FOOTNOTES:[1]For a fuller account of these Confessions, see the “Baptist Church Directory.”
[1]For a fuller account of these Confessions, see the “Baptist Church Directory.”
[1]For a fuller account of these Confessions, see the “Baptist Church Directory.”
optional standing resolutions
A Christian church should be the uncompromising friend of all virtue, and the determined enemy of all vice. Public morality and social purity should find in it an open and earnest advocate and defender. Churches should bear in mind that Christian morality, which constitutes their rule of life, claims a much higher standard than the morality of worldly society about them. Therefore their deportment should be such as to have a good report of them that are without, and command the respect of the world. In all this the pastor should be the wise but decided and courageous teacher, leader and exemplar for his people.
There are certain questions of moral reform and social recreation with reference to which the churches are often much perplexed, but with reference to which they should have settled convictions, and hold a well-defined attitude. It is not wise to putdefinitions and restrictions touching intemperance, card-playing, theater-going, dancing, and the like, into covenants or articles of faith. A better way is for the church, after due consideration, to passstanding resolutionson the subject, to be placed on its records as a guide to future action. Something like the following, to be varied at the option of the body, would serve as a declaration of principles:
1.Resolved,That this church expects every member to contribute statedly for its pecuniary support, according to his ability, as God has prospered him, and that a refusal to do this will be considered a breach of covenant.
2.Resolved,That this church will entertain and contribute statedly to Home and Foreign Missions, and to other leading objects of Christian benevolence, approved of and supported by our denomination.
3.Resolved,That the religious education of the young and Bible study as represented in Sunday school work commend themselves to our confidence, and we will, to the extent of our ability, give them our sympathy and our aid, by both our personal cooperation and contributions and expressedappreciation of all their legitimate aims and work.
4.Resolved,That in our opinion, the use of intoxicating drinks as a beverage, and also the manufacture and sale of the same for such a purpose are contrary to Christian morals, injurious to personal piety, and a hindrance to Gospel truth, and that persons so using, making, or selling, are thereby disqualified for membership in this church.
5.Resolved,That we emphatically discountenance and condemn the practice of church-members frequenting theaters and other similar places of public amusements, as inconsistent with a Christian profession, detrimental to personal piety, and pernicious in the influence of its example on others.
6.Revolved,That the members of this church are earnestly requested not to provide for, take part in, or by any means encourage dancing or card-playing; but in all consistent ways to discountenance the same as a hindrance to personal godliness in their associations and tendencies, and an offense to brethren whom we should not willingly grieve.
baptism considered
What is Christian baptism? This is the gravest question which enters into the baptismal controversy. Other questions of moment there are in connection with it, touching the design, the efficacy, and the subjects. But it is of primary importance to know what constitutes baptism.
Baptists answer the question by saying that baptism is the immersion, dipping, or burying in water, of a professed believer in Christ, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Pedobaptists, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, answer the question by saying that baptism is either the sprinkling or pouring of water upon the candidate, touching the forehead with wet fingers, or dipping the person wholly into water; in either case in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit; and that it may be administeredto a candidate on his profession of faith, or to an unconscious infant on the professed faith of parents or sponsors. This would make four kinds of baptism, and two classes of subjects for its reception; and would consist rather in the application of water to the person, than putting the person into water.
Baptists hold to a unity of the ordinance, as well as to a oneness of the faith; insisting that as there is but one Lord, and one faith, so there is but one baptism. And the dipping in water of a professed disciple of Christ is that one baptism. Neither sprinkling a person with water, nor pouring water upon him can by any possibility be Christian baptism. That this position is the true one, we appeal to the New Testament, and the best extant historical and philological authorities to establish.
Let it be distinctly understood, however, that all the eminent names and learned authorities hereafter cited are Pedobaptists. Baptist authorities are wholly omitted, not because they are less accurate or less valuable, but because we prefer to allow our opponents in this controversy to bear witness for us, rather than to testify in our own behalf.
the meaning of the word
The wordbaptizeis, properly speaking, a Greek word (baptizo), adapted to the English language by a change in its termination. This is the word always used by Christ and His Apostles to express and define the ordinance. What does that word mean as originally used? For it is certain that our Lord, in commanding a rite to be observed by believers of all classes, in all lands, and through all ages, would use a word of positive and definite import, and one whose meaning would admit of no reasonable doubt. What do Greek scholars say? How do the Greek lexicons define the word?
Scapulasays: “Todip,to immerse, as we do anything for the purpose of dyeing it.”
Schleusnersays: “Properly it signifies todip,to immerse, to immerse in water.”
Parkhurstsays: “To dip,immerse,or plunge in water.”
Stevenssays: “To merge, orimmerse,to submerge, or bury in water.”
Donnegansays: “Toimmerserepeatedly into liquid, to submerge, to soak thoroughly.”
Robinsonsays: “Toimmerse,to sink.”
Liddell and Scottsay: “Todiprepeatedly.”
Grimm’s Lexiconof the New Testament,which in Europe and America stands confessedly at the head of Greek lexicography, as translated and edited by Professor Thayer, of Harvard University, thus definesbaptizo:“(1) To dip repeatedly, to immerse, submerge. (2) To cleanse by dipping or submerging. (3) To overwhelm. In the New Testament it is used particularly of the rite of sacred ablution; first instituted by John the Baptist, afterward by Christ’s command received by Christians and adjusted to the contents and nature of their religion, viz., animmersionin water, performed as a sign of the removal of sin, and administered to those who, impelled by a desire for salvation, sought admission to the benefits of the Messiah’s kingdom. Witheisto mark the element into which the immersion is made;enwith the dative or the thing in which one is immersed.”
The nounbaptisma,the only other word used in the New Testament to denote the rite,Grimm-Thayerthus define: “A word peculiar to the New Testament andecclesiastical writers: used (1) of John’s baptism; (2) of Christian baptism. This, according to the view of the Apostles, is a rite of sacredimmersioncommanded by Christ.”
Add to those such authorities as Alstidius, Passow, Schöttgen, Stockius, Stourdza, Sophocles, Anthon, Rosenmüller, Wetstein, Leigh, Turretin, Beza, Calvin, Witsius, Luther, Vossius, Campbell, and many others who bear the same witness to the proper meaning of the wordbaptize.If at any time the word may have a secondary meaning, it is strictly in accord with its primary meaning—to dip, or immerse. For both classic and sacred Greek the same meaning holds.
Prof. Moses Stuart,one of the ablest scholars America has produced, declared: “Baptizomeans to dip, plunge, orimmerseinto any liquid. All lexicographers and critics of any note are agreed in this.”Essay on Baptism, p. 51; Biblical Repository, 1833, p. 298.
“All lexicographers and critics, of any note, are agreed in this,” says one of the foremost scholars of the age, and he a Pedobaptist. What a concession!
The Greek language is rich in terms for the expression of all positive ideas, and all varying shades of thought. Why, then, did our Lord in commanding, and His Apostles in transmitting His command to posterity, usealwaysandonlythe one wordbaptizo,to describe the action, and that one wordbaptisma,to describe the ordinance to which He intended all His followers to submit? The wordlouomeans towashthe body, andniptoto wash parts of the body; but these words are not used, because washing is not what Christ meant.Rantizomeans tosprinkle,and if sprinkling were baptism this would have been the word above all others; but it was never so used.Cheomeans topour:but pouring is not baptism, and so this word was never used to describe the ordinance.Katharizomeans topurify,but it is not used for the ordinance. The facts are clear and the reasoning conclusive.
Stourdza,the Russian scholar and diplomat, says: “The church of the West has then departed from the example of Jesus Christ; she has obliterated the whole sublimity of the exterior sign. Baptism and immersion areidentical.Baptism byaspersionis as if one should sayimmersionbyaspersion,or any other absurdity of thesame nature.”Considerations, Orthodox Ch., p. 87.
the baptism of jesus
The baptism of Jesus in the Jordan is thus described: “And Jesus, when He was baptized, went up straightway out of the water” (Matt.3:16).And again, it is recorded that Jesus “was baptized of John in Jordan: and straightway coming up out of the water” (Mark1:10).He certainly would not go down into Jordan to have water sprinkled on Him. Nobody believes He would. He was baptizedinJordan, notwithJordan. Moreover, he wasbaptized,that is,immersed,notrantized,that is,sprinkled.
Bishop Taylorsays: “The custom of the ancient churches was not sprinkling, butimmersion,in pursuance of the meaning of the word in the commandments and the example of our blessed Saviour.”Commentary on Matthew3:16.
MacKnightsays: “Christ submitted to be baptized, that is, to beburiedunder water, and to be raised out of it again, as an emblem of his future death and resurrection.”Com. Epis., Rom.6:4.
And with these agree Campbell, Lightfoot, Whitby, Poole, Olshausen, Meyer, Alford, and many other commentators and scholars. All those whom John baptized he buried beneath the waters, and raised them up again.
much water needed
It is recorded that “John also was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, because there was much water there” (John3:23).Why need much water except for dipping, or burying candidates in the act of baptism?
John Calvin,the great theologian, scholar, and commentator, whom Scaliger pronounced the most learned man in Europe, says: “From the words of John (chap.3:23)it may be inferred that baptism was administered by John and Christ, byplungingthe whole body under water.”Com. on John3:23.
Poolesays: “It is apparent that both Christ and John baptized by dipping the whole body in the water, else they need not have sought places where had been a great plenty of water.”Annot. John3:23.
Whitbysays: “Because there was much water there in which their whole bodies might be dipped.”Crit. Com. John3:23.
With these agree Bengel, Curcælleus, Adam Clarke, Geikie, Stanley, and others.
philip and the eunuch
“And they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip” (Acts8:38).Why go down into the water, both, or either of them, if not for an immersion?
Venema,the ecclesiastical historian, says: “It is without controversy, that baptism in the primitive church was administered byimmersioninto water, and not by sprinkling; seeing that John is said to have baptized in Jordan, and where there was much water, as Christ also did by His disciples in the neighborhood of those places. Philip also going down into the water baptized the eunuch.”Eccl. Hist., chap. I., sec. 138.
To this may be added Calvin, Grotius, Towerson, Poole, and others to the same effect.
the testimony of scholars
Great men are not always wise. Our search should be for thetruthwherever found; and though our final appeal in these matters is to the New Testament, still we are glad to use the testimony of distinguished scholars where it affirms the teachings of the Scriptures and confirms our position on the baptismal question. Especially so, as these scholars are not of our own, but of other denominations.
Zanchius,the learned Roman Catholic professor of Heidelberg, whose opinion De Courcy declared, “is worth a thousand others,” said: “The proper signification ofbaptizeis toimmerse,plunge under, overwhelm in water.”Works, Vol. VI., p. 217. Geneva, 1619.
Luther,the great German Reformer, says: “The termbaptismis Greek; in Latin it may be translatedmersio:since weimmerseanything into water, that the whole may be covered with the water.”Works, Vol. I., p. 71. Wit. ed., 1582.
Melanchthon,the most scholarly and able co-laborer with Luther, says: “Baptism isimmersioninto water, with this admirable benediction.”Melanc. Catec. Wit., 1580.
Cave,in his able work on Christian Antiquities, says: “The party to be baptized waswholly immersed,or put under water.”Prim. Christ., P. I. Chap. X. p. 320.
Beza,the learned translator of the New Testament, says: “Christ commanded us to be baptized, by which word it is certainimmersionis signified.”Annot. on Mark7:4.
Mede,the distinguished English scholar and Divine, says, “There was no such thing assprinklingused in the Apostles’ days, nor for many ages after them.”Dis. on Titus3:5.
Grotius,who his biographer calls one of the most illustrious names in literature, politics, and theology says: “That baptism used to be performed byimmersion,and not by pouring, appears by the proper signification of the word, and by the places chosen for the administration of the rite.”Annot. on Matt.3:6;John3:23.
Adam Clark,the great Methodist commentator, says: “Alluding to theimmersionspracticed in the case of adults, wherein the person appeared to beburiedunder thewater as Christ was buried in the heart of the earth.”Com. on Col.2:12.
Frederick Meyer,one of the ablest and most accurate exegetes of the present age, says: “Immersion,which the word in classic Greek and in the New Testament ever means.”Com. on Mark7:4.
Dean Alfordsays: “The baptism was administered byimmersionof the whole person.”Greek Testament, Matt.3:6.
Bishop Bossuet,the celebrated French Catholic bishop, orator, and counselor of state, says: “To baptize, signifies toplunge,as is granted by all the world.” SeeStenett ad Russen, p. 174.
Doctor Schaff,the well-known church historian, says: “Immersion,and not sprinkling, was unquestionably the original form. This is shown by the very meaning of the wordsbaptizo, baptisma,andbaptismosused to designate the rite.”Hist. Apos. Ch., p. 488. Merc. ed., 1851. Also see Noel on Bap., Ch. 3, sec. 8.
Dean Stanley,the distinguished scholar, and historian of the Oriental Church, says: “The practice of the Eastern Church, and the meaning of the word, leave no sufficientground for question that the original form of baptism wascomplete immersionin the deep baptismal waters.”Hist. Eastern Church, p. 34.
Professor Fisher,of Yale College, the accomplished scholar and historian, says of the Apostolic age: “The ordinary mode of baptism was byimmersion.”Hist. Christ. Church, p. 41.
Professor Riddlesays: “There is no doubt that the usual mode of administering baptism in the early church, was byimmersion,or plunging the whole body of the person baptized under water.”Christ. Antiq., p. 502.
Add to the above the testimony of Bishops Taylor and Sherlock, Witsius, Poole, Vitringa, Diodati, Calvin, Samuel Clark, Bloomfield, Scholz, Neander, and many others to the same effect, none of whom were Baptists.
apostolical allusions
What idea could the Apostle have had as to the nature of baptism, when in two of his epistles he alludes to it as aburialexcept that it was a dipping or burial inwater? To the Romans he says: “Therefore we areburiedwith him, by baptism, into death” (Rom.6:4).To the Colossians, in nearly the same language, “Buriedwith him in baptism” (Col.2:12).No one can misunderstand the meaning of these words. Neither sprinkling, pouring, washing, cleansing—nothing but a complete submersion—can represent a burial. And no candid mind could misunderstand such language, unless blinded or biased by prejudice, education, or sophistical reasoning from others.
Archbishop Tillotsonmakes this comment: “Anciently those who were baptized wereimmersedandburiedin the water, to represent their death to sin; and then did rise up out of the water, to signify their entrance upon a new life. And to this custom the Apostle alludes.”Works, Vol. I., p. 170.
John Wesley,the celebrated founder of Methodism, says: “Buried with him, alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing byimmersion.”Note on Rom.6:4.
Conybearesays: “This passage cannot be understood unless it be borne in mind that the primitive baptism was byimmersion.”Life and Epist. St. Paul, Rom.6:4.
Bloomfieldsays: “Here is a plain allusion to the ancient custom of baptizing byimmersion,and I agree with Koppe and Rosenmüller, that there is reason to regret it should ever have been abandoned in most Christian churches; especially as it has so evident a reference to the mystical sense of baptism.”Recens. Synop., Rom.6:4.
Whitefieldsays: “It is certain that in the words of our text (Rom.6:4)there is an allusion to the manner of baptizing which was byimmersion.”Eighteen Sermons, p. 297.
Meyersays: “The candidate says to himself, Now I enter into fellowship with the death of Christ; I am to be buried with Christ in theimmersion,and in theemersionI rise with Christ to newness of life.”Com. on Rom.6:4.
Add to these the names of Bishop Fell, Doctor Doddridge, Adam Clark, Estius, Maldonatus, Fritsche, Benson, Diodati, Turretin, Zwingli, Whitby, Samuel Clarke, with others equally good in authority, and what no one ought to question seems to be put beyond doubt.
the witness of history
Learned and devout men have studied with care the early records of Christianity, and have written histories of the doctrines and customs of the churches, during the ages immediately succeeding the Apostles. What do they tell us as to the use of baptism during the first centuries after Christ?
Barnabas,the companion of St. Paul; Hermas, writing abouta. d.95; Justin Martyr, abouta. d.140; Tertullian, abouta. d.204; Hippolytus, abouta. d.225; Gregory, abouta. d.360; Basil, abouta. d.360; Ambrose, abouta. d.374; Cyril, abouta. d.374; Chrysostom, abouta. d.400; all speak of beingdipped,orburied,orimmersed,orplungedin the water in baptism; and none of them make the least allusion to any application of water to the person for baptism by sprinkling, pouring, washing, or any other mode whatsoever.
Doctor Wall,whose learned and laborious researches in connection with his exhaustive work on theHistory of Infant Baptismleft little for others to discover in this field of scholarship, says: “The GreekChurch in all its branches does still useimmersion,and so do all other Christians in the world, except the Latins. All those nations that do now, or formerly did submit to the Bishop of Rome, do ordinarily baptize their children by pouring or sprinkling. Butall other Christians in the world,who never owned the Pope’s usurped power, do and ever diddiptheir infants in the ordinary use. All the Christians in Asia, all in Africa, and about one-third in Europe are of the last sort.”Hist. Inf. Bap., Vol. II., p. 376, 3d ed.
Bingham,in hisOrigines,the ablest work we have in English on Christian Antiquities, says: “The ancients thought that immersion, orburying under water,did more lively represent the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, as well as our own death to sin and rising again unto righteousness.”Christ. Antiq., B. XI., Ch. XI.
Mosheimsays: “In this century (the first) baptism was administered in convenient places, without the public assemblies, and byimmersingthe candidate wholly in water.”Eccl. Hist., Cent. I., Part. II., Ch. 4.
Neandersays: “In respect to the form of baptism, it was in conformity to the originalinstitution, and the original import of the symbol, performed byimmersion,as a sign of entire baptism into the Holy Spirit, of being entirely penetrated with the same.”Ch. Hist., Vol. I., p. 310.Also,Plant. and Train., Vol. I., p. 222.
Schaffsays: “Finally, so far as it respects the mode and manner of outward baptizing, there can be no doubt thatimmersion,and not sprinkling was the original normal form.”Hist. Christ. Ch., p. 488.
Pressensésays: “Baptism, which was the sign of admission into the church, was administered byimmersion.The convert was plunged beneath the water, and as he rose from it he received the laying on of hands.”Early Years of Christianity, p. 374.
Kurtzsays: “Baptism took place by a completeimmersion.”Church History, p. 41.
Kraussays: “Baptism was performed byimmersionin the name of the Trinity.”Church History, p. 56. 1882.
Ellicottsays: “Jewish ablutions arrived at a ceremonial purity in the Levitical sense, and had nothing in common with the figurative act which portrayed throughimmersionthe complete disappearance of the old nature, and by theemergingagain, the beginning of a totally new life.”Life of Christ, p. 110.
for thirteen centuries
It is proved that not only was immersion practiced for baptism by Christ and His Apostles, but that for many ages after nothing else was known as baptism: and that forthirteen hundred yearsit was the common and prevailing form over the whole Christian world, with only exceptional departures, hereafter to be noticed. And that though the Latin or Roman Church did finally adopt sprinkling, claiming the right to change ordinances, the Greek and all the Oriental churches retained dipping, as they do to this day.
Doctor Stackhousesays: “Several authors have shown and proved that this manner ofimmersioncontinued, as much as possible, to be used forthirteen hundred yearsafter Christ.”Hist. Bible, B. 8, Ch. 1.
Bishop Bossuetsays: “We are able to make it appear, by the acts of councils and by ancient rituals, that forthirteen hundred yearsbaptism was thus administered [byimmersion] throughout the whole church, as far as possible.”Cited, Stennet ad Russen, p. 176.
Hagenbachsays: “From thethirteenth centurysprinkling came into more general use in the West. The Greek Church, however, and the church of Milan still retained the practice ofimmersion.”Hist. Doct. Vol. II., p. 84, note 1.
Van Oosterzeesays: “Thissprinkling,which appears to have first come generally into use in thethirteenth centuryin place of the entireimmersionof the body, in imitation of the previous baptism of the sick, has certainly the imperfection that the symbolical character of the act is expressed by it much less conspicuously than by complete immersion and burial under the water.”Christ. Dogmat., Vol. II., p. 749.
Colemansays: “The practice of immersion continued even until thethirteenth or fourteenthcentury. Indeed, it has never been formally abandoned.”Anc. Christ. Exemp., Ch. 19, Sec. 12.
To the same effect is the testimony of Doctors Brenner, Von Cölln, Winer, Augusti, Bingham, and others.
as to the greek church
It is a notable fact and worthy of record in this discussion, that the Greek Church has always retained immersion in baptism. This church extends over Greece, Russia, Arabia, Palestine, Abyssinia, Siberia, and other Oriental countries. Like the Latin Church, it has corrupted the primitive purity of Gospel doctrine and practice with many absurd glosses and superstitious rites. It practices infant baptism, yet it is bydipping,even in the severe climate of Siberia; and it usestrineimmersion, or dipping the candidate three times, one to each of the names in the sacred Trinity. But in all its branches immersion is retained.
The Edinburgh Encyclopediasays: “The Greek Church, as well as the Schismatics in the East, retained the custom ofimmersingthe whole body; but the Western Church adopted, in thethirteenth century,the mode of sprinkling, which has been continued by the Protestants, Baptists only excepted.”Ency. Edin., Art. Baptism.
These statements are fully confirmed by Stourdza, Ricaut, Deylingius, Buddeus, Wall, King, Broughton, Stanley, Colemanand others, who have written on the state and history of the Greek Church.
the design of baptism
What was baptism intended to represent? As a religious rite it meant something, had some symbolic force, and represented some moral or spiritual fact or truth. Its meaning was clearly this: to show forth the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, who died for our sins, and rose again for our justification. And every believer who receives this ordinance, professes thereby to have faith in the merits of Christ’s death as the ground of his own hope of Salvation; to have fellowship also with His sufferings, and makes a declaration of his own death to sin, and rising to a new life in Christ. It also typifies the washing of regeneration; it further declares the candidate’s hope of a resurrection from the dead, even as Christ, into the likeness of whose death he is buried, was raised up by the glory of the Father. Chieflydeath, burial,andresurrection:the great facts of redemptive grace are by it set forth. Immersion in baptism does teach all this, and immersion alone can teach it. Careful students of the NewTestament have clearly seen this, and very generally confessed it, whatever may have been their practice.
Bishop Newtonsays: “Baptism was usually performed byimmersion,or dipping the whole body under water, to represent the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and thereby signify the person’s own dying to sin, the destruction of its power, and his resurrection to a new life.”Pract. Expos. Cate., p. 297.
Bloomfield, Barnes, Schaff, Poole, Hammond, Barrows, Baxter, MacKnight, Olshausen, Grotius, Saurin, Buddeus, Pictetus, Frankius, Wall, Towerson, Adam Clark, Tyndale, and others, bear similar testimony as to the design of the ordinance, and how it is answered in immersion only.
a sufficiency of water
There have been found persons so ignorant, or so weak, or so perverse in their opposition to immersion, as to assert that the Jordan was a small stream, so nearly dry in the summer, that it had not sufficient depth of water for the immersion of the multitudes of the disciples of John and ofJesus said to have been baptized in it; and also that Jerusalem had no sufficient accommodation for the immersion of the thousands of converts at the Pentecost, and on subsequent occasions. People are becoming more intelligent, and more candid, and it is possible that such puerile objections are no more heard. But it may be well to give passing notice to the facts.
Dr. Edward Robinson,at that time professor in the Union Theological Seminary, New York City, in 1840, made a careful survey of Palestine, including the Jordan valley and river. His published statements corroborate those of others previously made, as to the abundant supply of water, both in the Jordan, and in the city of Jerusalem. He cites the published statements of earlier explorers, whose works are known to the reading public: Seetzen, who visited that country in 1806; Burkhardt, who explored it in 1812; Irby and Mangles, in 1818; and Buckingham, who traveled through it about the same time. SeeRobinson’s Bib. Researches, Vol. II., Sec. 10, pp. 257-267.
Lieutenant Lynch,of the United States Navy, was, in 1848, sent out by ourgovernment in charge of an expedition to explore the river Jordan and the Dead Sea. Doctor Thomson, for a quarter of a century missionary in Syria and Palestine, traversed the land in 1857, and Dean Stanley in 1853, and others more recently. For a complete refutation of such puerile objections as those above mentioned, and a confirmation of Baptist claims, see the following works: Robinson’s “Biblical Researches,” Vol. II, Sec. 10, pp. 257-267; Lynch’s “Dead Sea Expedition,” Ch. 10 and 11; Thomson’s “The Land and the Book,” Vol. II., pp. 445-6; Stanley’s “Syria and Palestine,” Ch. 7, pp. 306-7; Barclay’s “The City of the Great Kings,” ch. 10; and other citations in “Baptist Church Directory.”
the rise of sprinkling
The question will naturally arise and very properly, When did sprinkling for baptism first come into use? And how came it to pass, that a human device superseded and took the place of a Divine institution? These questions are fully and satisfactorily answered by Pedobaptist scholars themselves, whose testimony we accept as a justification of Baptist views.
Fortwo hundred and fifty yearsafter Christ we have no evidence of any departure from the primitive practice of immersion. At length the idea came to prevail that baptism possessed saving virtue, and had power to purify and sanctify the soul, making its salvation more secure. It was consequently thought unsafe to die unbaptized. Here was the germ of the pernicious dogma of “baptismal regeneration,” the foundation alike of infant baptism and of sprinkling instead of immersion.
The first authenticated instance ofsprinklingoccurred about the middle of the third century, ora. d.250. This was the case of Novatian. The historian Eusebius gives this case, and Doctor Wall in his laborious researches could find no earlier instance; good evidence that no earlier existed. Novatian was dangerously sick, and believing himself about to die, was anxious to be baptized. The case seemed urgent, and as he was thought to be too feeble to beimmersed,a substitute was resorted to; water was poured profusely over him as he lay in bed, so as to resemble as much as possible a submersion. The word used to describe this action (perichutheis, purfusus) has usually been renderedbesprinkle;itrather means to pour profusely over and about one. This it was thought might answer the purpose in such an emergency.
From this time onward pouring and sprinkling were resorted to at times of extreme illness, or feebleness, where persons could not leave their beds, and hence was termedclinicbaptism, fromclina,a couch. But it was always regarded as a substitute for baptism, rather than baptism itself; and its validity was doubted. Novatian himself having recovered from his sickness, was objected to when his friends proposed to make him bishop, because, it was said, he had never been properly baptized. It was not, however, until the seventeenth century that sprinkling became common in Europe, in France first, and then extending through those countries over which the pope held sway. At length, accepted by Calvin and the Genevan Church, it extended into Scotland, by John Knox, and other Scotch refugees, who had found in Geneva a shelter from the persecution to which they had been exposed in their native country; then into England: and in 1643 it was adopted as the exclusive mode of baptism by a majority of one of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, and sanctioned by Parliamentthe next year. All of which is verified by Eusebius, Valesius, Wall, Salmasius, Venema, Taylor, Towerson, Grotius, “Ency. Brit.,” “Edin. Ency.,” and other reliable historicalauthorities.[1]
FOOTNOTES:[1]For more numerous citations on this subject, see the “Star Book on Christian Baptism,” and “The Baptist Church Directory.”
[1]For more numerous citations on this subject, see the “Star Book on Christian Baptism,” and “The Baptist Church Directory.”
[1]For more numerous citations on this subject, see the “Star Book on Christian Baptism,” and “The Baptist Church Directory.”
the lord’s supper
The Lord’s Supper, called also the “Eucharist,” and the “Communion,” is the most sacred act of Christian worship, and the highest expression of the mysteries of our holy religion. It is a service in which bread and wine—theloafand thecup—are used to represent the body and the blood of Christ, the Lamb of God, slain for us. The bread isbroken,distributed, and eaten; the wine ispoured,distributed, and drunk by the members of the assembled church, to show the sacrifice of Christ, His body broken, and His blood shed for their redemption; and that by His death they have life. Being begotten of God through the operation of the Spirit, their new life is sustained and nourished by mystically feeding on Him who is the Bread of God, which came down from heaven to give life to the world. He said: “This do in remembrance of Me.” “As oft as ye eat this breadand drink this cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death, till He come.” “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” “Whoso eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood hath eternal life.” “He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in him.” It is a Divine reality, though a sublime mystery.
open and close communion
The controversy between Baptists and other denominations, so far as the Lord’s Supper is concerned, has no reference to its nature, the purpose for which it was instituted, the manner of its administration, or the effect of the elements on the participants. It has reference simply to the propersubjectsfor participation in the privilege. Who may, and who may not properly and of right come to the Lord’s Table? On the question of what are the Scriptural qualifications of participants, Baptist and Pedobaptists differ—differ not as to the general rule to be applied, but as to its particular application. And this particular application leads to the controversy on what is called“close communion,”as practicedby Baptists, and to what is called“open communion,”as practiced by Pedobaptists.
What is open communion? Open,free or mixed communion is, strictly speaking, that which allows any one who desires, and believes himself qualified, to come to the Lord’s Table, without any questions being asked, or conditions imposed by the church in which the ordinance is observed. But ordinarily the term is applied to the practice of the greater part of the Pedobaptist churches, which hold thatsprinklingis lawful baptism, and invite, not all persons, but members of all evangelical churches, whatever be their view of church order and ordinances; holding them all as being baptized because they have been sprinkled.
What is close communion? Close,strict, or restricted communion is, properly speaking, that which does not invite all indiscriminately to the Lord’s Table, but restricts the privilege to a particular class. But ordinarily the term is applied to the practice of Baptist churches, which invite only baptized believers, walking in orderly fellowship in their own churches. And by baptized believers, they mean, of course,immersed believers; not admitting sprinkling to be baptism at all.
one and the same rule
Observe further:That Baptists and Pedobaptists have one and the same rule in theory as to the proper qualification for participants, namely, they all hold that baptism is a prerequisite. That unbaptized persons have no legal right to the Lord’s Supper, and cannot consistently be invited to it. Pedobaptists would not invite unbaptized persons to the Lord’s Table, however good Christians, since such could not become church-members, and the Supper is for those within the church, not for the outside world. For though there are a few churches and a few pastors, who in their extreme liberality might be disposed to invite everybody to the sacred ordinance yet such a course would be contrary to their denominational standards, and opposed to the usages of their churches generally.
Further observe:They all practice a restriction since they restrict the privilege to a particular class: namely, baptized believers, walking in orderly church fellowship. But Baptists and Pedobaptists differas to what constitutesbaptism,the one rejecting, and the other accepting the validity of sprinkling. Thus Baptists’ custom is more“close,”and Pedobaptists’ is more“open,”by the difference between their views of baptism; and by that difference only.Therefore,it is manifest that the question so called of “close” and “open” communion is really not a question of “communion” at all, but of what constitutes Scriptural baptism. Let that be settled, and the controversy as to the restriction of the Lord’s Supper will cease.
the baptist position
Baptists hold that there arethreeimperative conditions precedent to the privileges of the Lord’s Supper: 1.Regeneration.No unconverted person can with propriety, or of right, eat and drink at that sacred feast, in commemoration of Christ’s death. They must be persons dead to sin, and alive to God; born again, through the operation of the Spirit. 2.Baptism.Buried with Christ in baptism on a profession of faith in Him. No person, however good, and however manifestly regenerate, is prepared without baptism, according to theDivine order, to receive the Supper. Without baptism he cannot enter the fellowship of the church, where the Supper alone is to be enjoyed. 3.An orderly walk is necessary.An upright and consistent Christian walk, and godly conversation among the saints, and before the world. For though one may be truly regenerate, and properly baptized, yet if he be a disorderly walker, violating his covenant obligations, living in sin, and bringing reproach on the Christian profession, he has no right to sit at the Lord’s Table.
The ordinances are a sacred trust which Christ has committed to the churches as custodians, and which they are to watch and guard from all profane intrusion, and improper use, with the most sedulous fidelity. Baptists believe that in order to maintain the purity and spirituality of the churches, it is necessary to maintain the ordinances pure; and especially necessary to restrict the Supper to regenerate and godly persons, baptized on a profession of their faith, into the fellowship of the saints. To adopt any other rule, or to allow any larger liberty, would break down the distinction between the church and the world; would bring in a carnal and unconvertedmembership, and transfer the sacred mysteries of the body and the blood of Christ from the temple of God to the temple of Belial. This would be disloyalty to Christ.
The Apostolic plan was as follows: Those whobelievedandgladly received the Word,werebaptized.Then they wereadded to the church.Then they continued steadfastly in theApostles’ doctrine,and fellowship, and inbreaking of bread,and inprayer.
Notice,they were not baptized till they had received the Word and believed. They were not added to the church till they had believed and been baptized. They did not engage in the breaking of bread (that is, the Supper,) till they had believed, been baptized, and were added to the church. This is the Divine order; and this is the order which Baptists maintain and defend.
pedobaptist close communion
It has already been shown that Pedobaptists themselves practice a restricted or close communion, limiting the privilege to baptized (as they call them) members of evangelical churches, and that their communion is more liberal than that of the Baptistsonly, and only by so much as their baptism (so-called) is more liberal than that of Baptists.
But in some respects Pedobaptists practice a “close communion,” restrictive in its conditions, far beyond anything known to Baptists whose illiberality they are accustomed to magnify. They exclude a large class of their own members from the Lord’s Table—namely,baptized children!Baptists do not deny the Lord’s Supper to their own members in good standing. If children are suitable subjects for baptism, it seems most unreasonable and unjust to deny them the Supper. If they can be benefited by one ordinance, can they not be equally benefited by the other? If they can receive the one on the faith of sponsors, can they not receive the other in the same way? Who has authorized parents or ministers to give baptism to unconverted and unconscious children, and refuse them the Lord’s Supper? By denying the Supper to baptized children, Pedobaptists act contrary to the traditions of the ancient churches, which they are accustomed to cite with so much assurance, in defense of infant baptism. Do they not know that those ancient churches (not the primitive churches) gave the Lord’s Supper to infantsfor many centuries? And the Greek Church, through all its branches, continues still the same practice.
Doctor Colemansays: “After the general introduction of infant baptism, in thesecond and third centuries,the sacrament continued to be administered to all who had been baptized, whether infants or adults. The reason alleged by Cyprian and others for this practice was, that age was no impediment. Augustine strongly advocates the practice. The custom continued for several centuries. It is mentioned in the third Council of Tours,a. d.813; and even the Council of Trent,a. d.1545, only decreed that it should not be considered essential to salvation. It is still scrupulously observed by the Greek Church.”Anc. Christ. Exemp., Ch. 22, Sec. 8; Bing., Orig., B. 15, Ch. 4, Sec. 7. Many other writers bear the same testimony.
the power of sympathy
There is a small class of Baptists who are at times inclined to desire, and it may be, to seek a wider liberty at the Lord’s Table than they find accorded in their own churches. The one prevailing argument with them issympathy.To them it seemskindly and fraternal to invite all who say they love our common Lord and Saviour to unite in commemorating His death in the Supper. Even if they have not been baptized, they themselves believe they have, and they are good Christian people. “Why stand upon a technicality?” they say. To such the service is merely a sentimental service; a kind of love feast to show Christian fellowship, rather than an instituted commemoration of their dying Lord. They have neither Scripture, logic, expediency, the scholarship, nor the concurrent practice of Christendom, either past or present, to sustain their position. Butsympathyinfluences them; yet sympathy should not control conduct in matters of faith, or in acts of conscience. It is a grave perversion when affection for his disciples sways us more than fidelity to our Lord. We should not be so kind tothemas to be untrue toHim.Sincere Christians will honor those who are loyal to Christ, even though they differ in opinion.
three facts explained
Baptists give the following reasons in justification of their course in the following cases:
1. They do not invite Pedobaptists to the Lord’s Supper with them, because such persons are not baptized, as has been shown, they being simply sprinkled. They may be true converts, and have the spiritual qualifications, but they are destitute of the ceremonial qualification—baptism. The “buried in baptism” comes before the “breaking of bread.”
2. They do not accept the invitation of Pedobaptist churches to eat at the Lord’s Table with them, for the same reason; they are not baptized Christians. And while the appreciate their Christian fellowship, they could not accept their church fellowship, and sit at the Lord’s Table with them, without accepting their sprinkling and indorsing their baptismal errors.
3. They do not invite immersed members of Pedobaptist churches to the Lord’s Supper with them, because such persons, though they may be truly regenerate and properly baptized, are walking disorderly by remaining in and giving countenance to churches which hold and practice serious errors as to both the ordinances. These churches use sprinkling for baptism and administer the ordinance to infants, both of which are unscriptural. And yet such persons, by remainingin them, encourage and support these errors, instead of protesting against them by leaving them. They insist on immersion for themselves, and yet by a strange inconsistency give their fellowship and influence to perpetuate and sanction sprinkling for others. This is inconsistent and disorderly Christian walking; and, therefore, very properly, Baptists decline to invite them to the Lord’s Supper.
pedobaptist witnesses
In further proof that the position of Baptists as to the Lord’s Supper is correct and Scriptural; that the difficulty lies with baptism, and not with the Supper; and that they must still continue to restrict the ordinance to baptized believers, or else admit that sprinkling is baptism, we cite the concessions of distinguished Pedobaptist scholars and Divines in evidence on our side.
Justin Martyr,one of the early Christian Fathers, says of the Supper: “This food is called by us the Eucharist, of which it is not lawful for any one to partake but such as believe the things taught by us to be true, and have been baptized.”Apol.I, C. 65. 66. See Schaff’s Church Hist., Ch. 2. p. 516.
Mosheim,in his Church History, says: “Neither those doing penance, nor those not yet baptized, were allowed to be present at the celebration of this ordinance.”Eccl. Hist., Cent. 3, Part 2, Ch. 4, Sec. 3.
Neander,the great church historian, says: “At this celebration, as may be easily concluded, no one could be present who was not a member of the Christian Church, and incorporated into it by the rite of baptism.”Ch. Hist., Vol. 1., 327. Boston, 1849.
Cave,one of the ablest writers on Christian antiquities, says the participants in the primitive church were those “that had embraced the doctrine of the Gospel, and had been baptized into the faith of Christ. For, looking upon the Lord’s Supper as the highest and most solemn act of religion, they thought they could never take care enough in the dispensing of it.”Prim. Christ., Part I., Ch. 11, p. 333.
Bingham,in his able work on the Antiquities of the Christian Church, says of the early Christians: “As soon as a man wasbaptized he was communicated”—that is, admitted to the communion. Baptism, therefore, essentially preceded the Supper.—Christ. Antiq., B. 12, Ch. 4, Sec. 9, B. 15, Ch. 3.
Doctor Wall,who searched the records of antiquity for facts illustrating the history of the ordinances, says: “No church ever gave the communion to any persons before they were baptized. Among all the absurdities that were ever held, none ever maintained that any person should partake of the communion before he was baptized.”Hist. Inf. Bap., Part II., Ch. 9.
Doctor Colemansays of the early churches: “None indeed but believers in full communion with the church were permitted to be present.” “But agreeably to all the laws and customs of the church, baptism constituted membership with the church. All baptized persons were legitimately numbered among the communicants as members of the church.”Anc. Christ. Exemp., Ch. 21, Sec. 8.
Doctor Schaffsays: “The communion was a regular part, and, in fact, the most important and solemn part of the Sunday worship, . . . in which none but full membersof the church could engage.”Ch. Hist., Vol. I., p. 392. New Work, 1871.
Doctor Doddridgesays: “It is certain that so far as our knowledge of primitive antiquity reaches, no unbaptized person received the Lord’s Supper.”Lectures, pp. 511, 512.
Doctor Dicksays: “An uncircumcised man was not permitted to eat the Passover; and an unbaptized man should not be permitted to partake of the Eucharist.”Theol., Vol. II., p. 220.
Doctor Baxtersays: “What man dares go in a way which hath neither precept nor example to warrant it, from a way that hath full current of both? Yet they that will admit members into the visible church without baptism do so.”Plain Scripture Proof, p. 24.
Doctor Dwight,President of Yale College, and author of “Systematic Theology,” says: “It is an indispensable qualification for this ordinance that the candidate for communion be a member of the visible church in full standing. By this, I intend that he should be a man of piety; that he should have made a public profession of religion, and that he should have been baptized.”Syst. Theol., Ser. 160, B. 8, Ch. 4. Sec. 7.
Doctor Griffin,one of the fathers of New England Congregationalism, says: “I agree with the advocates of close communion on two points: 1. That baptism is the initiatory ordinance which introduces us into the visible church; of course, where there is no baptism, there are no visible churches. 2. That we ought not to commune with those who are not baptized, and of course not church-members, even if we regard them as Christians.”Letter on Baptism, 1829, cited by Curtis on Com., p. 125.
Doctor Hibbard,a leading Methodist scholar and Divine, says: “In one principle Baptist and Pedobaptist churches agree. They both agree in rejecting from communion at the table of the Lord, and in denying the rights of church fellowship to all who have not been baptized.” And with admirable frankness, he adds: “The charge ofclose communionis no more applicable to the Baptist than to us [Pedobaptists]; insomuch as the question of church fellowship with them is determined by as liberal principles as it is with any other Protestant churches, so far, I mean, as the present subject is concerned—i.e.,it is determined by valid baptism.”Hibbard on Christ. Bap., P. II., p. 174.
Doctor Bullock,another Methodist Divine, says: “Close communion, as it is generally termed, is the only logical and consistent course for Baptist churches to pursue. If their premises are right, their conclusion is surely just as it should be.” And he commends the firmness of Baptists in not inviting to the communion those whom they regard as unbaptized. He says: “They do not feel willing to countenance such laxity in Christian discipline. Let us honor them for their steadfastness in maintaining what they believe to be a Bible precept, rather than criticize and censure because they differ with us concerning the intent and mode of Christian baptism, and believe it to be an irrepealable condition of coming to the Lord’s Table.”What Christians Believe.
The Independent,one of the most widely circulated, and perhaps the most influential Pedobaptist paper in the country, in an editorial, says: “Leading writers of all denominations declare that converts must be baptized before they can be invited to the communion table. This is the position generally taken. But Baptists regarding sprinkling as a nullity—no baptism at all—look upon Presbyterians, Methodists, andothers, as unbaptized persons.” “The other churches cannot urge the Baptists to become open communionists till they themselves take the position that all who love our Lord Jesus Christ, the unbaptized as well as the baptized, may be invited to the communion table.”Editorial, July, 1879.
The Congregationalist,the organ of the New England Congregational Churches, in an editorial, says: “Congregationalists have uniformly, until here and there an exception has arisen of late years, required baptism and church-membership as the prerequisite of a seat at the table of the Lord. It is a part of the false ‘liberality’ which now prevails in certain quarters, to welcome everybody ‘who thinks he loves Christ’ to commune in His body and blood. Such a course is the first step in breaking down that distinction between the church and the world, which our Saviour emphasized; and it seems to us it is an unwise and mistaken act for which no Scriptural warrant exists.”Editorial, July 9, 1879.
The Observer,of New York, the oldest and leading Presbyterian journal of this country, said: “It is not a want of charitywhich compels the Baptist to restrict his invitation. He has no hesitation in admitting the personal piety of his unimmersed brethren. Presbyterians do not invite the unbaptized, however pious they may be. It is not uncharitable. It is not bigotry on the part of Baptists to confine their communion to those whom they consider the baptized.”
The Interior,of Chicago, the organ of Western Presbyterians, said: “The difference between our Baptist brethren and ourselves is an important difference. We agree with them, however, in saying that unbaptized persons should not partake of the Lord’s Supper. Their view compels them to think that we are not baptized, and shuts them up to close communion. Close communion is, in our judgment, a more defensible position than open communion, which is justified on the ground that baptism is not a prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper. To charge Baptists with bigotry because they abide by the logical consequences of their system is absurd.”
The Christian Advocate,of New York, the leading journal of American Methodists, said: “The regular Baptist churches in theUnited States may be considered today as particularly a unit onthree points—the non-use of infant baptism, the immersion of believers only upon a profession of faith, and the administration of the holy communion to such only as have been immersed by ministers holding these views. In our opinion the Baptist Church owes its amazing prosperity largely to its adherence to these views. In doctrine and government, and in other respects, it is the same as Congregationalists. In numbers, the regular Baptists are more than six times as great as the Congregationalists. It is not bigotry to adhere to one’s convictions, provided the spirit of Christian love prevails.”
The Episcopal Recordersaid: “The close communion of the Baptist churches is but the necessary sequence of the fundamental idea out of which their existence has grown. No Christian Church would willingly receive to its communion even the humblest and truest believer in Christ who had not been baptized. With Baptists, immersion only is baptism, and they therefore of necessity exclude from the Lord’s Table all who have not been immersed. It is an essential part of the system—the legitimate carrying out of the creed.”
Bishop Coxe,of the Episcopal diocese of Western New York, says: “The Baptists hold that we have never been baptized, and they must exclude us from their communion table, if we were disposed to go there. Are we offended? Do we call it illiberal? No; we call itprinciple,and we respect it. To say that we have never become members of Christ by baptism seems severe, but it is a conscientious adherence to duty, as they regard it. I should be the bigot, and not they, if I should ask them to violate their discipline in this, or in any other particular.”On Christ. Unity, in “Church Union,” July, 1891.
infant baptism
One of the customs held and upheld by Pedobaptist churches, which Baptists seriously condemn, is infant baptism. It is practiced by both Roman Catholics and Protestants as a religious institution; and though not held as sacredly, or practiced as widely as formerly, it still prevails to a wide extent throughout the Christian world. And yet it was not instituted by Christ, nor practiced by His Apostles, nor known in the primitive churches, and has neither sanction nor recognition in the Word of God. It is for this reason that Baptists utterly reject and condemn the custom, as not simply useless and without authority, but as a most pernicious and hurtful usage; that it is injurious both to the child that receives it, and to the church which allows it, can be easily shown. Baptism before faith, and without a profession it, contradicts anddoes violence to all New Testament teaching.
not of scriptural authority
Now, that infant baptism is not of Scriptural authority, and was not known in the first Christian ages, nearly all its advocates and defenders have with considerable candor admitted. Only a few of their historians and scholars can be cited here.
Dr. William Wall,a learned Divine of the English Church, who wrote the “History of Infant Baptism,” a work so able that the clergy in convocation assembled gave him a vote of thanks for his defense of the custom, says: “Among all the persons that are recorded as baptized by the Apostles, there is no express mention of any infants.”Hist. Inf. Bap., Intro., pp. 1, 55.
Thomas Fuller,the historian, says: “We do freely confess there is neither express precept nor precedent in the New Testament for the Baptism of Infants.”Infants’ Advoc., pp. 71, 150.
Luthersays: “It cannot be proved by the sacred Scriptures that infant baptism was instituted by Christ, or begun by thefirst Christians after the Apostles.”Vanity of Inf. Bap., Part II., p. 8.
Neandersays: “Baptism was administered at first only to adults, as men were accustomed to conceive ofbaptismandfaithas strictly connected. We have all reason for not deriving infant baptism from Apostolic institution.”Ch. Hist., Vol. I., p. 311; Plant. and Train., Vol. I., p. 222.
Professor Langesays: “All attempts to make out infant baptism from the New Testament fail. It is totally opposed to the spirit of the Apostolic age, and to the fundamental principles of the New Testament.”Inf. Baptism, p. 101.
Professor Jacobisays: “Infant baptism was established neither by Christ, nor by the Apostles.”Art. Bap., Kitto’s Cycl. Bib. Lit.
Doctor Hannasays: “Scripture knows nothing of the baptism of infants.”North Brit. Review, Aug., 1852.
Professor Hagenbachsays: “The passages from Scripture cited in favor of infant baptism as a usage of the primitive church are doubtful and prove nothing.”Hist. Dict., pp. 190, 193.
Bishop Burnett, Baxter, Goodwin,Limborch, Celarius, Field, and many others bear similar testimony.
when did it rise?
Since the New Testament knows nothing of infant baptism, and since it was neither instituted by Christ, nor practiced by His Apostles, what was its origin, and when did it come into use?
Tertullianis the first who mentions the custom, and he opposes it. This was at the close of the second century, or abouta. d.200. His opposition to it proves two things:First,that it was in occasional use, at least.Second,that it was of recent origin, since had it been long used some earlier record if it could be found.Neander, Ch. Hist., Vol. I., p. 311.
Binghamcould find no earlier allusion to it than that of Tertullian, though he believed it arose earlier. It must, therefore, as is generally agreed, have had its origin about the beginning of thethird century.
Curcellæussays: “The baptism of infants in thetwo firstcenturies after Christ was altogether unknown; but in thethirdandfourthwas allowed by some few. In thefifthand following ages it was generallyreceived.”Inst. Christ. Religion, B. I., Ch. 12.
Salmasiussays: “In thefirst twocenturies no one was baptized, except, being instructed in the faith and acquainted with the doctrines of Christ, he was able to profess himself a believer.”Hist. Bapt. Suicer. Thesaur., Vol. II., p. 1136.
Such testimony is conclusive, and quite sufficient, though much more of a similar character might be added.
But observe:That when the baptism of children began, it was not that of unconscious infants at all, as is now practiced, but, as Bunsen declares, of “little growing children, from six to ten years old.” And he asserts that Tertullian “does not say one word of new-born infants.” Cyprian, an African bishop, at the close of thethirdcentury, urged the baptism of infants proper, because of the saving efficacy of the ordinance; and he is called the inventor, or father, of infant baptism.Bunsen’s Hippol. and His Age, Vol. III., pp. 192-5.
why did it rise?
There is even less difficulty in tracing the cause than in finding the origin of infantbaptism. It originated in a perversion of Christian doctrine, and was itself the perversion of a Christian ordinance.
All students of ecclesiastical history know that at an early period corruptions perverted Christian faith and practice. Among these, one of the earliest was that of an undue efficacy attributed to baptism. Its sanctity was so exalted that it was believed to have power to wash away sins, and cleanse the soul for heaven. By it the sick were supposed to be prepared for death, and salvation made more certain by its efficacy. Anxious parents therefore desired their dying children to be thus prepared—“washed in the laver of regeneration,” as it was termed—that they might be sure of salvation. And here came in that pernicious error of “baptismal regeneration,” which gave rise to infant baptism, and which has through all these ages clung with more or less pertinacity to the clergy and laity of all churches which have practiced it.
Salmasiussays: “An opinion prevailed that no one could be saved without being baptized; and for that reason the custom arose of baptizing infants.”Epist. Jus. Pac. See Booth’s Pedo. Exam., Ch. III., Sec. 3.
Venemadeclares that “the ancients connected a regenerating power with baptism.” He cites Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Clemens, Tertullian, and Cyprian as holding that opinion.Eccl. Hist., Vol. 4, p. 3., Secs. 2, 3, 4.