THE ACT

OF CHRISTIAN

By J. R. GRAVES

Author of “Old Landmarkism—What is it?” “Intercommunion unscriptural, & c.” “Trilemma,” “The Symbolism of Baptism,” “The Relation of Baptism to Salvation,” &c., &c.

BOGARD PRESS

TEXARKANA

402743

______

Copyright, 1881

BY

J. R. Graves

COPYRIGHT, 1928

By

Baptist Sunday School Committee

Texarkana, Ark.-Tex.

~I. THE IMPORTANCE,

~II. THE ACT,

~III. THE SYMBOLISM,

~IV. THE EFFECT OF BAPTISM,

~V. THE ADMINISTRATOR OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM,

~VI. MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS.

vs. RITUALISM OBEDIENCE

“The difference between Paedobaptists and touching Baptism is, to a great extent, the difference between Ritualism and Obedience. Those who observe a rite, not concerning themselves to observe the rite, ritualize. Those who observe the rite, because that rise is commanded, obey. Paedobaptists perform a rite, Baptists obey the ordinance. Baptists simply apply to baptism their constitutive principle of obedience.”

Dr. Wilkinson. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.

I. Its importance.—2. Its acts.---3. Its designs.---4. Its effect.-- -5. Its Administrator.—Miscellaneous Matters.

CHAP. I. THE IMPORTANCE OF BAPTISM.

hristian baptism is a positive duty enjoined upon each child of God by all the authority with which any law of God is enforced. Christ, Cwhen he commanded it, declared that he was clothed with all power in heaven and earth. In addition to his most emphatic command, he affectionately urges obedience to it upon his regenerated disciples by all the motives drawn from his love and death for their salvation—in fact, he makes it a test of the sincerity of their profession of friendship for him: “If a man love me he will keep my commandments.” “Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you.” “Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things I command you?” Of the “all things whatsoever” Christ singles out, he mentions but one act as representative of all, and that act is baptism. He has made it the initial act of our Christian life and service. He has constituted it the act in which we confess to the world, in forceful symbolism, what Christ has done for us—saved us; and the act in which we profess before angels and men, our supreme allegiance to him with the Father and Holy Spirit, and obligate ourselves to cordially obey all things whatsoever he commands us.

Christ has also appointed baptism to be the one and only rite of initiation into his visible churches, and thereby into his kingdom, a duty he requires and enjoins upon every one who has received the grace of his salvation. Indeed, he implies that the professed who refuses to united with his people—with whom, and in the midst of whom, he declares he will always be—occupies the attitude of open hostility to him and his cause. “He that is not for me is against me, and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.” As certainly as we love Christ, or God, we will love, and love to be with the children of God. “If we love him that begot, we shall love them also who are begotten of him.”

Christ positively requires his children to observe his Supper, in remembrance of him. “This do” is a command as inviolable as any specific law of the Decalogue, and its violation involves us in equal guilt. If we are the recipients of his grace, we can not, with impunity, refuse or delay to obey the command to observe his Supper. To refuse to observe it is to aggravate the guilt of its violation.

Now the Lord’s Supper is a ordinance, and within the sacred inclosure of his churches, and we can not partake of it without being introduced into one of them. To attempt to eat the Supper outside, or in an organization not his church, is to eat and drink unworthily.

But no one ever was, is to-day, or ever can be, a member of an evangelical or Christian church, or of the kingdom of Christ, unless baptized as Christ was, and as he commands us to be, which will be fully shown in the closing section of this Tract.

All Christians, how widely soever they differ about other things, agree that no one can become a member of Christ’s church without baptism. But let it be ever remembered that the act we submit to for baptism must be baptism, i. e., must be the act which Christ commands, and it must be administered to us by the body he authorizes alone to administer it—one of his local churches; an organization not a church, though all its members were Christians, has no authority to administer the ordinances of Christ’s house. Then as we would obey Christ, by observing his Supper, by uniting with his church, by confessing him as our Savior, by professing our hearty allegiance, it devolves upon us to be baptized as he was and as he commands us to be. It must be true that every true child of God has the mind and spirit of Christ, which was the spirit of exact obedience, and desires to know what that act is: and it is for such I write.

Why there is to-day the least doubt in the minds of the people about the appointed and primitive act, is—I. Because both the primitive act and design have been changed by the Romish church and the change adopted by Protestants to suit the tastes, feelings and convenience of the people; 2. Because the word Christ used to designate the act is not translated in our commonly received version; 3. Because other words used to describe the act are untranslated; and 4. Because there are large and influential denominations that teach that the word Christ selected is a word of generic signification, and denotes several different and even opposite acts; as to pour upon, to sprinkle upon a part of the body, and to immerse the whole body in water, and that we are at liberty to use any one of these. The flesh of course selects the one most convenient and popular, and for these reasons the primitive act is practically rejected.

It has been less than three hundred years past that there has been any serious doubt raised as to the act Christ commanded; and, indeed, among the best scholars of all denominations, there is no doubt entertained now, because, for thirteen hundred years, the primitive act was generally observed by all professed Christians. The real question among scholars and theologians since the days of Calvin has been, if a modified form of baptism, one more convenient and better suited to the refined feelings of the people will not answer just as well, and if the church has not the authority to change rites and ceremonies, so that the substance is retained? The thoughtful and reverent Christian can not believe that Christ empowered his churches to contravene his positive laws, or modify in the least his appointments. Moreover, the form is the substance of the ceremony, and the design of a rite determines its form, and one can not be changed without affecting the other, and the change vitiates the ordinance.

I again emphasize the fact that since Christ has not authorized his churches to modify in the least any one of his appointments, that unless we are baptized as Christ our great exemplar was, and commands us to be, we are not baptized at all, and we can not partake of his Supper without profaning the feast, and bring upon ourselves his condemnation.

Let it not, then, be said or thought that Christian baptism is a matter of little or no importance—that it is “a mere form” and “a non-essential.” While not essential to our salvation, since we must be conscious of this before we are baptized, still it is essential to our obedience to Christ; it is essential to our acceptable worship of him; for he tells us this, “In vain do they worship me who teach for doctrines the commandments of men,” i. e., the modified form, design, and subjects of baptism; it is essential to the maintenance and perpetuation of his truth; essential as an act of honor to him our head; and it is quite essential as a test of the real state of our deceitful hearts and spiritual relation to him.

The importance of scriptural baptism is thus set forth by one of our most forcible writers in his Tract on the “Position of Baptism in the Christian System.”

“1. It is a fact, that baptism was the initial of the ministry of Jesus Christ. 2. It is a fact, that he closed his ministry as he began it,--with baptism. 3. It is a fact, that the record of his last conversation on earth shows specific mention of this duty and of no other. 4. It is a fact, that this is the only duty which we are required to perform in the name of the Trinity. 5. It is a fact, that once only was Godhead displayed to earth in triune character, and that this was done on the occasion of baptism. 6. It is a fact, that baptism is classed in the Scriptures with things of most tremendous import and of infinite dignity. 7. It is a fact, that the baptism of Christ was essential to the fulfillment of all righteousness. 8. It is a fact, that baptism is the only duty of which one single moment in the life of an immortal being has a monopoly.”—Dr. H. H. Tucker. CHAP. II. THE ACT OF BAPTISM.

1. It is admitted by all that Christ commanded , his Seventy disciples, and his apostles, to baptize all who professed to repent and believed on him as their Savior—Messiah.

2. That he requires his churches, through their officers, now to baptize all who believe on him.

3. That this command will be in force until he comes again.

4. That it is our personal duty, who believe on him, to obey this command of Christ; therefore,

5. It must be evident to every intelligent mind, and is admitted by all jurists, that unless he used a word, when he commanded us to be baptized, the exact meaning of which we can undoubtedly understand, we are free from all obligation to obey the command, since we would not know what to do.

“A law that is hopelessly obscure, has no binding force, and no person can be held responsible for obedience.”1

If Christ used a term of generic signification to indicate the rite of baptism, he did what he has nowhere else done, in either the Old or New Testament, when instituting a rite, civil or divine.

It is the form which constitutes, and is the essence of a rite, human or divine. We must conclude, therefore, that Christ did select a word of specific signification when he instituted the rite of baptism. It is agreed by scholars

1 Pothier, “Smith’s Law of Contracts.”—p.421. that the English word “baptize” in our version, is not a definition of the Greek term “baptizo,” which Christ selected to indicate the act he wished performed.

Our present English Bible was translated—the Old Testament out of the Hebrew and the New Testament out of the Greek—by order of King James, over three hundred years ago, by a company of Episcopalian scholars. They did not translate “baptize,” but transferred it with a change of the last vowel. This what Dr. Edward Beecher, an acknowledged Pedobaptist scholar, says:

“At the time of the translation of the Bible, a controversy had arisen as regards the import of the word, so that although it was conceded to have an import in the original, yet it was impossible to assign it in English any meaning without seeming to take sides in the controversy then pending. Accordingly, in order to take neither side, they did not attempt to give the sense of the term in a significant English word, but merely transferred the word ‘baptizo,’ with a slight alteration of termination to our language. The consequence was that it does not exhibit its original significancy to the mind of the English reader, or, indeed, any significancy, except what was derived from its application to designate an external, visible rite.”— Import of Baptism, p. 5.

The reader can see the ignorance manifested by those who refer to Webster for a correct definition of baptizo by looking under this word “baptize,” which is not the English synonym of the Greek word. Webster gives every act which the people call baptism. How, then, are we to ascertain, without a doubt, the literal, real, or true meaning of the word Christ used? Authorities on interpretation tell us that we have five sources of information. The first and highest is the—1. Usage of standard writers in the age the author lived. The definitions we find in the lexicons are derived from this source; 2. The definitions given in standard lexicons; 3. The testimony of historians as to how the term was understood, and the rite performed at the time it was instituted; and, 4. The testimony of acknowledged scholars; 5. Internal evidence—i. e., the manifest sense in which the term is used by the author.

Now let us briefly appeal to these sources of information, and inquire: I. How did the ancient Greeks use it in the time of Christ and his apostles?

Dr. T. J. Conant, of New York, acknowledged to be one of the best Greek scholars in this continent, spent many years, with the assistance of eminent scholars on both continents, in collating and translating every instance of the use of baptizo in every Greek author whose work is extant. That every one can see the correctness of his translations he gives in his book the text of the authors. His work has been for years before the scholars of the world, and no one has objected to his translations. What is the result?

Every Greek author uses the term in every instance in the sense of to dip, to immerse, plunge, submerge; and in no instance in the sense of to sprinkle.

What must we conclude from this fact? That if Christ used baptizo in the sense the Greeks of his day used and understood it; he used it to signify to dip or immerse in water—this, and no other, meaning.

II. How do the lexicons define baptizo?

All the lexicons examined or quoted in the Carrollton debate2 (some fifty in all) gave to dip, to immerse or merse as the primary or literal signification. We have nothing to do with the figurative which is based upon the real or primary, and can mean nothing different from it.

In the last few years three Greek and English lexicons have appeared; one in England, of the “Greek Language in General,” by Liddell & Scott; and two Lexicons of the New Testament Greek, in Germany, and all by Pedobaptist scholars, and the three works are acknowledged by all scholars as eminently authoritative. The testimony of these three recent lexicons, embodying as they do the results of the ablest scholarship and latest

2 See Graves‐Ditzler Debate. criticism, should settle the meaning of baptize in the mind of every candid reader. I give them here.

1. Liddel & Scott, 6th Edition:

“To dip in or under water.”

Giving but this one literal or real definition of baptizo, the few figurative meanings are built upon the idea of an immersion. Thus do they support the declaration of Dr. Chas. Anthon:

“Baptizo, means to dip, to immerse; pouring and sprinkling are out of the question.”

2. Grimm’s Wilke’s Lexicon of the New Testament Greek:

“’(1) To immerse, submerge;’ ‘(2) to wash or bathe by immersing or submerging,’ which he says is the meaning of Mark vii:4, and in the cases of Naaman and Judith; figuratively to overwhelm as with debts, misfortunes, etc. In the New Testament rite, he says it denotes an immersion in water, intended as a sign of sins washed away, and received by those who wished to be admitted to the benefits of the Messiah’s reign. No hint of its meaning any thing else.”

Cremer’s Biblico-Theological Lexicon of the New Testament Greek:

He gives us the general meaning—“Immerse, submerge”—and says in the peculiar New Testament and Christian use the word “denotes immersion, submersion, for a religious purpose.” Not the shadow of the idea of sprinkling water upon an object is justified. According to the united testimony of all Greek lexicographers, Jesus commanded his apostles to immerse their disciples in water, and to-day commands his churches to immerse, thus forbidding them to sprinkle water upon them by his authority.

All scholars, all critics and lexicographers are agreed that in classic Greek baptizo means nothing else save to dip, to immerse, in or under water. But some few polemics claim that in New Testament Greek, its sacred use took on a different meaning, as to purify by the application of water, to wash or bathe by applying water to a part of the body.

To show how groundless this theory is, I quote a canon of interpretation from Morus, indorsed by Ernesti and Stuart:

“The principles of interpretation are common to sacred and ordinary writings, and the Scriptures are to be investigated by the same rules as other books.”

Moses Stuart (Pedobaptist) for thirty years professor in Andover Theological Seminary, upon this subject says,--and with his statement Bible readers and students can not be too familiar:

“If the sacred Scriptures be a revelation to men, then they are to be read and understood by men. If the same laws of language are not to be observed in this revelation, as are common to men, then they have no guide to the right understanding of the Scriptures, and our interpreter needs inspiration as much as the original writer. It follows, of course, that the sacred Scriptures would be no revelation in themselves, nor of any use except to those who are inspired. But such a book the sacred Scriptures are not, and nothing is more evident than that when God has spoken to men, he has spoken in the language of men, for he has spoken by men and for men.”

Before quoting the definitions given in all the lexicons of the New Testament, I submit the statement of Dr. Geo. Campbell, president of Marischal College, Scotland, a Presbyterian:

“The word baptizein, both in sacred authors and in classical, signifies to dip, to plunge, to immerse; and was rendered by Tertullian, and the old Latin fathers, tingere, the term used for dyeing cloth, which was by immersion. It is always construed suitably to this meaning (Note on Matt. iii:11). ‘I should think the word immersion (which, though of Latin origin, is an English noun) a better English name than baptism, were we now at liberty to make choice.’ ‘On the Gospels,’ vol. 2, p. 23, “I have heard a disputant * * in defiance of etymology and use, maintain that the word rendered in the New Testament baptize, means more properly to sprinkle than to plunge, and in defiance of all antiquity, that the former method was the earliest, and for many centuries the most general practice in baptizing. One who argues in this manner never fails with persons of knowledge to betray the cause he would defend; and, though with respect to the vulgar, bold assertions generally succeed as well as arguments—sometimes better— yet a candid mind will disdain to take the help of falsehood, even in support of truth.”—Lec. On Pul. Elo., p. 480.

THE TESTIMONY OF THE LEXICONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

Schleusner’s Lexicon of the New Testament:

“Baptizo—Properly to immerse and dip in, to immerse into water, and it answers to the Hebrew, Taval.”—2 k. v. 14. “Baptisma—Properly immersion, dipping into water, washing. Hence it is transferred to the sacred rite, which is called baptism, in which those formerly baptized were immersed in water,” etc.

Leigh:

“If we are willing to observe the import of the word, the term of baptism signifies immersion into water, or the act itself of immersing and washing off. Therefore, from the very name and etymology of the word, it appears what would, in the beginning, be the custom of administering baptism, whilst we now have for baptism rather rhantism—that is, sprinkling.”

Stokius, an authority of great weight:

“Baptizo.—1. Generally, and by force of the original, it denotes immersion or dipping; 2. Specially, properly, it denotes the immersion or dipping of a thing in water, that it may be cleansed or washed. Hence, it is transferred to designate the first of the New Testament, which they call of initiation, namely baptism, in which those to be baptized were formerly immersed into water, though, at this time, the water is only sprinkled upon them,” etc.

Wahl’s Clavis of New Testament (1829, Leipsic):

“Baptizo (from bapto, immerse; often to immerse in New Testament)—1. To immerse (always in Joseph. Antiquities, 9, 10, 2 and 16, 3, 3, Plyb., 1, 51,6), properly and truly concerning sacred immersion.

Dr. E. Robinson, American Presbyterian, in his Lexicon of New Testament:

“Baptizo—a frequentative in form, but not in fact; to immerse, to sink.”

Prof. Sophocles (Professor in Yale College), himself a native Greek. His Lexicon covers a period of 110 years before Christ to the year 1100 after:

“Baptizo—to dip, to immerse; sink, to be drowned (as the effect of sinking). Trop [figurative meaning], to afflict; soak in liquor; to be drunk, intoxicated. There is no evidence that Luke and Paul, and the other writers of the new Testament, put upon the very meanings not recognized by the Greeks.”

The latest editions of two of the great standard Lexicons of the New Testament Greek, viz.: Grimm’s Wilkes’ and Cremers’ “Biblico- Theological lexicon,” give only to dip, to immerse, as its literal and real sense everywhere in the new Testament (see their definition on page 6 of MS.).

So far as the authority of lexicographers and critics can determine the meaning of a word, they have settled the meaning of baptize and its cognates—the only word Christ or the apostles used in commanding or speaking of Christian baptism; and the verdict I will give in the forceful language of Prof. Stuart, of Andover (Pedobaptist):

“Bapto and Baptizo mean to dip, plunge, or immerse into any liquid. All lexicographers and critics of any note are agreed on this. It is, says Augusti, ‘a thing made out, viz.: The ancient practice of immersion. So, indeed, all the writers, who have thoroughly investigated the subject, conclude. I know of no usage of ancient times which seems to be more clearly made out. I can not see how it is possible for any candid man, who has examined the subject, to deny this.”—pp. 55, 149, 150.

HOW DO STANDARD HISTORIANS SAY THE CHURCHES IN THE APOSTLES’ TIME, AND FOR AGES AFTERWARD, BAPTIZED?

I will introduce a few of the representative historians, with a statement of Prof. L. L. Paine, D. D., who occupies the chair of Ecclesiastical History in the Bangor Theological Seminary (Congregational), which is his defense against the charge of teaching the young ministers under his tuition Baptist sentiments, because he teaches them that immersion was the universal practice of the apostolic churches for thirteen centuries after Christ, and the prevailing practice of christendom—sprinkling being the exception:

“It may be honestly asked by some, Was immersion the primitive form of baptism? And, if so, what then? As to the question of fact, the testimony is ample and decisive. No matter of church history is clearer. The evidence is all one way, and all church historians of any repute agree in accepting it. We can not claim even originality in teaching it in a Congregational Seminary; and we really feel guilty of a kind of anachronism in writing an article to insist upon it. It is a point on which ancient, mediaeval and modern historians alike, Catholics and Protestants, Lutherans and Calvinists, have no controversy; and the simple reason for this unanimity is, that the statements of the early fathers are so clear, and the light shed upon these statements from the early customs of the Church is so conclusive, that no historian, who cares for his reputation, would dare to deny it, and no historian who is worthy of the name would wish to. There are some historical questions concerning the early church on which the most learned writers disagree; * * but on this one—of the early practice of immersion— the most distinguished antiquarians—such as Bingham, Augusti, Coleman, Smith, and historians such as Mosheim, Gieseler, Hase, Neander, Millman, sChaff, and Alzog (Catholic)—hold a common language. The following extract from’Coleman’s Antiquities’ very accurately expresses what all agree to:

“’In the primitive Church, immersion was undeniably the common mode of baptism. The utmost that can be said of sprinkling in that early period was, in case of necessity, permitted as an exception to a general rule. This fact is so well established that it is needless to adduce authorities in proof of it.’”

As further testimony that sprinkling is an innovation upon the primitive act, I quote a sentence from Dr. Schaff’s “Apostolic Church.” he is the highest Presbyterian authority in America:

“As to the outward mode of administering this ordinance, immersion and not sprinkling was unquestionably the original normal form. * * But while immersion was the universal custom, an abridgment of the rite was freely allowed and defended in cases of urgent necessity, such as sickness and approaching death [for which Christ made no provision]: and the peculiar form of sprinkling thus came to be known as ‘clinical’ baptism, or the baptism of the sick. * * And hence it is difficult to determine, with complete accuracy, just when immersion gave way to sprinkling as the common church practice. The two forms were employed—one as the rule, the other as the exception—until, as Christianity traveled northward into colder climates, the exception silently grew to be the rule.”

I will not present two or three only of the representative historians and scholars of the leading Pedobaptist sects, commencing with—

ROMAN CATHOLIC HISTORIANS AND SCHOLARS

It is well known to all scholars that the Catholics claim that their church has the right to change rites and ceremonies and determine doctrines, and that this Mother Church did substitute sprinkling for immersion, and infants for believers. History confirms this alleged fact.

Robinson, in his “History of Baptism,” upon unquestioned authority, states this:

“In the spring of the next year (754) in answer to some Monks of Cressy, in Brittany, who privately consulted him—Pope Stephen III—he gave his opinion on nineteen questions, one of which is allowed to be the first authentic law for administering baptism by pouring, which, in time, was interpreted to signify sprinkling. The question proposes was:

“’Whether, in case of necessity, occasioned by illness of an infant, it were lawful to baptize by pouring water, out of the hand or cup, on the head of the infant.’ “Stephen answered: ‘If such a baptism were performed, in such a case of necessity, in the name of the Holy Trinity, it should be held valid.’”

Robinson says:

“The answer of Stephen is the true origin of private baptism and of sprinkling.”

The learned Jas. Basnage says:

“That it was not till 557 years after, that the Legislature, in a Council at Ravenna, in the year 1311, declared dipping or sprinkling indifferent.”— History Baptists, p. 429.

This historical fact will enable the reader to understand the foundation of the claims of Catholic scholars.

The Rt. Rev. John Milner, D. D., in “End of Religious Controversy” (p. 288), says:

“Indeed, Protestants are forced to have recourse to the traditions of the Church [i. e., Catholic] for determining a great number of points which are left doubtful by the Sacred Text, particularly with respect to the two , which they acknowledge. From the doctrine and practice of the Church alone they learn that, though Christ, our Pattern, was baptized in a river [Mark i:9], and the Ethiopian eunuch was led by Philip into the water [Acts viii;38], for the same purpose, the application of it by or aspersion is valid; and that, though Christ says, ‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,’ infants are susceptible of the benefits of baptism, who are incapable of making an act of faith.”

If you, my reader, have only been sprinkled for baptism, in your unconscious infancy, will you ponder well where the substitute for what Christ commanded came from? And will you, can you, indorse your baptism, and thus indorse the Romish Apostasy as the true Church of Christ?

But we know that Christ did not originate a rite, or allow his churches to originate one, that would make void his own positive commandment. Sprinkling contravenes his command to immerse; and infant baptism contravenes and nullifies his command to immerse believers, which was his express command, as the Catholics themselves admit, as we have seen above. Let us hear Kendrick (Catholic) on this point:

“When religion [i. e., the Catholic] had consummated her triumphs over Paganism, in the various countries of Europe, and the regenerated parents were diligently instructed [by catholic priests] in the duty of presenting their children to be baptized at the earliest period possible, AGES PASSED AWAY WITH SCARCELY AN INSTANCE OF THE BAPTISM OF ADULTS. Hence, the necessity of receding from the mode of immersion became still more frequent, since the tender infant oftentimes could not be immersed without peril of its life. The cases thus multiplying, the more solemn method fell into gradual disuse, until it has, in most places, been entirely superseded.”—Kendrick on Baptism, pp. 175- 6.

Sir John Floyer says:

“The Church of Rome hath drawn short compendiums of both sacraments. In the , they use only the wafer, and, instead of immersion, they introduced aspersion.”

EPISCOPALIAN HISTORIANS

Dr. Wall is accounted a standard historian by the Episcopalians of England and America. In his “History of Infant Baptism” (part 2, ch. 2, p.462), he bears this testimony to the apostolic act of baptism:

“Their general and ordinary way was to baptize by immersion, or dipping the person, whether it were an infant or grown man or woman, into the water. This is to plain by an infinite number of passages, that, as one can not but pity the weak endeavors of such Pedobaptists as would maintain the negative of it; so, also, we ought to disown and show a dislike to the profane scoffs which some people give the English Anti-Pedobaptists [Baptists]s merely for their use of dipping. It was in all probability the way by which our blessed Lord, and for certain was the most usual and ordinary way by which the ancient Christians did receive their baptism. It is a great want of prudence, as well as moral honesty to refuse to grant to an adversary what is certainly true and may be proved so. It creates a jealousy of all the rest that one says. As for sprinkling, I say with Mr. Blake, at its first coming up in England, ‘Let them defend it who use it.’”

He further says:

“What is said of this custom of pouring or sprinkling water, in the ordinary use of baptism, is to be understood only in reference to those western parts of Europe, for it is ordinarily nowhere else. The Greek Church does still use immersion, and so do all other Christians in the world except the Latins [i. e., Catholics]. All those nations of Christians that do now, or formerly did, submit to the authority of the Bishop of Rome, do ordinarily baptize infants by pouring, or sprinkling; but all other Christians in the world who never owned the Pope’s usurped power do, and ever did dip in the ordinary use. All the Christians in Asia; all in Africa, and about one-third of Europe, are of the last sort.”—Part 2, chapter ix, p. 376.

As the most scholarly living Episcopalian historian of England, I select Dr. Stanley, Dean of Westminster, who will not only testify to the change of the act from immersion to sprinkling, but will frankly tell us why the divine act was abolished and a human act substituted for it:

“We now pass to the changes in the form itself. For the first thirteen centuries the almost universal practice of baptism was that of which we read in the New Testament, and which is the very meaning of the word ‘baptize’— that those who were baptized, were plunged, submerged, immersed into water. The practice is still as we have seen continued in Eastern churches. [The Greek Church has always immersed.] In the Western church it still lingers among Roman Catholics in the solitary instance of the Cathedral of Milan. Among Protestants, in the austere sect of the Baptists [Baptists, however austere, are not protestants] it lasted long into the Middle Ages. Even the Icelanders, who at first shrank from the water of their freezing lakes, were reconciled when they found that they could use the warm waters of the Geysers. And the cold climate of Russia has not been found an obstacle to its continuance throughout that vast empire. Even in the Church of England it is still observed in theory. Elizabeth and Edward VI. Were both immersed. The Rubric on the public baptism of infants enjoins that unless, for special cases, they are to be dipped, not sprinkled. But in practice it gave way since the beginning of the seventeenth century. With the few exceptions just mentioned, the whole of the Western churches have now substituted for the ancient bath, the ceremony of sprinkling a few drops of water on the face. The reason of the change is obvious. The practice of immersion, apostolic and primitive as it was, was peculiarly suitable to the Southern and Eastern countries for which it was designed3 and peculiarly unsuitable to the tastes, the convenience and the feelings of the countries of the North and West. [Sprinkling] not beginning till the thirteenth century, it has gradually driven the ancient Catholic [he means general] usage [of immersion] out of the whole of Europe. It [immersion] had no doubt the sanction of the apostles and of their Master. It had the sanction of the venerable churches of the early ages and of the sacred countries of the East. Baptism, by sprinkling, was rejected by the whole ancient church (except in the rare case of death-beds or extreme necessity_ as no baptism at all . . . Perhaps no greater change has ever taken place in the outward form of Christian ceremony with such general agreement. It is a greater change even than that which the Roman has made

3 Was not immersion designed for all nations?—did Christ in the great commission except any country on account of its climate? in administering the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, in bread without the wine. For that was a change which did not affect the thing that was signified; whereas, the change from immersion to sprinkling has set aside the larger part of the apostolic language regarding baptism, and has altered the very meaning of the word.”

Of living Episcopalian historians in America, I select B. B. Smith, D. D., Bishop of Kentucky. He testifies:

“We have only to go back six or eight hundred years and immersion was the only mode, except in the case of the few baptized in their beds at the real or supposed approach of death . . . Immersion was not only universal six or eight hundred years ago, but it was primitive and apostolic. . . The bowl and sprinkling are strictly Genevan in their origin; that is, they were introduced by Calvin at Geneva.”—History of Baptism.

LUTHERAN HISTORIANS AND SCHOLARS.

I can give but short extracts from a few among a host that press forward to testify. But, first of all, let Luther, the father of , speak:

“Baptism is a Greek word, and may be translated immersion, as when we immerse something in water that it may be wholly covered, and although it is almost wholly abolished (for they do not dip the whole, i. e., children, but pour a little water on them), they ought to be wholly immersed . . . for that the etymology of the term seems to demand.”

Luther confesses that immersion, in his day, had been “almost wholly abolished,” and that sprinkling had taken its place. In the Schmalcalden Articles which he drew up he plainly states that “baptism is nothing else than the word of God with immersion in water.”

Mosheim, whose history is standard in both continents, says that in the first, second, and third centuries, immersion was the unbroken practice of the churches. (See vol. 1, pp. 46, 69, 121).

Neander says:

“The practice of immersion in the first century was beyond all doubt prevalent in the whole church.”—Letter to Judd.

Winer:

“Affusion was first applied only to the sick, but was gradually introduced for others [the sick] after the seventh century; and in the thirteenth it became the prevailing practice in the West.”—Lect. Christ. Antiq.

Von Collen, in his History of Doctrines, says:

“Immersion in water was general until the thirteenth century; among the Latins it was then displaced by sprinkling, but retained by the Greeks.”—Vol. 2, p. 303.

Dr. Gieseler, professor in the University of Bonn and Gottingen:

“For the sake of the sick the rite of sprinkling was introduced.”—Ch. His., Ger. Ed., vol. 3, p. 274.

Dr. Kurtz, professor in University of Dorpt, author of “Christian History” and “Sacred History”:

“Baptism in the first centuries was administered by complete immersion. Sprinkling was only common in case of the rich.”—Ch. His., p. 119.

This justifies the declaration of Dean Stanley, that immersion, especially in cold climates, was peculiarly unsuitable to the tastes, the convenience, and the feelings of this class.

PRESBYTERIAN.

A few witnesses must suffice, and since the founder of this denomination should have the greatest weight with his followers, I first introduce the illustrious Calvin. Commenting on the immersion of the eunuch, he says:

“From this verse we clearly see what was the rite of baptism among the ancients; for they were accustomed to immerse the whole body in water (totum corpus in aquam). At the present time (sixteenth century) the practice has gained ground for the minister only to sprinkle water on the body or head.” “The very word baptize, however, signifies to immerse and it is certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient church.”—Cal. Inst., b. iv, c. xv, ~xix.

Will Presbyterians believe those men among them who will assert on the face of this witness, that the word does not mean immerse, and immersion was not the practice of the primitive church, as not a few are now doing? Calvin declared concerning the baptism of Christ:

“Moreover, from these words of Matt. iii:22,23, we may learn that John and Christ administered baptism by the submersion of the whole body (totins corpore submersione).” See his Com. on Matt. iii: 22,23.

Zwingle testifies to the same fact, as do all the great scholars of the seventeenth century.

D. Chamierus, professor at Montauban A. D. 1621:

“Immersion of the whole body was used from the beginning, which expresses the force of the word baptize, whence John baptized in a river. It was afterward changed into sprinkling, though it is uncertain when or by whom [we have seen above by whom and about the time when] it commenced.”—Panstrat. Cathol., tom. iv, 1. V, ch. ii, ~6.

METHODIST TESTIMONY.

John Wesley, the originator of that system of religion called Methodism (1729), (which was called a church in America in 1784), was the most learned man of his order. In his Notes on Romans vi:4, says:

“’Buried with him,’ etc., alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion.”

On Colossians ii:11—

“The ancient manner of baptizing by immersion is manifestly alluded to here.”

In his Journal for Georgia, February 21, 1736, he says:

“Mary Welch, aged eleven days, was baptized according to the custom of the first church, and the rule of the church of England, by immersion.”

I will close this with

THE TESTIMONY OF TEN STANDARD CYCLOPEDIAS.

My extracts must necessarily be brief, but they will indicate the position of each work.

The “Edinburgh Encyclopedia,” after stating that in the time of the apostles the one mode was immersion in water, it states:

“It was not till 1311, that the legislature in council held at Ravenna, declared immersion or sprinkling to be indifferent. In this country (Scotland), however, sprinkling was never practiced in ordinary cases before the (1636). From Scotland it made its way into England, in the reign of Elizabeth, but was not authorized by the Established Church.”

“Encyclopedia Britannica” describes the influences by which it was introduced into Great Britain:

“Several of our protestant divines flying into Germany and Switzerland during the reign of bloody Mary, and returning home when Elizabeth came to the crown, brought back with them a great zeal for the Protestant churches beyond the sea, where they had been sheltered and received; and, having observed that at Geneva and other places, baptism was administered by sprinkling, they thought they could not do the Church of England a greater service than by introducing a practice dictated by so great an authority as Calvin.”

Thus the reader sees that Pope Stephen first authorized the change; and the Catholic Council at Ravenna, 1311, by law sanctioned sprinkling as equal to immersion. Calvin sanctioned the act and adopted it, and through his influence it was adopted by Protestants.

“Encyclopedia Metropolitan”:

“We readily admit that the literal meaning of the word baptizo, baptize, is immersion, and that the desire of resorting again to the most ancient practice of the church of immersing the body, which has been expressed by many divines, is well worthy of being considered.”

“Encyclopedia Americana”:

“Baptism (that is, dipping, immersing, from the Greek, baptizo), was usual with the Jews even before Christ. In the time of the apostles, the form of baptism was very simple. The person to be baptized was dipped in a river or a vessel, with the words which Christ had ordered; and express more fully his change of character generally adopted a new name.”

“Encyclopedia Ecclesiastica”:

“Whatever weight, however, may be in these reasons as a defense for the present practice of sprinkling, it is evident that during the first ages of the church, and for centuries afterward, the practice of immersin prevailed.”

I will conclude the testimony of lexicographers, and critics, and scholars of all denominations, touching the meaning of the word Christ used in enjoining the act of baptism, and the unbroken practice of the apostolic churches and of Catholics and Protestants until, save in extreme cases, the thirteenth century, when, through the influence of Calvin, sprinkling was introduced among Protestants, by using the language of Moses Stuart:

“I know of no usage of ancient times which seems to be more clearly made out. I can not see how it is possible for any candid man who examines the subject to deny this.”

And even with the stronger language of Dr. Paine, of Bangor Theological Seminary (Congregationalist:)

“Any scholar who denies that immersion was the baptism of the Christian church for thirteen centuries betrays UTTER IGNORANCE or SECTARIAN BLINDNESS.”

The candid reader will admit that if he has only been sprinkled, he has not received the baptism that Christ commanded, but only an act substituted for it by the Church of Rome—an act which he never has and never can approve or bless—since it is no Christian baptism at all. Christ said of the wicked ministers of his day: “Ye do make the commandments of God of non- effect by your traditions.” To assist the one wishing to understand the teachings of the New Testament touching the acts, I will call his attention to the various circumstantial accounts of its administration; since Dr. Beecher informs us that, from the word baptizo, we can learn nothing,. Because it was purposely left untranslated.4 (See “Import of Baptism,” p. 5.)

4 Yet how many advocates of sprinkling boastfully challenge Baptists to find the word immersion in connection with baptism in the New Testament! Do they not know that baptizo and baptismos were left untranslated, so as not to give Baptists the advantage of God’s word?

CHAP. III. THE EVIDENT MEANING OF THE WORD BAPTIZO FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING THE ACT.

John the Baptist, the first apostle of Christ, and specially sent to preach and to baptize his converts into the name and authority of Christ the Messiah, resorted to places where there was much water—as the River Jordan and to Enon. He at no time baptized where there was any probably lack of water to immerse in.

We know that those who sprinkle never do resort to rivers, or where there is much water, but use a bowl or pitcher in the church, an ordinary pitcher-ful of water being sufficient to baptize the largest assembly every convened in one house or place.

Matthew tells us that John first baptized in the River Jordan. I will translated literally according to the Vatican manuscript:

“Then resorted to him and all Judea, and all the country along the Jordan; and were—baptized(?)—by him in the River Jordan.”—3:5,6.

John tells us what act he performed in his speech to the people:

“I indeed—baptize(?)—you—en hudah—in water, not with, as all scholars will testify. * * He will immerse you in the Holy Spirit and in fire.”

This latter baptism was certainly an immersion, and so John explained it, v. 12.

Mark describes John’s baptism thus:

“John was—baptizing(?)—in the desert, and publishing a—baptism(?)—of repentance for the remission of sins. And there resorted to him all the country of Judea and all those of Jerusalem, and were—baptized(?)—by him in the River Jordan. * * I—baptize(?)—you in water, but he will— baptize(?)—you in the Holy Spirit.”

Touching the translation of en here, which settles the whole question of the act, I remark the Douay version of the Catholics translate it “in water,” and in the Jordan; and Dr. Geo. Campbell of Scholand (Presbyterian), says:

“I am sorry to observe that the Popish translators from the Vulgate have shown greater veneration for the style of that version than of the original. For the Latin is not more explicit than the Greek. Yet so inconsistent are the interpreters last mentioned, that none of them have scrupled to render en too Iordane, in the sixth verse, ‘in Jordan;’ though nothing can be plainer, than that if there be any incongruity in the expression ‘in water,’ this, ‘in Jordan,’ must be equal incongruous. But they have seen that preposition in could not be avoided there without adopting a circumlocution, and saying ‘with the water of Jordan,’ which would have made their deviation from the text too glaring.”

THE .

Matthew gives this account:

“Then came Jesus from Galilee to Jordan to be—baptized(?)—by John. And Jesus being—baptized(?)—went up straightway out of the water,” etc.

The Douay Bible:

“And Jesus being baptized forthwith came out of the water.”

Dr. Geo. Campbell (Presbyterian):

“No sooner arose out of the water.”

Mark records his baptism thus:

“And it came to pass in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was—baptized(?)—by John, eis, literally into, the Jordan. And as soon as he arose out of the water.”—(Dr. Campbell.)

Now if there can be any question as to the act John performed upon Christ in the River Jordan, whether he immersed, buried him in the water, or poured or sprinkled water upon him, Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, informs us: "Therefore, being buried with Christ by baptism" (Rom. vi:4), and "buried with Christ in baptism" (Col. ii: 12), let us translate baptize by Paul's definition—"And was buried by John in the Jordan." "I indeed bury you in water—'i. e., immerse you in water." No one certainly was ever buried by sprinkling a few drops of water, or placing a moistened finger upon the forehead. When we bury we cover the entire body with earth, and John covered the entire body of Christ with the water, by immersing him in it.

It was recorded of John that he afterwards baptized in Enon near to Salim, because there was much water there; and they came and were baptized.— John iii: 23.

An intelligent lawyer of this State told me that these accounts alone thoroughly convinced him that John immersed his subjects, and that Christ was immersed. It is universally conceded by all scholars that John immersed his converts, and that the Blessed Savior was immersed. The reader re- members the admissions of Calvin and Wall touching the act that John performed for baptism.

THE BAPTISM OF THE EUNUCH. We have another baptism, minutely described by Luke in Acts viii: 36—the baptism of the eunuch by Philip. "And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water, what doth hinder me? And he ordered the chariot to stop, 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, that the eunuch saw him no more, and he went on his way rejoicing." It is impossible for a candid person to conclude that Philip would have taken the eunuch down into the water to sprinkle a few drops upon his head. See Calvin's comments upon this baptism. CHAP. IV. THE ACT DETERMINED BY ITS SYMBOLISM.

All are agreed that baptism, like the Supper, has a symbolical signification—that it represents some thing or things. If we can ascertain what the act or acts of baptism symbolizes, we can, without a doubt, determine the act. This would be called the internal evidence of the meaning of the term.

The apostle tells us (I Peter iii: 21) that baptism is a "figure''—a symbol— a rite appointed to represent something. Whatever it is said to do, it does figuratively—representatively. What baptism figures or symbolizes we must learn from Christ and his apostles.

I. It is claimed by the advocates of affusion that baptism was designed to represent, or figure, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is said to have been "poured out" on the day of Pentecost, and, therefore, the water of baptism should be poured out. There are two insurmountable objections to this theory.

(1) Baptism was originated and practiced three years before this event; and did it prefigure or typify the baptism of the Holy Spirit during this time, and then symbolize it afterward? Where do we learn this?

(2) The phrase itself—"pouring out"—applied to the "Holy Spirit," is confessedly a figurative expression, as is "baptism in the Holy Spirit"— for no sane man believes the Spirit was ever literally poured out. This would imply that the Holy Spirit was a material, and divisible into particles, as water or sand. Now, in all the Word, we never find a type of a type, a figure of a figure, any more than we can find a shadow of a shadow, in the physical world. A figure represents a fact, as a shadow does a substance. This theory is transparently absurd. Christ tells us what he designed his baptism to represent to our eyes, when he declared that it was "to fulfill all righteousness." He did not mean that he fulfilled all righteousness literally in his baptism, but figuratively only.5 The all righteousness he referred to was the work he came to earth to do for us— believing, trusting solely in which constitutes our all-sufficient righteousness before God. This work consisted of three grand achievements—his death on the cross, where he made full satisfaction for our sins to the divine government; his burial and conquest over death and the grave for us; and his resurrection, by which he assured our resurrection. Paul says (I Cor.), These three acts constitute the Gospel by which we are saved, if we rightly apprehend and believe them—i. e., 1. How that Christ died for our sins; 2. That he was buried; 3. That he rose the third day.

These grand acts Christ figured—represented to the eyes of all beholders—in his baptism. He was buried (Rom. vi.) in the water, thus implying his death; he was raised out of the water, thus representing his rising from the grave. It was thus he fulfilled all righteousness; and it is thus he requires us to represent in our baptism what he did for us.

"Thus did the glorious Prince of Life All righteousness fulfill, In emblem of that fiercer strife, Where, by his Father's will, He sank beneath death's darker flood, And angels saw him bathed in blood."

Christ called his crucifixion a baptism: "I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!"—(Luke xii: 50.)

Paul spoke of baptism as a representation of the crucifixion of Christ:

"O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been set forth [represented as] crucified among you?"—(Gal. iii: I.)

5 See Doctrinal Sermons No. 2—“The Symbolism of Baptism.” Price, 10 cents. Not to their ears only had it been described, but also represented "before their eyes."

2. In writing to the brethren at Rome (vi: 6), Paul incidentally refers to the profession they made in their baptism, by way of refuting the idea that Christians could continue in sin. He argues that it was impossible for them to do it, if their profession was true—for, in their baptism, they had professed to be dead to sin, and had symbolically declared this by being buried in their baptism, and had professed to have entered upon a new life, by the act of their rising out of the water; and more, that, having been planted—buried—in the likeness of Christ's death, they would at last rise, physically, in the likeness of Christ's resurrec- tion. We represent, therefore, in our baptism, the death, burial and resurrection of Christ; and that we have received the benefits of this death, and shall finally be raised, bodily, in his likeness.

Paul (I Cor. xv: 29) evidently refers to baptism as symbolizing the resurrection of the dead; "Else what shall they do who are baptized for [the resurrection of] the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why then are they baptized for the resurrection of the dead?" The context demands that the term '' resurrection " should be understood as referring primarily to the resurrection of Christ, and secondarily to our own, since his was an earnest of ours. This appeal to the profession they made in their baptism was an argumentum ad hominem, as logicians would say. They could not believe with those who said, "There is no resurrection of the dead," without renouncing the faith they had symbolically professed in baptism—of their own resurrection.

The most eminent Pedobaptist scholars and commentators agree that the above is the symbolism of Christian baptism.

McKnight (Presbyterian):

"Christ's Baptism was not the baptism of repentance, for he never committed any sin; but he submitted to be baptized—that is, to be buried under the water by John, and to be raised up out of it again, as an emblem of his future death and resurrection. In like manner the baptism of believers is emblematical of their death and resurrection."—Prem. Ess. on Epis.

I. Jones, D. D. (President Girard College), in "Jesus and Coming Glory:"

"'Suffer it,' etc., rather aphes arti—'suffer at this time.' There is a tacit allusion to another time coming, as if the Lord had said, 'I have now come to offer the human body[i. e., to pour out my divine soul] as a sacrifice for sin; and the baptism of it, which I seek at your hands, is a typical showing forth of the sacrifice I am to make; but I shall come at another time, and, at that, my second coming, this rite will not be proper, for then I will come without a sin offering, not in a body to be sacrifices for, but in, glory. May we not suppose that the Lord then first made known to him the mystery of his suffering and his death? It was after that, too, that John called Jesus the '‘Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world.' " Conybeare and Howson (Episcopalians):

"With him, therefore, we are buried by baptism, wherein we [figuratively] shared his death. This clause, which is here left elliptical, is fully expressed in Col. ii: 12 : ' Buried with him in baptism,' etc. This passage can not be understood, unless it be borne in mind that the primitive baptism was by immersion."—Notes on Romans.

Baptism, then, was appointed to symbolize—I. The death, burial and resurrection of Christ, by which acts believers receive the benefits of his atonement; 2. That the recipient has, by faith, been vitally united with Christ, and received the benefits of his death, and will be raised with him in the likeness of his resurrection.

The reader can decide from this if he has ever been scripturally baptized. Sprinkling or pouring a few drops of water upon the head can not symbolize, or figure these grand facts, and hence are not the acts Christ commanded. An immersion of a believer in water will alone do it, and must have been the acts Christ commanded. CHAP. V. THE EFFECT OF BAPTISM.

1. Negatively, it does not procure for us the remission of past sins.

Christ has not proposed two ways for this blessing to be attained, nor is the way proclaimed in the New different from the one taught in the Old Testament, and that was undoubtedly by faith alone, disconnected with any overt act:

"To him gave all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth on him shall receive the remission of sins." (Acts x :43.)

2. Nor by baptism do we wash our sins away, save in a figure, for—

" The blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth from all sin." (i John i:7.)

3. Nor by baptism are we regenerated or born again:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a man be born from above, he can not see the kingdom of God."—Christ.

4. Nor are we made the children of God by baptism:

"For we are all the children of God by faith in Jesus Christ." (Gal. iii: 26.)

Nor is baptism even a means or a sacrament by which, or on account of which, we have access to Christ, through whom we alone obtain every needed grace:

"Therefore, being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: by whom, also, we have access by faith into this grace, wherein ye stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God." (Rom. v:I.)

It is constantly asked of Baptists, What good does baptism do if it in no ways secures you salvation?

I answer, Much every way, and chiefly because—

I. By submitting to the act he appointed we obey Christ.

No words or thought can express or conceive the obligations we are under to love Christ and to obey him. The slave that is bought with the gold of the master is under obligations to serve him, or the captive whose life has been saved or redeemed by the sacrifice of another is under weighty obliga- tions, to love, and to gratify the reasonable wishes of his redeemer and savior. The child is under the highest earthly obligations to love and do the will of his father, and for it to refuse is to violate all filial obligations. But Christ redeemed us, when captives, from the enemy of our souls ; and when he found us sold under sin he not only redeemed us by laying down his own life for us, but through him we have been adopted into the heavenly family, and made sons and daughters of the Most High God. Our obligations to obey Christ are infinite, and, as certainly as we are his children, we will desire to obey, and we will love to obey; and the language of our hearts will be, "Lord what wilt thou have me to do?” The characteristicspirit of Christ was that of obedience; and the Holy Spirit saith, '' He that hath not the mind of Christ is none of his." Baptism is the first and most important act of obedience Christ requires of his child—an act without which we can not obey several other important commands of Christ.

2. By baptism we honor Christ.

It is not by our words and professions that we put the highest honor upon Christ. Indeed, if we stop at words and professions he will not accept us. The highest honor we can reflect upon Christ is to cheerfully obey him in all things whatsoever he commands us. He abominates mere lip service. How severe the reproof he gave this class when in the flesh: "Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things I command you?" "Ye hypocrites, well, did Isaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me." (Matt, xv:7, 8.)

What a privilege of being allowed by any act to put honor upon Christ before men and angels! A child of God will consider this his highest joy.

3. By obeying Christ in baptism we secure many and special blessings.

David testified that in keeping the commandments of his God, there was great reward, and that reward is both here and hereafter. If we are a friend of Christ or child of God we desire to honor him. But in no way possible can we honor Christ or offer him more sincere worship than by obedience to his commands ; and he has said, ''They that honor me will my Father honor." Who can estimate the value and the blessedness of being honored of God before men here and angels hereafter:

"If a man love me he will keep my words, and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." (John xiv:23.)

"Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you."

What more or greater blessings for time can be desired than are implied in the above two promises? And then when we meet him at last we hear him say:

"Well done good and faithful servant, thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things; enter thou into the joy of thy Lord."

What more of heaven could be expressed than are implied in these words? We may assure ourselves that Christ will not tell an untruth to save any one. The willingly, no more than the willfully disobedient will hear those words.

Then there is a special blessing promised that none but the truly baptized do enjoy, namely, "The answer—satisfaction—of a good conscience toward God."

Baptism has no part in making a good conscience. The quickening of the Holy Spirit and the enlightenment of the word make a good conscience, that can only be quieted and satisfied when full obedience to Christ's command has been rendered; and therefore no other act for baptism but the one Christ commands will ever satisfy a good conscience. Tens of thousands have testified to this, and thousands yearly, ministers and members, testify that nothing but being buried with Christ in baptism, to show forth his death, burial and resurrection for their salvation, avails to satisfy their consciences.

4. We profess our faith, confess our discipleship, and evidence our friendship for Christ before men.

These acts Christ requires of every friend,—

"Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies bathed in pure water, let us hold fast the profession of our faith." (Heb. x.)

"If thou wilt openly confess with thy mouth, that Jesus is Lord, and wilt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." (Heb. x:9,10.)

"For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of Man be ashamed when he shall come in his glory," etc. (Luke ix:26.)

"And whosoever doth not bear his cross and come after me can not be my disciple. Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you." (John xv :14.)

5. By baptism we are introduced into a local church, and thereby into Christ's visible kingdom:

"Christ has a kingdom on earth, and he has churches. No one of his churches is his kingdom, but each one is an integral portion of his kingdom."—Dr. A, P. Williams.

The visible churches, then, compose his kingdom, and by entering a church we enter his kingdom. We are baptized into a visible church.

On the day of Pentecost three thousand were added to the church by baptism. They were baptized, and there is no intimation of any intervening act. Baptism, then, according to the record, if it is full, was the consummating act. Christ said to Nicodemus, "Unless a man be born of water, and [added to the birth] of the Spirit, he could not enter his kingdom." Paul says: "For in one spirit we were all baptized into one body;" i. e., some local church, like that at Corinth; and lest any one might conceive that by one " body" he did not mean a local church, but some one universal, general body, in the twenty-seventh verse, he expressly tells them: "Now ye are a body of Christ and members in part," i. e., fellow-members.

The oldest Articles of faith put forth by our fathers are those of 1120. In the seventh article, after stating that they regarded baptism as an outward sign of an invisible grace, read:

"And by this ordinance we are received into the holy congregation of God's people."

Dr. Dagg says: "The opinion has been held, almost as a theological axiom, that baptism is the door into the church," and we add, not by Baptists, but by all denominations.

Dr. Harvey's work on "The Church," issued by the American Baptist Publication Society, says:

"Baptism is the rite of admission to the church, the public act of separating from the world and uniting with God's people. It is the door of the house of God." CHAP. VI. BAPTISM, BY INITIATING US INTO A LOCAL CHURCH OF CHRIST, ENTITLES US TO ALL THE PRIVILEGES AND RIGHTS OF THE CHURCH, NOT LEAST AMONG THOSE IS THE LORD'S SUPPER.

Christ has placed this sacred feast within, and under the guardianship of his local churches, and no one who has not been duly initiated according to the appointment of Christ, can partake of the Supper without profaning the feast and eating and drinking unworthily, and thereby ''eating and drinking damnation to himself" (I Cor. xi).6 By commanding every disciple to partake of the Supper, he virtually commanded him to qualify himself to do so, by being baptized into His "body "—one of his local churches.

From the above considerations we see that baptism, though not a condition of salvation, is far from being an unimportant or non-essential duty, since it is essential to our obedience to Christ, and essential to his public recognition by us as our Savior and King—essential to membership in his church and citizenship in his kingdom—essential to our highest usefulness and happiness in this life, and to receiving the highest reward and honor in the kingdom of His glory.

An unwillingness to obey in the manner he has specified, and a willingness to accept a substitute, because suited to our "tastes, feelings, and convenience," should be convincing proof that our hearts are not in subjection to the Anointed One; that we have not the spirit of Christ, and are none of his.

6 See Tract by the Author, entitled “What is it to Eat and to Drink Unworthily?” Price, 10 cents. CHAP. VII. THE ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM.

The question is often asked, and it may be asked by the reader, "To whom should I apply for Christian baptism?" The question is an important one; since, if you are not baptized by the proper authority, let the act be what it may, the act is null and void. A foreigner seeking citizenship in this government must apply to an officer of the government, and the one authorized to give him his papers. He may not apply to any officer, and certainly not to an officer of another government. "How, then," you may ask "can I know the proper officer to administer Christian baptism?" It certainly is not by an examination of men and their credentials; but it is required of you to find a church that administers the act which Christ commanded, and for the purpose and to the subjects Christ requires, and that church will furnish the proper officer—for it is the church that administers the rite and not the officer, per se—he is but the hand, the servant of the church. The ordinances of baptism and the Supper were not intrusted to the ministry to administer to whomsoever they deem qualified, but to the churches, to be observed by them "as they were delivered unto them." (I Cor. xi: 2.) Every common reader of the New Testament can easily decide between the different religious societies claiming to be , which one of them all administers baptism as here set forth; for only one denomination does thus administer it. CHAP. VIII. MISCELLANEOUS MATTER.

From the overwhelming mass of proof submitted, every candid reader must conclude that immersion was the act Christ commanded, and the apostles and primitive churches observed. He can fully appreciate the statement of Prof. Moses Stuart (Pedobaptist), "lean not see how it is possible for any candid man who has examined the subject to deny this," and he will concede that the strong assertion of Prof. Paine, D. D., of the Bangor Theological Seminary (Pedobaptist), is not too strong, viz., "Any scholar who denies that immersion was the baptism of the Christian church for thirteen centuries, betrays utter ignorance or sectarian blindness." This being the established and admitted fact, the following conclusion is inevitably follow:

I. If Christ commanded his apostles to immerse professed believers for baptism, in or into the name of the Trinity, he certainly forbade them to sprinkle or pour a few drops of water upon their heads in his name. The commission is the express law for baptism, and is to be construed as any other law. It is a fundamental principle of interpreting law that the specification is the limit of the act.

This maxim is as old as the Julian Code—"Specificatio, unius, exclusio alterius"— the specification of one thing is the prohibition of every other thing.

If Christ specified immersion in water in his name, he as positively forbade any other act, as sprinkling of water upon the subject in the name of the Trinity, which means by the authority of. It is a most daring act for a Christian minister, in open violation of Christ's express command, to sprinkle and pour, and then solemnly declare before God and men that he does it by the authority of Christ! and by the authority of God the Father! and by the authority of the Holy Spirit! I would not do it for a thousand worlds!! And if it could be worse to sprinkle an infant, a non-believer, when Christ specified a believer, thus positively and expressly forbidding the baptism of an infant as well sprinkling for baptism.

This we are all justified in saying—and, if we are the friends of Jesus we are in duty bound to say—that such a human substitution for the act Christ commanded is no baptism, and far worse than no baptism.

But Dr. N. L. Rice (Old School), in his work on Baptism, asserts:

2. The second fact, that where there is no scriptural baptism there can be no churches, no ministers, and no Christian ordinances.

This, then, is the conclusion from which there is no escape; that Pedobaptist societies are not Christian or evangelical churches in any sense, and their preachers, not being baptized, are not members of a church of Christ, and are not ordained, and are without the shadow of authority to baptize others, any more than any other unbaptized men.

3. The third fact is that all who have received the office of "baptism" at their hands by any act, are before God unbaptized. This seems a hard sentence, but it is the fact, just as certainly as immersion was commanded by Christ, which no candid man will deny, and duty to the misled and faithfulness to the truth constrains me to say it. And it is a fact that not less than ten thousand a year, including ministers as well as members, acknowledge the force of it, and come to Baptists for Christian immersion. It is evident, if Pedobaptist ministers are unbaptized themselves, they can not administer valid immersions—can not give what they themselves do not possess.

4.But if Pedobaptists and Campbellite societies are not churches, because unbaptized, they have, as Dr. Rice says, no Lord's Supper; the rite they celebrate not being that Supper, and, therefore, it is as wrong for any to partake of it as that ordinance, as it would for a company of unbaptized converts to presume to celebrate the Supper without a church and without baptism. No conscientious Baptist could desire, or would presume to participate in such a transaction.

The fact of those societies being unbaptized—and they are as certainly as that baptizo means to dip in or under water, as all scholars agree that it does, and never to sprinkle—settles the whole question of intercommunion between the members of those societies and Baptist churches, or the members of Baptist churches and those societies. Surely to one disposed to accept and to submit to the truth, nothing more need be said on Intercommunion between Pedobaptists and Baptists.

5. But there is another thing—the above facts should settle forever in the minds and conviction of all Baptists, viz., the question of

"ALIEN IMMERSIONS."

If Pedobaptists and Campbellite societies are not churches—and they are not if Christ commanded the immersion of professedly regenerated persons in water—they can no more administer valid baptism than they can a scriptural Lord's Supper; no more than could a Lodge of Masons or Odd- Fellows, if every member was a devout Christian.

Dr. Rice says, what every Pedobaptist on earth will agree to, that a body of unbaptized Christians is no church, and can not administer valid ordinances.

Therefore the immersions of all those societies, not scriptural churches, are as null and void as their sprinklings would be, and they can no more be accepted by Baptist churches. No rightly instructed Baptist church will receive the ordinances of unbaptized societies as valid or scriptural.

The Campbellites certainly immerse, but their immersions are no better than those of the Greeks or Roman Catholics, since they immerse for the selfsame purpose, i. e., in order to secure the remission of sins, , and the blessing of salvation, as all know.

The question, 'What does baptism introduce the recipient into?' is an open question with some Baptists, and they are principally confined to the South and West. It is urged by these, contrary to the universal practice of the denomination, and their own practice, that baptism introduces into the kingdom only—after which, if the subject desires to unite with a local church, he applies upon his certificate of baptism, and, after examination, must be received, by a unanimous vote, into the church! This feature of the question is purely theoretical as yet. In forty six years of membership, in four different Baptist churches, in as many different States, I have never witnessed or heard of an addition on this wise, save some few who were irregularly baptized by army chaplains or ministers. In some places, towns and cities, all received into the church by baptism, or letter, since the last communion, just before the administration of the Supper, are called forward by the pastor, and a charge delivered, and the right-hand of fellowship extended by the pastor, sometimes, and it should always be, followed by all the church. This is a purely formal act, not an ordinance, or the completion of an ordinance—the persons having been previously received into the church by baptism or letter. If, to all these, the Articles of Faith and the church Covenant were read, and they were called upon to rise with the whole membership of the church, to indorse the faith, and to enter into covenant, the practice would be most commendable. This theory is grounded upon the assumption that baptism is an ordinance of the kingdom, and not of the church, and, therefore, it inducts into the kingdom, and not into the church—''the kingdom being the vestibule of the church" (Gardner); but the kingdom, as we have seen (Chapter IV), has neither executive officers nor ordinances, and, therefore, the theory is groundless. The practical evil that is cropping out of the theory, in some quarters, to the great disturbance of the churches, is that ministers claiming to be officers of the kingdom are assuming the control of baptism, and baptizing whom they please, and where they please, whether in a Baptist Church—as was the immersion of Dr. Weaver, of Louisville, Ky., by Prof. Jas. P. Boyce without consulting the church,—or fifty miles away. But the unscripturalness of this is evident from the fact that the ordinances, both, or all, were delivered to the churches and not to the ministry; and ministers, therefore, have no more authority to administer baptism, to whom they please, and where they please, than to administer the supper to whom and where they please. It is a presumptuous and unscriptural assumption of power that does not belong to them. Our churches should be admonished that "Eternal vigilance is the price of their safety," in this regard, as well as others.

THE ONE-DOOR THEORY.

There are those who object to baptism being the door into a church, because, they say, there is but one door—who said so?—and those who are excluded would have to be put out the way they came in!

This class is wise above all that is written or practiced before their eyes. Ask a Mason or Oddfellow if his order has a specific rite of initiation into the lodge? He will answer "Certainly."

Ask him if that rite has to be reversed to exclude a member? Marriage is the only rite by which a man and woman enter into the marital relation; but does the court marry them backward to divorce them? It is too simple to expose, and yet we hear it from the lips of the learned, who have taught it to the unthinking. It is not intimated in the Bible, and common sense certainly does not suggest the idea, that there is but one door to a Church of Christ, or, indeed, a door at all. That term is a mere figure of speech. A church is presented to us as an organized body, and, as such, there are various ways to enter, and various ways to get out of it. We receive by letter, by recantation and restoration, as well as by baptism; and we put members out by exclusion and erasure—i. e., drop them out—and there is the great door of death, which the church neither opens nor shuts. It was J. Newton Brown, editor of the " Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge," who suggested, if we considered a local church as a house of God, "then it had several doors, as well as other sensible and conveniently built houses." There are the two front doors that are entered, the one by baptism, the other by letters of credit. There is the door of restoration on the right side, and the door of exclusion on the left side of the house; and the trap-door in the passage, which might be named "dropped," down which go into obscurity all whose names are erased from the church books; and then the great back door--death. That the keys of all these doors, save the last, are committed by Christ to his churches. From what has been demonstrated in this Tract, we learn—

1. That there is but one religious organization on earth that administers immersion, to the professedly regenerated alone as a symbol of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

2. That only an orderly member of a local Church is scripturally entitled to partake of the Lord's Supper, and then only in the Church of which he is a member.