taken to mean that they did not believe in salvation by grace, but by the work
of baptism; this is an erroneous understanding. The early church baptized
converts almost immediately. This was done much in the way that we have people
pray a “Sinner’s Prayer” as the moment of salvation. This does not make
the “prayer” the cause or “work” that earns salvation any more than
baptism was the cause or work of salvation to them. It was the indicating moment
of saving faith to them. Baptism carried a death sentence and was not taken
lightly. No one without a firm faith would take on the stigma of being a
“Christian” unless they had a saving faith).
In
these testimonies from Justin and Irenaeus we learn that baptism was considered
by the early Christians as coming in place of circumcision, and that infants, as
well as adults, were baptized in that age. From the evidence of the early
church, it is impossible that infant baptism could have been nothing more than a
mere “innovation,” but was based upon apostolic practice and instruction.
It
is true that Tertullian, about sixty years after Justin wrote the preceding
testimonies, did advise that the baptism of infants should be delayed; but also
says, “For no less reason unmarried persons ought to be kept off, who are like
to come into temptation, as well as those that were never married, as those in
widowhood, until they either marry or are confirmed in continence. They that
understand the weight of baptism will rather dread the receiving of it than the
delay of it.” What Tertullian has written on this subject is proof that infant
baptism was practiced by the Christians of that age, and that he was opposed to
the practice: but it is no proof that infant baptism was an innovation upon
apostolic usage. Rather it is proof to the contrary; as Tertullian does not
insinuate anything of the kind, which he certainly would have if he had either
known, or believed it to be such an innovation. The opinions of Tertullian,
though very singular, were as far from those of the Antipaedobaptists of the
present age as those of the Paedobaptists; and indeed, in respect to the subject
of the present controversy, still more so; for he maintained that those infants
who were in danger of death ought to be baptized. (Editor’s
Note: It appears that Tertullian had deviated from the accepted opinions of the
early church by connecting baptism with regeneration [as in baptismal
regeneration] and that sins following baptism could not be forgiven; therefore,
one should wait as long as possible before they are baptized).
Origen,
who was contemporary with Tertullian, and whose ancestors, it is said, had been
Christians from the apostolic age; and who, from his great learning and
extensive travels, in addition to his Christian ancestry and education. In his
Homily on Leviticus, his Homily on Luke 14, and his Comment on the Epistle to
the Romans he affirms that the
custom of baptizing infants was derived from the apostles. “because
the sacrament of baptism the uncleannesses of our birth are purged away,
therefore children are baptized.” (Editor’s
Note: Origen tended to make baptism the “cause” of this cleansing instead of
a testimony of it. As we progress through time, not only the method of baptism
evolves, but also the meaning of it. We do not have to baptize a child to
“cleanse away” Original Sin, for children are universally cleansed of it
without baptism. His testimony to the fact of infant baptism is that it was
universally accepted; his hinging the remission of sins upon water
baptism, and not the event of salvation in connection with immediate baptism, is
quite regrettable).
In
the third century, Cyprian, and a council of thirty-six bishops, unanimously
agreed that
infant might be baptized as soon as they were born. The cause of this
decree was the following:--A certain bishop named Fidus had some scruples, not
concerning the baptism of infants, but whether they might be baptized before the
second or eighth day after their birth. The decree was, as Cyprian writes, “As
for the matter of infants whom you said were not to be baptized within the
second or third day after their nativity, or, according to the law of
circumcision, within the eighth day thereof; it hath appeared to us in council
quite contrary. No one was of your opinion. But we all judged that they might be
baptized as soon as they are born.” Cyprian also says, “If any thing can
hinder men from baptism, it will be heinous sins that will debar the adult and
mature there from. And if those who have sinned extremely against God, yet
afterward they believe, are baptized, and no one is prohibited, who, being but
just born, is guilty of no sin but that of original, which he contracted from
Adam.”
Chrysostom
in the latter end of the fourth or beginning of the fifth century says, “The
catholic church everywhere declared that infants should be baptized.” And even
Pelagius and his associates, whose sentiments were opposed on the ground that infants
were to be baptized, acknowledged that infants were proper subjects of
Christian baptism. No society of men calling themselves Christians, except some
small fanatical sects, who had nothing of Christianity but the name, and who
denied baptism altogether before the middle of the twelfth century, ever
pretended to say that it was unlawful to baptize infants. Milner says that the
Waldenses in this century were charged with denying infant baptism, but they
declared contrary to that opinion. We see that the right of infant baptism is
such that no sincere inquirer after truth, whose mind is not biased by an
unreasonable prejudice, can hesitate to acknowledge this right. We shall,
therefore, proceed to consider,
Point
Three: The mode or modes in which Christian baptism may be validly
administered.
Here
again we stand in defense of our existence as a Christian church; for, if
none are validly baptized who have not been entirely immersed in water, we and
most other churches are not churches of Christ. It is a well known fact that
this country, except the Baptists, have been baptized by affusion or sprinkling;
and so also have a vast majority of the members of all the European churches,
except the Baptists and those who belong to the Greek or Eastern Church. Now, as
most of the members of all the professing Christian churches, except the Baptist
and Greek Churches have been baptized by affusion or sprinkling, it will follow,
if immersion is the only valid mode of baptism, that the great majority of
professing Christians are without the pale of the visible church of Christ, and
that most professing Christian churches, as the great majority of their
ministers and members were never immersed, are not churches of Christ.
Therefore, whether we or the Baptists are right in relation to the mode of
administering Christian baptism, is a matter of importance to us and to the
great majority of Christians in Europe and
But
it should be distinctly understood that the point in controversy between us and
the Baptists is not whether immersion or affusion and sprinkling be the proper
mode in which to administer Christian baptism, but whether the mode in which
Christian baptism is to be administered is defined in the New Testament. That
immersion is a valid mode of administering baptism we do not deny, but we say
that the mode of baptism is not defined in the Scriptures, and that it may be
validly performed by immersion, or by pouring, or sprinkling. We grant that
“the practice of immersion is ancient;” and so are many other superstitious
appendages to baptism, which were adopted under the notion of making the rite
more emblematical and impressive. We not only trace immersion to the second
century, but immersion three times, anointing with oil, signing with the sign of
the cross, imposition of hands, exorcism, eating milk and honey, putting on
white garments, all connected with baptism, and first mentioned by Tertullian;
the invention of men like himself, who with much genius and eloquence had little
judgment, and were superstitious to a degree worthy of the darkest ages which
followed. (Editor’s Note: Tertullian
pressed for baptism by immersion, and for baptismal regeneration. While
modern’s appeal to the antiquity of his writings, they ignore the fact that in
Tertullian’s lifetime, his opinion was largely ignored as he stood alone in
Christendom for his baptismal views. Nearly two hundred years passed before the
trend shifted in favor of his position, and baptismal regeneration became the
standard). Many rest their beliefs on Tertullian as an authority without
realizing that the views that they embrace were aberrations from historical and
established Christian practice in his day.
“Neither
Tertullian nor Cyprian was, however, so strenuous for immersion as to deny the
validity of baptism by aspersion or affusion. In cases of sickness or weakness
they only sprinkled water upon the face, which we suppose no modern Baptist
would allow, Clinic baptism too, or the baptism of the sick in bed, by
aspersion, is allowed by Cyprian to be valid; so that, “if the persons
recover, they need not be baptized by immersion.” At present it is only
necessary to observe that immersion is not the only mode that can plead
antiquity in its favor; and that, as the superstition
of antiquity appears to have gone most in favor of baptism by immersion,
this is a circumstance which affords a strong presumption that it was one of
those additions to the ancient rite which superstition originated. This may be
made out to a certainty, without referring at all to the argument from
Scripture. The ancient Christians—of about the age of Tertullian and Cyprian,
and a little downward,--whose practice of immersion is used as an argument to
prove that mode only to have had apostolic sanction,--baptized the candidate naked.
Thus Wall in his History of Baptism:
“The ancient Christians, when they were baptized by immersion, were all
baptized naked,
whether they were men, women, or children. They thought it better
represented the putting off the old man, and also the nakedness of Christ on the
cross; moreover, as baptism is a washing, they judged it should be the washing
of the body, not of the clothes.” This is an instance of the manner in which
they affected to improve
the emblematical character of the ordinance.
Now
if antiquity be pleaded as a proof that immersion was the really primitive mode
of baptizing, it must be pleaded in favor of the gross and offensive
circumstance of baptizing naked, which was considered of as much importance as
the mode. We must leave it for someone else to contend that they really believe
that the three thousand persons mentioned in Acts were baptized naked!
And whether
To
our views of this subject the Baptists object:
1.
That the Greek word baptizo,
“to baptize,” signifies only
to immerse or dip.
For
the sake of argument let us suppose this to be correct, viz., that the meaning
of the Greek word baptizo
is to immerse.
Will this prove that we must necessarily be immersed under water that we
may be validly baptized with this Christian sacrament? If so, it will equally
follow that, in celebrating the sacrament of the eucharist, we must literally
feast, or eat a full meal; as this is the meaning of the word deipnon
(supper), which is used for this sacrament. See 1 Cor. 11: 20, where the
phrase kuriakon
deipnon, Lord’s Supper, is used
for this sacrament. In the connection of this passage the apostle severely
censures the Corinthians for understanding and practicing, according to the
literal meaning of the word deipnon,
a feast, or supper, and
declares that this
is not to eat the Lord’s Supper. He also advises that such as were
hungry should eat at home, before they came to the church to celebrate this
sacrament. Thus he teaches us that it is not so much the general meaning of the
words employed as the design of the institution to which we are to attend in
celebrating a divine ordinance; and that, by adhering too closely to the literal
meaning of the words employed, we may so pervert a sacrament from its real
design as not to celebrate it at all. However, the Baptists, to be consistent
with themselves, should insist on our eating a full meal when we celebrate the
Lord’s Supper, as well as on our being immersed in baptism. But this they are
so far from doing, that, like other Christians, they content themselves with
eating a small piece of bread and drinking a little wine, which they, as well as
others, think to be a valid mode of celebrating the Lord’s Supper. The fact
is, the Baptists do not see the full import of the word “supper’ to be
necessary to the mode or observation of the sacrament of the eucharist, the
Baptists themselves being the judges. Being inconsistent in following the
literal meaning of “supper,” they lay claim to consistency by insisting on
the necessity of immersion in Christian baptism on the supposed meaning of the
word baptizo.
But, that the word baptize
signifies to immerse, and nothing
else, we deny; as the contrary has been proved by several writers. Dr. Dwight
observes that “the body of learned critics and lexicographers declare that the
original meaning of “ the words “baptizo,
and its root bapto,”
“is to
tinge, stain, dye, or color;
and that when it means immersion,
it is only in a secondary and occasional sense, derived from the fact that such
things as are dyed, stained, or colored, are often immersed for this end:” and
he adds, “This interpretation of the words, also, they support by such a
series of quotations as seem unanswerably to evince that this was the original,
classical meaning of these words.” He goes on to remark, “I have examined
almost one hundred instances in which the word baptizo
and
its derivatives are used in the New Testament, and four in the Septuagint;
these, so far as I have observed, being all the instances in both. By this
examination it is, to my apprehension, evident that the following things are
true: That
the primary meaning of these terms is cleansing; the effect, not the mode of
washing; that the mode is usually referred to incidentally,
wherever these words are mentioned; and that this is always the case
wherever the ordinance of baptism is mentioned, and a reference made at the same
time to the mode of administration; that these words, although often capable of
denoting any mode of washing, whether by affusion, sprinkling, or immersion;
(since cleansing was familiarly accomplished by the Jews in all these ways;)
yet, in many instances, cannot, without obvious impropriety, be made to signify
immersion, and in others cannot signify it at all.”
This
being the meaning of the word bapto,
and the word baptizo
being a derivative from it, must mean something similar, and be less emphatic,
in respect to the mode of wetting, than its primitive word. Professor Woods
observed that “even bapto
does not always signify total
immersion. This might be made evident from classic usage, and is perfectly
evident from the New Testament.” (Woods
on Baptism, p. 151). Let this suffice in respect to the general meaning of
the word baptizo,
to baptize. I shall now adduce a
few quotations to prove that it does not always mean immersion
in the New Testament. In Mark 7: 4,8, it is said of the Pharisees, “When they
come from the market, except they wash, baptizoontai,
except
they baptize, they eat not. And many
other things there be which they receive to hold, as the washing, baptizmous,
the baptizing, or baptisms, of cups and pots, brazen vessels and tables,” klinoon,
sofas, or couches.
That is, those sofas on which they reclined at their meals. “For laying
aside the commandments of God, ye hold the traditions of men, as the washing, baptizmous,
the baptisms,
of pots and cups.” Now, no man can reasonably suppose that the word baptizo
is used by St. Mark in these passages for immersion,
for it would be perfectly absurd that the Jews were in the daily
practice of immersing their sofas, or couches, in order to wash them.
Again,
in 1 Cor. 10: 2, the apostle, speaking of the Israelites who went out of
This
first objection of the Baptists, therefore, has no force, as nothing can be
determined from the meaning of the word baptize,
in relation to the mode of baptism.
There is, however, another objection which is urged by the Baptists against our
views of this subject.
They
object,
And
first, it is said that the circumstance of John’s “baptizing at Aenon, near
Salim, because there was much water there,” is proof that he immersed. See
John 3: 23.
If
it should be admitted that John immersed all who were baptized by him, it would
not decide this question, inasmuch as John’s was not Christian baptism. His
was a mere preparatory dispensation, and his baptism was of a very different
nature from that which was afterward instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ. This
is evident from the fact that Paul commanded certain persons, who had been
baptized with John’s baptism, to be baptized in the name of Christ, that is,
with Christian baptism. This he certainly would not have done if the baptism of
John and that of Christ had been the same. See Acts 19: 1-7. But, waiving this,
there is no proof to be derived from this passage that John immersed any among
the multitudes who were baptized by him. His choosing a place where there was
plenty of water, that is, where many springs and rivulets, so far from being
proof that he immersed all who cane to him, is no proof that he immersed any. (Editor’s
Note: John could have taken people to an ocean, but that would not prove a mode
or how wet anyone got in baptism! It is sensible that John, who was drawing
large amounts of people to be baptized in this arid region, would not go
somewhere where he would not foul the limited supply of water, whether he
sprinkled, poured, or immersed).
It is a well-known fact that even in this country, (America), where water is
far more abundant than in the land of Judea, where John fulfilled his ministry,
those persons who arrange large gatherings, even camp meetings, are very careful
to procure places where there is plenty of water. (Editor’s
Note: It is easy to miss in our modern day, that it has not been all that long
ago in our history that clean, or even running potable water, was not
available). And yet this not done with any view to baptizing at these
meetings. How much more necessary was it for John to do this, who continued for
months in the same place, attended by such vast multitudes that flocked to hear
him from every part of Judea and Galilee. This was necessary for other purposes
than that of baptizing; and, therefore, if John had not intended to baptize, he
would have chosen this or a similar place. The circumstances of John choosing a
place where there was plenty of water as the scene of his public ministry is
therefore no proof that any were immersed
by him. Besides, there were such vast multitudes that flocked to his
ministry and his baptism that it is very improbable that they were all immersed.
We have no evidence that he was assisted in baptizing by any other persons, and
without a miracle, one man could not immerse such vast numbers as flocked to
John’s baptism. But it is still urged that baptism is performed by immersion
only, because it is said in Matt. 3: 5,6, “Then went out to him Jerusalem, and
all of Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in
Jordan;” and verse 16, “Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out
of the water.” And again, Acts 8: 38, 39, “And they went down both into the
water, both Phillip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they were come
up out of the water…” These I believe are the only cases in which it is
pretended there is any direct proof of immersion. But, alas, for such proofs as
these! If they were
baptized in
Jordan
—if Jesus did
come up out
of the water—if Philip and the eunuch did
both go down into
the water, and come up out
of the water; where is the proof of immersion in all of this? Was Philip
immersed under water as well as the eunuch? He is said to have gone down into
the water as well as the eunuch. Is going down in
or into
the same as going under? Or coming “out of” the same as
coming from under? If the text in Acts is proof that the eunuch was
immersed under water, it is equal proof that Philip was immersed
under water. (Editor’s Note: If the
eunuch was immersed in this passage, then all Baptists and Restorationists are
yet as unbaptized as any Methodist who experienced infant baptism, for they were
not baptized Scripturally! From
this very verse, it is proof that that unless the one doing the baptizing is
immersed along with the one being baptized, then one has not been baptized in
the Scriptural mode, and therefore not legitimately baptized. This is the
irrefutable conclusion if we take the logic of the Immersionists to its logical end!)
But
the fact is that these Greek prepositions are so indefinite in their meaning
that nothing can be proved from them respecting the mode of baptism. The
prepositions used in the above passages are en,
apo, eis, and ek.
The preposition en,
which in Matt. 3: 6 is rendered “in,”
is rendered “with”
twice in Matt. 3: 11, “I baptize you with
water, but he shall baptize you with
the Holy Ghost.” Surely no one except the unreasonably biased by a
particular creed would attempt to translate the passage as “he
shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost?” Therefore, we must render en
as “with”
in this passage. (Editor’s Note: We
cannot possibly think that “we” are applied to the Holy Spirit, not the Holy
Spirit to us).
Eis,
the word rendered into
in Acts 8: 38, is necessarily rendered “to”
in John 20: 4,--“And came first to the sepulcher, yet went he not in.
Ek,
which is rendered out
of in the 39th verse is necessarily rendered from
in John 13: 4, “He riseth up from
supper.”
Thus
we see that the foregoing passages afford no proof of immersion. They might be
rendered with equal propriety, “Were baptized of him at
“Water
used in baptism is a sign of that moral
purification of believers which the apostle means to express by their
being crucified
and dead,
and conformed to Christ’s death.
Their being dead,
or in a state of death,
in conformity with Christ, is the expression which contains the metaphor. Now is
baptism meant to be the sign of a metaphor,
or the
thing intended by the metaphor?” “The argument in favor of immersion
is founded on the supposition of a real resemblance between baptism
and death.”
This supposition, we think, is very unnatural, and far different from what the
apostles had in view.” (Woods
on Baptism, pp. 154, 155, 159, 162). Having considered the grounds on
which Christian baptism can be administered, I shall proceed to notice some
farther reasons on which we ground a contrary opinion.
The
multitudes baptized by John have been already noticed as a reason for
supposing that he did not always immerse
in baptizing. But there are also several other cases of baptism recorded
in the New Testament under such circumstances as to render it probable, at
least, that the apostles and other primitive ministers did sometimes baptize by affusion
or sprinkling,
and not always by immersion.
The first of these cases is that of the three thousand who were baptized on the
Day of Pentecost. Let it be remembered that it was the third hour of the day, at
nine o’clock in the morning, when the multitudes came running together to see
and hear the occurrence which had taken place among the disciples; that after
this, Peter, and the other apostles sent a considerable time in preaching to
them before any of them were baptized; and that day must have been far spent
before the work of baptizing could possibly have commenced. We cannot,
therefore, suppose that more than one half a day was employed in baptizing these
three thousand persons. Add to this that we have no evidence that any were
employed in baptizing on this occasion, except the twelve apostles. Here then,
were three thousand persons to be baptized by twelve men in the space of six
hours; that is, two hundred and fifty to each administrator. This would be less
than one and a half minute to each subject. Now, it is possible, unless they
were specially assisted by a miraculous influence, that twelve men could have
immersed this multitude in so short of a time? I think not; and as there is no
intimation of any thing miraculous in this part of the transactions of that day,
I conclude that it is altogether improbable that all these persons were immersed.
Besides, to have immersed so many in so short a time would have required
many places where there was an abundance of water, which could not have been so
readily obtained in Jerusalem, especially at that season of the year, when the
springs of that country were generally very low. Add to this that there is no
intimation of their going out in search of such places, or of any change of
apparel; both of which would have been necessary, and from the circumstances of
the case would not have been provided until the every time when they were
needed. These facts being admitted, and they cannot be readily contradicted,
there is every reason to think that the apostles on this occasion, at least,
baptized by affusion or sprinkling, and not by immersion. (Editor’s
Note: Some may argue that the apostles had till midnight, making it twelve hours
and not six in which to immerse each convert. Take into account that it would
still be a gargantuan task at three minutes per person, no breaks, standing
waist deep in cold running water for the entire period without a break for food,
water, or a restroom. It would assume that this all occurred like clockwork,
perfect coordination without any hesitations, everyone knowing exactly what to
do on queue. We must also assume that automatically, torches
(the number of which could
never have been planned for), were miraculously available to light the path into
and out of the water, for if they were not, and it was done in the dark, their
baptism would be no testimony at all, defeating the purpose of their baptism).
The
second case to which I shall direct your attention is that of Cornelius and his
friends, who were baptized by the Apostle Peter, as recorded in Acts 10. In
respect to this case, it is worthy of remark that Cornelius “had called
together his kinsmen and near friends,” who probably were numerous, and when
added to the near family of Cornelius, composed of a considerable congregation.
These persons were all Gentiles, and entirely unacquainted with the nature of
the instructions which they were to receive until they heard them from the lips
of the apostle; they could not therefore, be prepared with suitable changes of
apparel for the purpose of being immersed. As soon as Peter came to the home of
Cornelius, he was introduced to this assembly, and began to address them in the
name of Jesus Christ. While he was thus addressing them, the Holy Ghost fell
upon them; the evidence of which was indubitable: insomuch that the Jewish
Christians who had accompanied Peter and who were present, though they were
“astonished,” could not gainsay it. Then Peter, addressing himself to those
Jewish Christians, said, “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be
baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” It is natural to
understand these words to mean, Can any man forbid water from being
brought in here? For it was in the house of Cornelius, in the presence
of this assembly, at the very time of these transactions that Peter made this
inquiry. We cannot, therefore, without a very forced and unnatural construction
of his words, and defiance of the circumstances in which the words were uttered,
understand him to be inquiring, “Can any man forbid our going
out to some pond, river, or fountain of water, to baptize these
Gentiles? The subsequent verses represent that the baptism of these persons took
place immediately in the place where they were assembled; Peter commanded them
to be baptized, which being done immediately, the religious services came to a
close. At that point, these Gentile Christians implored him to tarry with them
for a few days. All the circumstances of the case, therefore, seem to say that
water was brought into the house of Cornelius, into the very apartment where
they were assembled, and that these persons were baptized immediately on the
spot; and, consequently, that they were baptized by affusion
or sprinkling,
and not by immersion:
and it would be certainly a matter of some surprise, on the presumption
that they were immersed,
that no mention is made of looking or inquiring for a suitable place for the
purpose of baptizing this company, and that there is nothing said concerning a
change of dress. There is a strong presumption, therefore, in this case also in
favor of baptism by affusion
or sprinkling.
In
reviewing the circumstances already noticed, it is worthy to remark that there
is no mention made in the New Testament of going to any
pond, river, stream, or
fountain of water, for the sole purpose of baptizing, except it be in
the case of Philip and the eunuch, and they were traveling on the highway; it
was in the eunuch’s carriage where Philip preached to him, in which no water
could be had, and he was baptized at the first water to which he could have
access. Even this exception, therefore, will not at all affect the conclusion at
which we wish to arrive. As it respects other cases, John the Baptist preached
and baptized at the same places, viz., at
But,
Water
baptism, as we have seen, is an outward and visible sign of the internal
influence of the Holy Spirit upon the heart. Both are called baptism
in the Scriptures. See matt. 3: 11. John says, “I indeed baptize
you with
water; he (Jesus) shall baptize
you with the Holy
Ghost not many days hence.” (Editor’s
Note: It should be observed that John’s baptism “with” water, is not
baptism “under” water. The water is applied to us, not us applied to the
water! Also take note how the inspiration of the Holy Spirit validates the
fulfillment of the image of John’s baptism in the baptism of the Holy Spirit
on the Day of Pentecost; Acts10: 44-47 states, “When Peter spake these words,
the Holy Ghost fell on all them which
heard the word..,” “Can
any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which
have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” Notice that Peter likened
this baptism with the Spirit back to theirs on the Day of Pentecost, the very
baptism of the Holy Ghost which John’s baptism foreshadowed. On the Gentiles
the Spirit “fell,” just as it did on the Jewish disciples at Pentecost. We
read, “And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one
accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a mighty
rushing wind, and it filled all the
house where they were sitting.”
(See Acts 2: 1-2). Notice once
again that the baptism was applied to them, and they were not applied to the
thing in which they were to be baptized! Is it not irresistible logic to suggest
that John’s baptism must have imitated the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and not
be symbolically in opposition to the baptism of the Holy Spirit in which his
baptism foreshadowed?) In Acts
1: 5 our Lord says, “For John truly baptized
with water; but
ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” The
influence of the Holy Spirit is therefore a baptism,
and to receive the Holy Ghost is to be baptized.
Now let us attend to the manner in which this baptism
is represented in the Scriptures as being communicated. In Ezek. 36: 25, God
says, “Then I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean; from
all your filthiness and from all your idols I will cleanse you. A new heart I
will give you, and I will put my Spirit within you.” Here sprinkling with
clean water is a metaphor, and when performed is a sign by which God represents
the baptism of the Holy Ghost; therefore, to sprinkle with clean water is
to baptize. Again, in Joel 2: 28, God says, “I will pour out my Spirit
upon all flesh.” In this passage, the baptism of the Holy Ghost is represented
under the metaphor of pouring
out water. That this is a prediction of the baptism of the Holy Ghost is
certain from the fact that it is quoted and applied to the gift of the Holy
Ghost on the day of Pentecost, by St. Peter, under the immediate and plenary
inspiration of God. To pour water upon a person is therefore, to baptize
them. Again our Lord, as we have seen, promised his disciples that they should
be baptized
with the Holy Ghost in a few days after his ascension to heaven. This occurred
about ten days later when the Holy Ghost came
upon them. See Acts 2: 2-4. This, Peter said, Christ had shed
forth. The baptism of the Holy Ghost, therefore, was by affusion, and
not by
immersion. Again, it is said that the Holy Ghost fell
upon Cornelius and his friends. Acts 10: 44. Now, as the communication
of the Holy Ghost is expressly called baptism,
and the manner of its communication is uniformly represented as sprinkling,
pouring, coming upon, being shed forth, we are certain that baptism by affusion
or sprinkling
is valid baptism. But where is it promised that we shall be immersed
in the Holy Ghost, or where is it said any were thus immersed?
I think that this is not said in the Bible, and therefore, there is more
Scriptural evidence in favor of pouring
or sprinkling
in baptism in the Scriptures, than in favor of immersion.
We however, do not wish to intimate that the evidence for affusion
and sprinkling
in Christian baptism renders a baptism by immersion
to be invalid. We think directly to the contrary. Though we would think that
sprinkling and pouring would represent the most suitable mode, we could,
nevertheless, administer baptism by immersion with a good conscience and give
the right hand of fellowship to those Christians who have been immersed in
Christian baptism as we would with those baptized by another mode. I shall close
this discourse with a quotation from Professor Woods:--“I have now given you
the result of my serious and long-continued inquiries on the mode of baptism, so
far as it can be determined from the Holy Scriptures. This result is that Christ
and the apostles have left undecided.
And then the question which naturally arises to my mind is, Why have they left
it undecided, unless it be to show us that they did not deem the particular mode
to be of any material consequence, and that God would have it conformed to
circumstances, and would be pleased with baptism in every decent mode, provided
that it be performed with a cordial desire to do his will.”
I
have now said what I think to be necessary on this subject; and from what has
been said we may learn,
1.
That baptism is a sacrament of the gospel which is instituted by our Lord
Jesus Christ for very important purposes; that he designed it to be perpetuated
in his church to the end of the world; and
that it is the duty of all Christian people to attend to it.
2. That none can lawfully administer this sacrament but Christian ministers; that they are bound, as far as opportunity serves, to administer it to all who are the proper subjects of this ordinance; and that they have no right to refuse it to any who are able to give them sufficient Scriptural evidence that they are qualified to receive it; but that they have no authority to rebaptize, as this would be to profane this ordinance of God.
3. That penitent adults and the infant children of all those baptized parents who have not renounced their baptism, together with the foster children and servants of such persons, provided they are to be charged with their education, are as proper subjects of Christian baptism as adult believers; and, therefore, that they should not be kept from this ordinance.
4. That the mode in which Christian baptism is to be performed is not so clearly laid down in the Scriptures, but that it may be validly performed either by sprinkling or pouring, or by immersion; but that, nevertheless, the Scriptures do afford more evidence in favor of sprinkling and pouring than of immersion; and that the time and place of public worship is the most proper time and place to administer Christian baptism. And I would add, finally,
5.
Baptism: Its Mode, Its Meaning, Its Madness