Page 11
PART ONE.
CHAPTER I.
MY MOTHER, father and grandmother were all members of the A. M. E. Zion Church. I was converted in and united with the A. M E. Zion Church when I was seventeen years of age. I was born at Butler's Springs, Ala., November 20, 1861, and in my youth was taken to Wilcox County, near Snow Hill, where I was reared.
I was licensed to preach in the A. M. E. Zion Church when seventeen years and six months old, and married Miss Mary J. Crum when eighteen years of age. From the day of our marriage until now she has proven to be a faithful and true wife. We have five children--Neander, Orenza, Eugene, Isadora and Bulah Carter--two of whom are boys. My baby is sixteen years old. All of my children are Christians.
I have had under my pastorate the following charges in the A. M. E. Zion Church: Snow Hill, Ala., one year; Zion at the Hill, one year; Tallassee, two years; Talladega, two years; Asheville,
Page 12
N. C., three years; the First A. M. E. Zion Church in Chattanooga, Tenn., two years; Milton, Fla., one year; Pensacola, Fla., two years; Presiding Elder of the Memphis District, Memphis, Tenn., three years; pastor of the following churches after I ceased to preside: Franklin, Pa.; Cleveland, Ohio, and Selma, Ala.
I was baptized into the First Baptist Church in Selma, Ala., by Rev. W. T. Coleman, B.D., in December, 1903. All of my family have joined the Baptist denomination. I was ordained to the Baptist ministry and was made state missionary in less than a week after having united with the denomination. I have been called to quite a number of churches since that time, and I am now pastor of the First Baptist Church in Evergreen and the Mt. Moriah Baptist Church at Charity, Ala.
For quite a number of years I had been inclined to leave the Methodist Church and unite with the Baptists, but found it hard to leave the church of my mother and father, and life-long friends and associates. I knew if I should leave the Methodists and join the Baptists, that the former would abuse and slander me and quite a number of Baptists would question my motives, although my character during all the years I had been in the Methodist Church had never been assailed.
It remained for me to go to Selma, the Athens of Alabama, the hotbed of the Baptists of the state, where I came in touch with Rev. R. T. Pollard, A. B., President of Selma University; W.H.
Page 13
McAlpine, D. D., Dean of the Theological Department of the University; Rev. W. T. Coleman, B. D., and Revs. J. U. Jemison, C. J. Davis, Prof. R. B. Hudson, T. B. Goldsby, Prof. Knight, and possibly a score of other strong, uncompromising, but affable Baptist brethren, and through them gained the courage of my convictions and united with the Church of Jesus Christ. Dr. A. N. McEwen, pastor of Franklin Street Church, Mobile, Ala., and Chairman of the State Mission Board, was among the first to suggest that I be made State Missionary when I united with the church.
I have never seen any common sense nor Scripture in favor of baptizing infants. For quite a number of years I have fully believed that immersion and immersion only is baptism. The daring lordship that bishops exercise over the ministers and churches in the Methodist denomination led me to seriously consider the polity of the Church. It did not take me long to find out that the bishops are exercising undue and unscriptural authority in the Methodist Church.
Page 14
CHAPTER II.
THE METHODIST Church is false in polity and ordinance.
"Produce your cause, saith the Lord bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob." (Isa. 41:21.)
"Your covenant with death shall be annulled, and your agreement with Sheol shall not stand." (Isa. 28:18.)
First. The Methodist Church is false in polity. (a) The church organized by Jesus Christ, and fostered by his immediate disciples and perpetuated by the early fathers was a Democracy, a church of the people, for the people and by the people. The Methodist Church is a monarchy and her bishops are almost absolute monarchs.
(b) The Methodist Church has three orders of ministers. The early primitive church, the church of Jesus Christ (the Baptist denomination) has one order. The Methodist Church has the following order of ministers: deacons, elder and bishops.
Some of the deacons of the first New Testament Church preached the Gospel, still they were
Page 15
not ordained for that specific purpose; but a deacon in the Methodist Church is ordained to the office as a minister of the Gospel. That this is contrary to the original design of the church, see the 6th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles.
"Now in these days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecian Jews against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.
"And the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not fit that we should forsake the word of God, and serve tables.
"Look ye out therefore, brethren, from among you seven men of good report, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business."
What business? The business of serving tables; the business of looking after the widows of the church; to look after the temporal affairs of the church. Why do the Methodists ordain them to the ministry of the gospel?
(C) The man called to the ministry of the Gospel of Christ in the early Church received only one ordination. Why do the Methodists hold and confer three? From whom do they get their authority? The Bible clearly teaches that elder and bishop are one and the same. Why do the Methodists make them separate and distinct offices?
Page 16
There are two passages of Scripture which show that bishop, elder and pastor are one and the same officer:
"And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called to him the elders (presbuterous) of the church. And when they were come to him, he said to them," (Acts 20:17, 18). "Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood." (Acts 20:28.) Take the oversight --pastor, shepherd, feed the flock.
Verse 17 clearly represents these men as elders (presbuteroi), but in verse 28 they are called bishops (episcopoi) They are exhorted by Paul to guide and protect the flock. (See 1 Pet 5:12 ) "The elders (presbuterous) therefore among you I exhort, who am a fellow-elder (sum presbuteros) and a witness of the sufferings of Christ-- tend, shepherd, serve as pastor to the flock of God, which is among you, exercising, acting as bishops (episcopountes); taking the oversight of the church of God"
We clearly see from these passages of Scripture, that bishop and elder were synonymous with pastor--bishop, emphasizing the function of the office, elder that of dignity, the shepherd and feed the flock. He was to preach the word.
Why do the Methodists disregard the original order and have, Three distinct orders of ministers, viz.: bishop, elder and deacon?
Page 17
(a) By what authority do the Methodists make their conferences superior to the church? The Methodist conferences tax the churches and force the members to pay whatever tax may be imposed upon the churches by the conference. The officers of the local church, the presiding elder and the pastor, make up the quarterly conference; several quarterly conferences formed in a district make the district conference. Several district conferences make up the annual conference. A large majority of the members of the annual conference are ministers of the gospel. When a minister in the Methodist Church becomes a full member of the annual conference he ceases to be a member of any church. The general conference is made up by representatives from the annual conferences.
The law of the Zion Methodist Church provides that a majority of the delegates to the general conference shall be ministers. You will note the fact that since the ministers of the annual conferences largely make up the general conference, and they cease to be members of the individual churches when they become members of the annual conferences, a majority of the members of the general conference are not members of the Church, and therefore have no right to legislate for the Church. The bishops of the Methodist Church are elected and ordained by the general conference, and placed over the churches and ministers. These bishops appoint pastors to the
Page 18
different churches, and also appoint presiding elders over the pastors and churches. The power of these bishops is almost absolute. They appoint ministers to churches, whether they wish to go or not, and force churches to accept pastors whether they wish to or not. I have known churches to refuse to accept ministers sent to them by the bishop, and he would visit them and often find that the minister did not wish to be pastor of the church, and that the church did not want the minister. The bishop would say to the church and minister, "I am the bishop." To the minister he would say, "You must stay here this year;" and to the church he would say, "You must keep the minister, whether you want him or not!"
In the Zion Church the law provides that any minister failing to raise two-thirds of the general funds, money out of which the bishop gets his $2,000 a year, shall be left without an appointment. The presiding elders constitute the bishop's cabinet, and meet with him when appointments are to be made. The pastors are passed upon by this cabinet. Often, members of the churches succeed in getting complaints before this cabinet against the pastors clandestinely. I need not tell you that such a system is calculated to encourage the members in opposing and changing the pastor without his knowledge; but, worse still, if the pastor differs with a bad man or a bad woman in the church, who happens to have
Page 19
influence with the presiding elder and bishop, he (the pastor) will be removed.
The membership may be ever so anxious to retain a pastor, and he may be ever so anxious to stay; but if the bishop says, "Go," he must go. This man, the bishop, not a member of the church, bosses it completely. If the pastor fails to please the presiding elder in every respect, the presiding elder, through the bishop, will have him taken from a large charge where he is giving perfect satisfaction, and appointed to a smaller charge; and if he is not a prominent minister, often he is left without an appointment.
The bishop often appoints a minister to a poor charge, hundreds of miles from his family, against his will and without his consent. Often the charge is too poor to pay the traveling and moving expenses of the minister and his family, and he is either forced to remain away from them or leave the work. If he leaves the work the bishop will not give him another appointment. If he remains away from home on the charge which will not give his family competent support, his wife will justly complain to the bishop, who will say: "I will give your husband a better appointment another year, provided he keeps the charge he has until conference." The minister writes the bishop to relieve him of the charge, but the bishop tells him that if he does not keep the charge until conference he will not give him another appointment. If the minister keeps the
Page 20
charge there will be a complaint against him in the next conference, charging him with non-support of his family. The bishop and conference will receive the complaint against this minister for doing what the bishop commanded him to do. The bishop roundly abuses this poor, unfortunate minister for not supporting his family, and often gives him the same or a poorer charge another year, and yet requires him to support his family, The minister's wife often has a number of children looking to her for support. They often get hungry and barefooted. The wife finally gives up her husband and takes another man, for which she is charged with being unfaithful; but the bishop has separated that husband and wife through that appointment.
I have seen ministers stand up in conference and cry like babies as they received their appointments from bishops--appointments that they did not wish to accept. But they had to take what was given to them or have nothing, I have seen the church crying at the bishop's feet and earnestly praying him not to take their dear shepherd from them, but he would turn a deaf ear to their prayers, and remove them for no just cause.
The prominent minister with a large charge must not only prove himself worthy as a faithful pastor and strong preacher, but he must get up big receptions for the bishop and make him large donations or he will be given a smaller charge.
Page 21
CHAPTER III.
THE LAW of the A. M. E. Zion Church provides that if there is a balance due the bishop when he dies, the Church shall pay it to his family; but it makes no provisions for the pastor's family to get whatever the church may owe him when he dies. In fact, a contract between the pastor and church simply means that he has the privilege of collecting the amount set forth in the agreement, provided he can collect it before the bishop gets ready to remove him. When the bishop removes a minister from a church, whatever claims he may have against it are settled forever. If this system does not do the pastor a gross injustice, pray tell me what is injustice? The subordinate ministers and their families are simply the slaves of the bishops and their families. The pastor is required to collect from the church the salary of the bishop and presiding elder and get his own salary if he can. The presiding elder comes to him every three months and holds the quarterly meeting, and often receives for himself every cent that is raised during the meeting, leaving the pastor without a cent for himself and
Page 22
family. The greatest slavery that can be thought of grows out of this system, and the poor pastor is subject to the church, the presiding elder and the bishop.
Any member becoming the least dissatisfied with the pastor, confers with the presiding elder (Boss No. 1), and if the elder does not agree with him against the pastor, he confers with the bishop (Boss No. 2).
I cannot see how any lover of the smallest degree of personal liberty can remain in such a church, and particularly is it strange to me how I remained under such a system of slavery so long.
Give me the grand old Missionary Baptist church--a church that believes in equal rights for all, special privileges for none; a church whose associations and conventions, whether local, state or national, are subordinate to the church. Associations, conventions and conferences of every description grow out of the church; they are creatures of the church. How can the creature, from the nature of things, ever become the equal of the creator? But the Methodist Church makes her conferences superior to the church in point of authority. The bishop, a man made by the general conference, a majority of whose members do not belong to any church, simply lords over God's heritage.
A church may request the bishop to send a certain preacher, or let the present pastor be
Page 23
retained; but he is not bound to respect the request. There are members and ministers in the Methodist Church who are even in favor of not allowing the members to say anything whatever in regard to who shall be their pastor; but on the other hand, thank God, there are those in the Connection, both among the ministers and laymen, who are catching the spirit of the freedom of the brightest age of all ages, the progressive spirit of the brightest decade of all the decades gone by. Such will soon be found in our grand old church of individual liberty and personal freedom. My dear brethren of the Methodist Church, why remain slaves?
"But be ye not called Rabbi: for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren." How can a man have in him the mind that was in Christ Jesus, and enslave his brother either in church or state? On the other hand; how can a man having anything like a just conception of his rights submit to slavery in church or in state?
The system teaches the pastors to depend upon the bishop, instead of depending upon themselves. One of the most important lessons for the Negro to learn is self-help, self-dependence. The cursed system of American Negro slavery taught him to look up to and depend upon the white man in all matters. What he needs now is that institution that will give him the clearest possible conception of his duty and his responsibility,
Page 24
coupled with a knowledge of his rights. For there can be no duty and responsibility without privileges in heaven, earth or hell. Nowhere in the vast universe of God can duty and responsibility only, be justly laid upon one.
What I have said in regard to the outrages perpetrated upon the pastors of the Methodist Church by the presiding elders and bishops is intended to apply mainly to the Negro branches of Methodism, as I have seen it operated with my own eyes. I speak that I do know, and I am testifying to what I have seen. I believe that the Negro pastors in the white Methodist Church are treated better by the white bishops than the pastors in the Negro Methodist Church; but despite this fact, under all of the peculiar circumstances, I prefer a separate church for the Negro to a mixed church of Negroes and white people.
(a) Because the Negro is on probation in this country the white man declares that the Negro is not capable of the highest development. He declares that he is inferior to the white man in every respect. It remains for the Negro to prove to the white man that all he needs is time and opportunity to show that he is a man like any other man. One of the best fields for the Negro to exercise his gifts and demonstrate his native and acquired ability is a distinct Negro Church. Therefore the Negro branches, of Methodism have done and are doing a great deal toward demonstrating
Page 25
to the world the fact that the Negro is fully capable of carrying on his own church work.
(b) The Negro schools that have been planted and are being fostered by the Negro branches of Methodism are eternal monuments to the Negro business tact and excellent uniform ability.
Let us continue, since we are put on probation, to do distinct church work cheerfully. But I would not have the world to believe that I accept the white man's theory of five races of mankind. I believe in the Bible fully, and believing in that blessed old book of books, I am forced to deny the statement of the white man that there are five races. I believe in the unity of mankind. The Bible gives us an account of one Adam and one Eve, from whom sprang all the human family.
The "missing link" stuff set forth by some white men, is not worthy of respectable consideration. Some white men tell us that Cain went to the land of Nod and found a wife, and that there were no human beings in Nod until Cain went there, and they say that Cain was a white man, and took to himself a monkey, and that the union of Cain and the monkey produced the Negro, and therefore, the Negro, they say, is a mixture of man and monkey. If this is true it is very unfortunate for the Negro, and not a very high compliment to the white man; but this is not true.
In Genesis 4:16, 17, we have this language: "And Cain went out from the presence of Jehovah,
Page 26
and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch." This passage of Scripture plainly tells us that Cain knew his wife, not that he found her in the land of Nod; but he knew her, and as a result of this knowledge she conceived and bare a son. But if we should agree with those who set forth such nonsense, the flood would wipe out this entire theory.
We are taught in God's holy Word that the entire earth was submerged with a mighty flood of water, and only eight persons were saved in the ark, viz.: Noah and his wife, his three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, and their wives; that the entire earth was peopled after the flood by this one family. From what quarter of the globe will the white man get his five races? He certainly will have to go outside of the Bible to find them. There is only one race; but the white man has made five, and in books that treat of the races, he makes it appear that the Negro race is lowest of the five. Since this is true, we must work out our salvation on distinct lines. This must be done so that the world can clearly see what we have done in the struggle to lift ourselves to a higher standard of civilization.
Page 27
CHAPTER IV.
WE WILL now proceed to consider that the Methodist Church is false and unscriptural on the ordinance of baptism.
"Produce your cause, saith Jehovah; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob." (Isa. 41:21.)
"And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand." (Isa. 28:18.)
There are so many people who tell you when you speak to them about the right church, that they are going to remain where they are, because their mothers and fathers belonged to that church, and died and went to heaven. There is little reason for the white man to give you such an excuse; and it is even a poor excuse for a white man. But for the Negro this is no excuse whatever.
The Negro was brought to this country from Africa against his will by the white man. When he came here he was a heathen. He knew nothing of the true God. The white man has given him his knowledge of God, of literature, doctrine,
Page 28
and nearly everything else, good and bad. The Negro was enslaved in this country for, nearly two hundred and fifty years. During this time he was owned by the white man just as truly as a man owns any other property. White Methodists naturally made their slaves Methodists, and as a general thing, white Baptists made Baptists out of their Negro slaves, etc., and the same thing held good when applied to the members of other white churches. In matters of religion the master and slave were of the same faith.
When the Negroes of the South were emancipated, the Methodist Church, South, organized those who were in their church into a separate body. This organization is called the Colored Methodist Episcopal Church. It was organized in Jackson, Tenn. Bishop Miles was its first bishop.
The A. M. E. Zion Church came from the Methodist Church (white) in the city of New York, in 1796, on account of the color line that was drawn on the colored members by the white members. Immediately after the emancipation of the Negro the A. M. E. Zion Church came South and began to gather the Negro into its Fold.
The African Methodist Episcopal Church came from the white Methodist Church in Philadelphia, Pa., about the time of the formation of the A. M. E. Zion Church in the city of New York. This Church also came South immediately after the
Page 29
Emancipation and began its work here, and continues to gather all who will agree with it in doctrine, etc.
When we look these facts in the face we clearly see we are in the church that the white man put us in. Why, then, should we talk about our mother's and father's church being good enough for us? It is time for the Negro to begin to think for himself. He should rise up to the true dignity of independent research and independent meditation upon God's holy Word.
Since white men have given us ideas of doctrine, and since they differ on it, we should study the doctrine for ourselves from the New Testament Scriptures. You cannot afford to leave the white man to do all of your studying and thinking. Did he not teach our mothers and fathers during the dark days of slavery that slavery was right? Did not the white ministers preach to slaves that slavery was right? The Lord be praised that men differed on this question all through those dark and trying times for the race. Some held that slavery was right, while others held that it was wrong. Truth finally prevailed and we were declared free; but we are only partially free now. Let the Negro who is capable of reading search the Scripture and find out for himself the right way. Dismiss your denominational bias and prejudice and proceed with me in the study of God's blessed word on this all-important subject.
Page 30
The Methodist Church is wrong on the ordinance of baptism.
1. The Methodist Church is wrong on the subjects of baptism and those eligible to baptism. Methodists baptize infants, and infants are not fit subjects for baptism.
2. It is unreasonable to baptize infants.
(a) Baptism is a seal of covenant relations or an agreement between two or more parties. The party of the first part must agree to certain things for the party of the second part, on condition of the party of the second part doing certain things in consideration of the favor received or promised on the part of the party of the first part. It must be a mutual agreement between the parties contracting or it will not be binding on either party. God proposes covenant relations to man, but man must agree to enter into the relations proposed before there can be any mutual agreement between God and man. Certainly the infant is not capable of entering into any agreement with God, and therefore baptism as a seal will not fit the case of an infant. Since baptism signifies what cannot possibly exist between the infant and God, on account of the inability of the infant to understand and enter into any agreement whatever with God, therefore infants are not fit subjects for baptism.
(b) Parents cannot legally stand for their children. If parents can stand for the children,
Page 31
why not baptize the parents in the name of and for the children?
(c) The covenant must be made by the parties directly concerned.
(d) Parents cannot stand for a child morally. The infant being incapable of knowing right from wrong, is not morally responsible to God. Therefore the parent cannot assume that for which the infant itself is not responsible. Salvation is personal, and therefore one person cannot take the place of another in the matter of salvation. Baptism is not only a seal of covenant relations mutually entered into by God and man, but it is also the outward sign of an inward purity. It says to the world that the person baptized is a new creature in Christ Jesus. But infants cannot become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It seems to me that this point is so very clear and conclusive that it would be a waste of time for me to say more on this particular subject. I shall, therefore, proceed to call your attention to our second general division in this discussion: The Baptism of Infants is Unscriptural.
The following is the argument which we present for careful consideration.
Christ Jesus in the Great Commission to his disciples commands them to baptize believers. "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he
Page 32
that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16:15, 16.)
The baptism of infants is not included in this great commission. The disciples were commanded first to preach the Gospel. Surely no sane man would undertake to preach to infants. Not only must the minister preach God's word, but those who hear the glad tidings must believe before they are fit subjects for baptism.
The Methodist Church has had one hundred and sixty years in which to find one passage of Scripture in the New Testament that will justify them in baptizing infants. Hibbard and others of the Methodist Church, in writing on this subject, have spent no little time and labor in trying to prove that infant baptism is scriptural. But they have only been able out of all their research to give us inferences and implications on the subject. They are not able to show anywhere in God's holy book a command to baptize infants.
The Methodist Church is the granddaughter of the Roman Catholic Church, which says that they baptize infants because there is saving power in the water. They also say that baptism produces regeneration. The Methodists are ashamed of the position of their grandmother on this subject, and have explained away this passage and that passage in the Bible to justify themselves in clinging to a thing that clearly has no place in the Scriptures.
Page 33
Why do the Methodists spend so much time and labor on the old covenant, the Abrahamic covenant, instead of the new?
If the new covenant does not justify them in baptizing infants, they should not baptize them. If the new covenant justifies them in baptizing infants, why do they spend so much time in trying to justify themselves? They seem to be members of the old Jewish Church.
Hibbard, on "Infant Baptism," has spent much time in trying to prove that baptism has taken the place of circumcision; but neither he nor any one else has given any scriptural proof for such a position.
Only male children and male adults were circumcised under the Abrahamic covenant; but now all believers are to be baptized--both male and female.
Methodists take the position that infants should be baptized on the ground that they are fit subjects for heaven. They are fit subjects for heaven, provided they die before they grow to years of accountability. They are simply saved if they die, through the atonement of Christ on the ground of their innocence--not on the ground of their holiness. If we were certain that all infants would die, then it would not be wrong to baptize, them. All who grow up to the ages of responsibility become practical as well as natural sinners. If they are taken into the church in infancy
Page 34
we simply have a number of sinners in the church.
If the baptism of infants signifies anything when they are baptized, it loses its significance as soon as they are capable of knowing good from evil. The infant can only be saved for one or both of the following reasons:
1. It may be saved through the atonement of Jesus Christ on the ground of innocence growing out of inability to accept or reject the plan of salvation.
2. The infant could be saved by believing the gospel, if it were possible; but it is impossible for the infant to believe.
Therefore the infant cannot be saved by faith, and must be saved on the ground of innocence. But when the infant grows up to the age when he is morally responsible, he ceases to be innocent, and being born in sin, a sinner by nature, he will be an unregenerate, sinful being instead of a holy being.
Now what does baptism signify or stand for in such a case. Plainly nothing. For truly the Scriptures plainly teach us that all are born in sin.
Page 35
CHAPTER V.
THE GREAT and learned Apostle Paul says to the Gentiles: "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive."
That all are sinners by nature, let us hear David, the man after God's own heart, on this all-important subject: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." Where in all the world of literature can you find stronger language than this on any subject? It needs no commenting upon.
Sin is in the very constitutional mechanism of man. It is deeper than the marrow in his bones. He is a sinner; not by choice, but a born sinner. He cannot keep from starting out a sinner. The first moral acts that he performs are sinful, and all of his succeeding moral acts will be sinful until he is born again--born of the water and of the Spirit. He cannot of himself have his sins blotted out, "Because the mind of the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be." Why baptize such a sinful being when baptism signifies purity?
Page 36
Let us hear David again on this subject: "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies." (Psalm 58:3.) Upon what grounds can any sane man baptize such beings, except he takes the position with the Roman Catholic, that baptism in itself will give this very sinful being a new heart?
The Methodists will not take the position of the Catholic Church, because such a position is so grossly absurd on its very face that it is not worthy of consideration. But why baptize such sinful beings if the water of baptism does not change their sinful state? With no direct command to baptize infants, the New Testament giving them no authority to do so, the Bible teaching them clearly that infants are great sinners by nature, why will the Methodists continue to baptize them? Let their conscience answer why.
We come now to the Methodists' New Testament argument in favor of infant baptism, as given by Hibbard in his book on "Baptism," page 88, section 4:
"But the New Testament is not silent on the subject of infant baptism, but makes just such mention of it as, in view of the state of opinion at that time, proves it to have been enjoined, and universally practised. It makes just such mention of the subject as the circumstances of the case required. It is not the ordinance of baptism itself that we now speak of, but it is the application of this ordinance to infants. The
Page 37
institution of Christian baptism required and received an express sanction from the lips of our Saviour; and this command is registered. But the application of this rite to infants is a point so obvious to the mind of the Jew, and to all who were conversant with the ancient usage of the church, as to require no direct precept, or, at least, that that precept should be recorded. The light of analogy and the force of ancient habit, precluded any such necessity. They had only need of being informed what was the initiatory rite of the new dispensation, and the fact of its applicability to infants, would follow as a matter of course, unless prohibited; or, at most would require only private direction. Under these circumstances, what mention may we suppose the New Testament would naturally make of this subject?
"We answer: It is reasonable to suppose that it would merely recognize facts and principles in relation to it, in an incidental way, without any intimation of their being new or controverted, or doubted. And this we find to be the fact in the case. The New Testament makes just such allusion to infants--recognizes all those facts and principles in reference to them--as supposes them still to retain their ancient rights to the covenant and their ancient relation to the church. Infants are spoken of in a manner wholly inexplicable on any other supposition than that of their eligibility to baptism, and in a manner to
Page 38
clearly indicate that there was no controversy on this point in the New Testament times.
"The reader will readily perceive, therefore, upon a little reflection, the proper distinctive character of our position. He will be at no loss to appreciate the distinction between a positive command, directing a certain line of conduct, and a recognition of principles and facts which imply such conduct; between an ordinance newly issued under sanction of positive authority, and an ordinance of ancient date, newly recognized in its principles, and in the fact of its existence."
Proceed we then to the labor of proof :-- The reader will clearly see that the entire statement is nothing more nor less than supposition, but on an important subject like this a "Thus saith the Lord God," should be found somewhere in the New Testament. You can also see that because the New Testament is against the Methodists on the subject of infant baptism, they can by twisting the Scriptures, out of their natural order give us inferences and implications only. In fact, the Methodists seem to have adopted the rule to explain away everything in the Bible against their doctrine, and add whatever is lacking. Hibbard here proceeds to present what he regards as a New Testament Proof of infant baptism:
"Infants are in a gracious state. By this I mean that they are included in the provisions of the Gospel, and receive a title to eternal life
Page 39
through the atonement. It is not our present intention to enter upon the proof of this point; if any man doubt it, we must leave him to his opinion, and address our argument to those who allow the statement. We do not, furthermore, wish any controversy respecting the manner in which infants are saved through the atonement. All we insist upon is the fact that they are embraced in the economy of redemption, and through the grace of Christ, entitled to, and prepared for eternal life. Now, this fact, which is so fully established by our Lord's words in Matt. 19:14; 18: 2-5, and by Paul in Rom. 5, and elsewhere-- this fact, we say, is one of primary importance; for unless infants are fit for heaven or have a title to heaven, it is evident they are not suitable to sustain any relation to the church.
"All fitness for church relations must be primarily predicated of and based upon that moral state which constitutes a fitness for future happiness. The church militant, in its moral features, is designed to be an image of the church triumphant. In this respect the two kingdoms are but one. Baptism is an outward sign of an inward work of grace--a token of confirmation that the subject belongs to the spiritual family of God and is entitled to baptism. If they have the thing signified by baptism, they may and ought to receive baptism itself. This principle is fully carried out and established in the Scriptures."
But how can Mr. Hibbard conclude that infants
Page 40
have the thing that baptism signifies in the face of plain Scripture teaching us that infants are born sinners? They are not in their natural state fit for heaven. Let us hear what the Lord says about the character of infants. "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies." (Psalm 58:3.)
How can the Methodists explain away this passage on infant character? They are great hands at explaining away the Scriptures, but we will give them until the general judgment to explain away such strong, unmistakable language on infant character.
The Methodists invite us to what Jesus says about children to the exclusion of everything else, and all other testimony on infant character; but we should see what Jesus says about infants in connection with other Bible testimony. This is the only way of finding out what the Scripture teaches on this subject: "Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should lay his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer the little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for to such belongeth the kingdom of heaven."
These very infants that Jesus says are fit for heaven, David says are "estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies."
Page 41
How can we reconcile the two statements? By conceding the fact that infants are innocent, but sinful, and that they are innocent because of their inability to either accept or reject the plan of salvation, and that if they die they will be saved through the atonement; but if they live to grow up to years of accountability, they will be practical as well as natural sinners; and the baptism which they have received in infancy will lose its significance. For they will not possess that which baptism signifies. God simply changes their sinful hearts through the atonement if they die. In their infancy they are wholly incapable of performing any moral act, good or bad. Because of this fact God saves them if they die. They are not fit subjects for heaven without being born again; but will be born again if they die--not through any effort of their own, but wholly by the atonement.
In order that adults may be born again, they must be passed upon by the Holy Spirit through the word; and having been passed upon, they must pass from death unto life. "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth may in him have eternal life." He must be lifted up, and when he is lifted up, man must believe in order to be saved. But this does not apply to infants, because they are not capable of taking any part in their salvation. Should they die, God saves them wholly Himself,
Page 42
without their taking any part in their salvation. Why baptize them?
Baptism signifies inward holiness: infants are sinful. Baptism signifies inward purity: infants are impure. Baptism is the seal of our covenant relation to God. Infants are not capable of entering into any covenant relation whatever, but are saved, if they die, through the atonement. God has peculiar compassion upon infants and wonderfully saves them without any effort whatever on their part.
Negro Methodists throughout the country recognize and perform the rite of infant baptism, and also ignore and set aside the rite. They baptize infants, and when the baptized infants grow up to years of accountability and profess saving faith in Christ, and wish to be buried with him in baptism, they immerse them, thus ignoring and setting aside infant baptism themselves. "Consistency, thou art a jewel."
A large number of Methodists do not believe in infant baptism, but they remain in the church, and will say to you, when you press them on this subject, "I don't believe in infant baptism, but it is a rule in our church." The Methodists have found infants in four families in the New Testament Scriptures, although the New Testament says nothing about infants in those families.
Page 43
CHAPTER VI.
WE WILL now carefully examine household baptisms in the New Testament:
1. Let us examine the case of Cornelius, the Roman centurion. By divine direction Cornelius sent to Joppa for Peter, to learn what he ought to do. Cornelius waited for the apostle in Cæsarea, and called together his relatives and friends to him. Peter preached the Gospel to them. It was the first sermon preached to the Gentiles, and was highly seasoned with grace and accompanied by the Holy Spirit to the hearts of the hearers. "The Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the word * * * for they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God * * * and he (Peter) commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ." This family all heard the word, believed, received the Holy Ghost, magnified God and were baptized.
Nobody except a pedobaptist will, in the absence of testimony to the effect that Cornelius had infants in his family presume that there were infants in his family, and that they were baptized. Carefully examine Acts 10:2, 24, 44, 46-48.
2. "I baptized also the household of Stephanas," says Paul (1 Cor. 1:16). Paul visited Corinth
Page 44
about A. D. 54 or 55, where he remained a year and six months, "teaching the word of God among them." (Acts 18:11.) During this time, he baptized Stephanas and his family. In the year 59 he wrote his first letter to the Church of God in that city. In the epistle he makes special mention of the house of Stephanas: "I beseech you, brethren," said he, ("ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have set themselves to minister unto the saints), that ye also be in subjection unto such," etc. (1 Cor. 16:15, 16.) Several points are worthy of notice in this text.
The family of Stephanas were "the firstfruits of Achaia." This term is applied to the regenerate: "Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures." (James 1:18. See also Rev. 14:4.) The word is never used, so far as we know, to denote unconscious or unregenerate infants.
The family of Stephanas, in four or five years after their baptism, devoted themselves to the "ministry of the saints," whether in preaching the word or supplying the wants of the poor, we do not know. It was a benevolent, noble service, commended by the spirit of inspiration. If they were infants when baptized by Paul four or five years previously, they were the most precious children that we have read of; nor is this all.
The apostle besought the Corinthian saints,
Page 45
renowned throughout the world for their spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 1:7) to submit themselves unto such as the house of Stephanas. They were not only the benefactors of the church, but fitted to bear rule in it. They were not infants; not children; nor were they at the time of their baptism. It ought in fairness to be conceded that the baptism of the house of Stephanas yields no support to infant baptism, but lends its full weight to the exclusive baptism of believers.
3. We must now notice the baptism of the household of the Philippian jailor recorded in Acts 16:24-34. Paul, divinely guided, passed for the first time into Europe, and commenced his ministrations at a Roman post called Philippi. Here several persons were converted and baptized, and a great persecution was commenced against Paul and Silas. They were arrested, scourged, and committed to prison, to the hands of the jailor, under strict charge to keep them safely. He cast them into the dungeon and made their feet fast in the stocks. They were delivered from their bondage by divine interposition, and the jailor was saved from suicide by the friendly counsel of Paul. We shall notice the narrative only so far as it relates to the point under discussion. The jailor brought Paul and Silas unto his house, and "they spake the word of the Lord unto him, with all that were in his house" (verse 32). We might infer from the excitement and importance of the occasion, that all
Page 46
the jailor's family were present; but there is no room left for conjecture.
The historian tells us positively that the word was preached "to all that were in the house." What was the result of this instruction? The jailor in the "same hour of the night * * * was baptized, he and all his, immediately" (verse 33). That there might be no possible plea for infant baptism found in this narrative, the inspired writer adds: "He (the jailor) brought them up (Paul and Silas) into his house, and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly with all his house, having believed in God" (verse 34).
It is incomprehensible to us that any man of intelligence and candor should doubt that the jailor's family were converts to Christianity. There is precisely the same evidence of their con- version that there is of his. Did he hear the word of the Lord? So did they. Was he baptized? So were they. The whole narrative corresponds to the apostolic commission and practice in Jerusalem and Cæsarea. The ingenious reasoner who can derive authority for infant baptism from this narrative can find it anywhere.
Only the baptism of Lydia's household remains to be considered (Acts 16:14, 15): "A certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, one that worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened to give heed unto the things which were spoken by Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household," etc.
Page 47
Were there infants in Lydia's family? The burden of proof lies on the advocates of pedobaptism, who would derive authority for their practice from this passage. We have shown incontrovertibly, as it seems to us, that in three baptized households there were no children, or they were not included among the baptized. Does not this fact create a strong presumption that there were none in Lydia's house? We will perform, however, a work of supererogation. While we cannot positively prove that Lydia had no infant children, we can show the extreme improbability that she had any. She was a dealer in purple goods, of the city of Thyatira, in the province of Asia, several hundred miles distant from Philippi.
Lydia was probably an adventuress, with no permanent home, and, very likely, she had no husband. She said to Paul and Silas, "Come into my house and abide." If she had a husband, he seems to have been of no importance to the family; if she were married, there is no proof that she had children; and if she had children, there is no evidence that they were infants or minors. Her family probably consisted of her servants and helpers in her mercantile shop.
When Paul and Silas were released from prison and forced hastily to leave the city, "they entered into the house of Lydia: and when they had seen the brethren, they comforted them and departed." (Verse 40.) Who were these brethren in Lydia's house? They were not infants or
Page 48
young children, but persons capable of receiving religious consolation and encouragement. If there were nothing to bias the mind it would be almost impossible to avoid the conclusion that the brethren referred to were Lydia's baptized household. If infant baptism has no better foundation than the probability that there were infants in the family of Lydia, and that they were baptized, it ought to be abandoned.
Let us test the strength of the argument drawn from the baptism of households in support of infant baptism by a parallel case.
"There were believing as well as baptized households; of the nobleman of Cana it is said: 'Himself believed and his whole house' (John 4:53). We read: 'Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house' (Acts 18:8). What would we think of the acumen of a logician who should reason after this manner: We read in the Scriptures of believing families; infants are found in most families; therefore, in the apostolic times, infants believed the Gospel. The conclusion is a manifest absurdity, an consequently nobody reasons in that way; but the argument is quite as logical and the inference quite as conclusive as that which attempts to deduce infant baptism from the baptism of households.
"The argument in favor of infant baptism derived from household baptisms proves quite too much for those who employ it. If families are to
Page 49
be baptized on the faith of their parents, why should the baptisms be limited to infants? Are not adult children, as well as servants, as often found in families as infants? If families are to be baptized, why not baptize the whole of them? By what authority is the ordinance limited to infants and little children? 'The jailor was baptized, he and all of his.' if family connection is a plea for baptism, why should it not avail for adults as well as infants? Perhaps it will be said of adults that faith is required of them in order that they may be baptized. Certainly it is of those who act on their own responsibility; but households, according to the pedobaptist theory, are baptized on the faith and by the authority of the parents. If households are to be baptized in virtue of their relations to their pious heads, why should any portion of the family be excluded from the privilege?
"The Israelites were required to circumcise all the males in their families, free and bond, at the age of eight days; but if from any cause, the rite was neglected, it was proper to perform it at any period of life. (Gen. 17:13, and Josh. 5:8.) Circumcision was a family institution, and all its male members were entitled to its benefits. Baptism is supposed by the advocates of the infant rite to be a substitute for circumcision. By what plea, then, do they limit the baptisms of households to the baptism of infants? That is not household baptism. It is the baptism of a part,
Page 50
usually a small part, and that, too, the least important part of the family; and the discrimination, so far as we can discern, is arbitrarily made."
ROBERT BAYLOR SEMPLE, D. D.
Page 51
CHAPTER VII.
LET US see what Hibbard, a standard writer of the Methodist Church, in his book on "Baptism," page 153, says on the subject of Household Baptisms. "The New Testament recognition of infant baptism is obviously set forth in the mention of household baptisms. There are three different places where household baptisms are recorded, namely, Acts 16:15, 'Lydia and her household;' verse 33, 'the Jailor and all his;' 1 Cor. 1:16, 'the household of Stephanas.'
"The scope of this argument may be comprehended in the two following propositions:
"First. The language employed is such as may be fitly used to represent the baptism of children.
"Secondly. The circumstances concur to establish a decided probability that pedobaptism is here intended.
"1. Whenever we would understand the meaning of any author, our first effort should be to explain his words according to the common usage, and the obvious design of the particular writer. If it be an ancient author, we must ascertain
Page 52
what was the use of the terms he employed at the time of his writing, and among the people to whom he wrote. The question, therefore, which we are now to decide is, Does olkozoikos (translated 'household'), the word which is used in Acts 16:15; 1 Cor. 1:16, properly include infants? The sacred history informs us that certain persons, with their households, were baptized. The question is, Does the phraseology properly denote that infants were, or might have been baptized? I am fully apprised that the more informed reader will deem it wholly unnecessary and gratuitous for me to adduce formal proof of the affirmative of this question; but for the sake of those who may not readily appreciate how terms are used in the Bible, and also that the final argument may not seem to rest barely on assertion. or the mere authority of names, I cannot withhold a few statements. Olkozoikos primarily denotes a house, that is, a building or edifice, domus. But by a very common rule of language it also signifies, all that dwell in a house; that is, a family, including parents, children, domestics, etc.--all those persons whom we range under the general title of family or household.
"The point to be ascertained is, whether infants are naturally and as a matter of course included in this phrase. The opponents of infant baptism take the ground that infants cannot be proved to have been included in the households which the apostles baptized, because they are not
Page 53
specified, and it is well known that there are households, or families, without infant children. We take the ground that, although olkozoikos does not specify children, yet children are properly included within the term, as much as parents, or servants; and the presumption is that they are always thus included, unless there is a specification to the contrary. The word 'family' does not necessarily specify parents--a family may be constituted, or subsist, without the relation of parents,--but does this authorize us to infer that parents are never included in this word unless they are specified by a distinct and appropriate appellation" The same may be said of servants. "The words olkos, familia, and household, include the idea of servants as constituting a part of those who live together in the same house; still neither of these terms is the proper one to denote a servant distinctively, and there may be families where there are no servants. But are we authorized to infer, hence, that servants are never included in these words, unless they are specified distinctively by some adjunct? For instance, it is said Lydia and her household were baptized. From this we argue that as children are properly included under the general term household, therefore the presumption is, children were baptized," etc.
You will note the fact that Hibbard in this argument says there are three places in the Bible in which household baptisms are mentioned, but in
Page 54
truth there are four. Why did he leave out one? Let us examine the one he left out, and we will clearly see why he has left it out. Hibbard has left out the baptism of Cornelius and his family. Why did he leave it out? Because it is unmistakably against his unreasonable, unscriptural and absurd theory. (See Acts 10:22, 24, 44, 46-48.) Peter preached the Gospel to Cornelius and his household, and "The Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the word," and "they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God;" and the apostle "commanded them to be baptized in the name of Christ Jesus." It is positively stated that the centurion (Cornelius) "feared God with all his house." Were there infants in his house? If we reason with Hibbard we are forced to say that the word "household" includes infants, and therefore there were infants in Cornelius' house, and they were baptized. But the narrative tells us that the whole house of Cornelius "feared God." Can infants fear God? Certainly not. We are told that the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word, and they spake with tongues and magnified God. Did the Holy Ghost fall on infants in the case we are considering? Did infants, or can infants magnify God? Certainly infants did not nor cannot magnify God. We clearly see that there were no infants in this household.
The reader can see without the least shadow of a doubt why Hibbard leaves out the household of
Page 55
Cornelius in his account of household baptisms of the New Testament. It is against his pet theory. He leaves out or explains away whatever he finds in the Bible against his theories. If the basic principle of pedobaptists when applied to infant baptism is false, the final conclusion must naturally and necessarily be false. But this basic principle is not only laid down by pedobaptists, but it is also conceded by Baptists. The principle that I refer to is that the baptized individual must possess that which baptism signifies.
1. Baptism signifies a seal, or is a seal of the covenant relation that has been made between the individual and his God.
2. Baptism is an outward sign of an inward purity. But infants are not capable of entering into any covenant relation with God. This fact is so self-evident that we will not argue it further.
Page 56
CHAPTER VIII.
LET US now consider the second thing for which baptism stands or signifies, viz.: An outward sign of an inward purity. Pond, a pedobaptist, in his book on "Christian Theology," page 394, says:
"Infants have moral character from the first, and this character is sinful. We touch not the question here, On what grounds infants are to be regarded as sinners? But the fact of their sinfulness we hold to be susceptible of abundant proof. In support of it we urge--
"1. That infants are the descendants of Adam, the father of us all. The Scriptures assure us that all the descendants of Adam, without an exception, are sinners. Through the offence of one 'the many are dead'--spiritually dead. 'By one man's disobedience the many are made sinners.' 'By the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation.' (Rom. 5:15-19.) There is no evading the force of these passages. They represent the posterity of Adam, universally, as somehow sinners, dead in sin, and under condemnation in consequence of his first offence. We have only to ask, then, Are infants among the posterity of Adam? Are they his children?
Page 57
"2. We put this argument in a somewhat different shape, and urge the sinful character of infants from the fact that they are human beings, and belong to the human race. The sinfulness of the entire human race, without an exception, is taught in the plainest terms in the Bible. Man's heart is evil from youth--not this man, that, or the other; but man in general--every man. 'The heart of the sons of men is full of evil.' This, too, is spoken of the sons of men generally, universally.
"3. Paul says: 'We have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin.' This verse with those that follow it (Rom. 3:9-12), teaches as plainly as words can teach anything, that mankind universally are sinners. Not only is no exception made, but all exception is, by the very terms, excluded. 'There is none that doeth good: no, not one.' We have only to ask, then, as before: Are infants included among mankind? Are they of the human species? If so, they are by the testimony of the Creator, sinners.
"4. There are many other Scriptures which teach the same doctrine,--some of which were remarked upon in my last lecture. 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh,' that is, fleshly, carnal, sensual, sinful. It is as certain from these words that infant children are sinful as it is that they are born of the flesh. David says: 'The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon
Page 58
as they be born, speaking lies.' (Psalm 58:3.) Does the Psalmist say here that the wicked are not estranged from God until they have learned to speak, and begin literally to tell lies? Or does he mean as he says: 'The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they be born;' possessing from the first an evil, deceitful, lying spirit? The latter is clearly the sense of the passage; and thus interpreted, it is decisive to our present purpose. We have a parallel passage in Isa. 48:8: 'I knew that thou didst deal very treacherously, and was called a transgressor from the womb.' Paul, speaking of himself and his Christian brethren, says: 'And were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.' (Eph. 2:3.) To be a child of wrath is to be a sinner; and such the apostle assures us, mankind are by nature. The passage obviously teaches that men are sinners by nature, from their birth, since whatever belongs to us by nature must be from birth. I quote but another passage. Paul says again, 'If one died for all, then were all dead.' (2 Cor. 5:14.) The word 'dead' here obviously means dead in sin, and such, the apostle tells us, is the state of all for whom Christ died. We have only to ask, therefore: Did Christ die for infants? Have they any interest in his death? If so, then they are sinners.
"5. We infer from the sufferings of infants, that they are sinners. That infants suffer early and in some instances severely, there can be no doubt.
Page 59
And there are but three ways in which to account for their sufferings in consistency with the goodness and justice of God. They must either suffer as mere animals, or they must suffer as Christ did, by their own consent, or they must suffer as sinners and for their sins. The first supposition reduces infants to the condition of mere animals, which few persons will consent to do. The second no one will claim to support. We are shut up, therefore, to the last. The infant suffers for his sins. It may be said that he suffers for the sin of Adam. But those who say this will also say, that he is a partaker of the sin of Adam, and guilty of it; so that after all he suffers for his own sin.
"6. That infants are sinners may be further proved by their death. We might infer as much as this from the mere fact of their dying, unless we will consent to place them in the same category with brute animals, even if we had no light from the Scriptures on the subject. But the Scriptures do afford us light. They assure us in the plainest terms, that, to all the sons and daughters of Adam death is a fruit of sin. 'By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned.' (Rom. 5:12.) It is as certain from this and the parallel passages, that infants are sinners, as it is that they are subject to death: for to all the human species, the posterity of Adam, death is a fruit and a proof of sin."
Page 60
Pond, a pedobaptist, has proven conclusively that infants are truly sinners. Then baptism as an outward sign of an inward purity will not hold when applied to infants. Therefore infants should not be baptized.
But hear what Pond says on how infants shall be saved:
"And if any one now ask, How are such infants to be saved, I answer, In much the same manner as adults. The adult has a selfish, sinful heart, which must be changed by the Holy Spirit, if he is ever saved; and so has the infant. The adult must be forgiven through the atonement of Christ; and so must the infant. Both are saved, if saved at all, through the washing of regeneration and the sprinkling of atoning blood."
But it will be observed that the New Testament Scriptures, without a single exception, declare that we must be regenerated and then baptized. The adult can and must take some part in his regeneration, but the infant cannot. He must be saved, if saved at all, wholly through the atonement. Then why baptize him? If salvation is personal and the infant can do nothing to secure his own personal salvation, why baptize him? If he dies, the atoning blood of the spotless Lamb of God will change his heart and save him. If he grows up to years of maturity and accountability, the atoning blood will change his heart and save him, provided he repents and believes and is baptized. 'But since he will be an unchanged sinner
Page 61
when he grows up to years of accountability, why baptize him and make him a member of the Christian church in his sins? Clearly it is wrong to baptize infants. It is wholly unreasonable and unscriptural.
Page 62
THE POOL OF SILOAM.
Page 63
PART TWO
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM AND DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER.
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
CHAPTER I.
["]PRODUCE your cause, saith Jehovah; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob." (Isa. 41:2.)
"And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand." (Isa. 28:18.)
Various views are entertained in regard to John's baptism. The pedobaptists have laid much stress upon John's baptism, not being Christian baptism. Evidently they have done this because no sane and unbiased mind can read the Bible account of John's baptism and not conclude that John beyond a shadow of a doubt, baptized by immersion.
Let us see the third chapter of Matthew on this important subject: "In those days cometh
Page 64
John the Baptist (John the Baptizer) preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Verses 5 and 6 say: "Then went out unto him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan; and they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins."
John did not baptize any infants, for he baptized those who confessed their sins. Infants cannot confess their sins, therefore he did not baptize any. John baptized in Jordan, but a Methodist will explain "in Jordan" away by making "in" mean "at." Why don't they make "in" heaven "at" heaven or "near-by" heaven; and "in" hell "at" hell or "near-by" hell?
The Bible tells us that Jonah was swallowed by the whale, and that he was in the belly of the whale three days. Why don't they make "in" the belly of the whale, "at" the belly of the whale? The Bible also tells us that Daniel was put in a den of lions. Why don't they make "in" the den of lions "at" the den of lions?
From verses 13 to 17 we have an account of John baptizing Jesus. Read it prayerfully. "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John would have hindered him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. And Jesus, when he was baptized,
Page 65
went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him; and lo, a voice out of the heavens, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
Pedobaptists tell us John's baptism was not Christian baptism. Baptists are not particular about what they may call John's baptism; since we know that Jesus, the Redeemer of the world, came all the way from Galilee to Jordan, a distance of fifty or sixty miles, and doubtless he made this long journey on foot, to be baptized of John--not for the remission of his sins--for he had no sins; but to sanction John's baptism; to set his holy seal upon it; to tell us it was right; to approve not only of baptism itself, but also to approve of the mode practiced by John. Jesus, help us to see the truth. They tell us this was not Christian baptism; but whether it was Christian baptism or not, the Holy Trinity met on this all-important occasion. Christ Jesus when he was baptized "in" Jordan, comes up straightway out of the water, and the Holy Spirit in the shape of a dove, approves of his baptism by lighting upon him, and the Father seals the whole transaction by speaking from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Surely both the subjects and mode of John's baptism must have been correct. How did John baptize? If the story of his baptizing in Jordan
Page 66
was told to you, and you had never heard of sprinkling, pouring or immersion, would you not naturally conclude that he baptized by immersion? Think of it, my friend: Jesus baptized by John in Jordan! "Jesus when he was baptized, cometh up straightway from the water." My friend, don't be deceived any longer. Be buried with Christ in baptism. One of the things that opened my eyes on this subject is the daring way of the Methodists in explaining away anything and everything in the Bible that contradicts their pet theories.
Let us see Hibbard on this subject in the second part of his book on "Christian Baptism," page 11:
"Various views are entertained in relation to the baptism of John. Some regard it as identical with Christian baptism, while others will deem an apology due for introducing it at all in the present discussion. The character of John's baptism will be noticed hereafter; at present we shall turn our thoughts to an investigation of the mode of his baptism. It is not greatly to be wondered at that the advocates of exclusive immersion should readily have imbibed the belief that John performed his baptism by immersion; but it is truly unaccountable that persons of the opposite sentiment should, in any instance, 'have conceded to them this ground on so slight investigation. Still whatever may be the final determination in regard to the mode of John's baptism, it can have no direct tendency to fix the evangelical
Page 67
mode of Christian baptism any further than to throw light upon the use and application of the word 'baptize.'
"Before stating the arguments in support of our own views, we shall notice some of those which have been brought forward in defence of the hypothesis that John immersed. The argument of our opponents, derived from the word 'baptize,' we shall consider in a future number. We notice at present only those circumstances which stand connected with the notice of John's baptism, and which are supposed to favour the idea of immersion.
"It is urged in favour of John's disciples, that he 'baptized in Jordan.' "
Now see how he explains away "in:"
"The force of the Greek particle en will be discussed in its appropriate place; but we introduce it here merely to give a logical cast to the argument. What, then, is the argument when logically stated? It is this viz.:--John baptized in Jordan; therefore he baptized by immersion. But it is further argued, in support of immersion, that John baptized 'in Ænon, near to Salem, because there was much water there.' (John 3:23.) The circumstance of John's choosing a place where there was much water is supposed to favour the doctrine of immersion. Hence the question is asked, with an air of argumentative triumph, Why did John choose a place of 'much water' if he merely sprinkled
Page 68
the people? And so, as if the argument were complete, it is inferred that John chose such a place for immersion only. Now we are not bound to show the real cause of John's choosing such a place. If any man assert that it was for the purpose of immersion only, why, the onus probandi lies with himself; let him prove it. We have not, like our Baptist brethren, taken upon ourselves any such responsibility."
But he has taken it upon himself to explain away a plain and most obvious truth. John baptizing in Jordan helps to explain when he left Jordan, why he chose a place of much water. But the Methodists will explain away the river itself, if it becomes necessary to uphold their false theories. Hibbard goes on to say:
"But mark the singular logic of the argument above alluded to. It amounts to this, viz.:--John baptized at Ænon, because there was 'much water there;' therefore John 'immersed.'
But this is not the argument of the Baptists. Why did he not state our argument fully? This is the position of the Baptists, that since the word "baptize" primarily means immersion, and immersion only, and John baptized in Jordan, in Ænon, because there was "much water there," that the baptizing in Jordan, and where there was much water, all taken together, proves as conclusively as language and circumstances can prove anything, that John baptized by immersion. Hibbard says further:
Page 69
"Doubtless this mode of reasoning proves satisfactory to some, but we cannot participate in a faith which rests upon such evidence."
He simply ignores and sets aside evidence contrary to all rules of honesty and fairness. Lord, help the people to see the truth!
Hibbard goes on to ask:
"Where, then, is the proof that John immersed? We know of none. But observe:
"1. Considering the vast multitudes that followed John, 'much water' was requisite for the convenience of baptism in any form. But as this will not obviate the point of difficulty with our opponents, we remark,
"2. That as the history does not inform us whether the 'much water' was needed for baptism or for some other purpose, we are left to conjecture the necessity of its demand by the light of circumstances. Now, we know that baptism may be performed in a small body of water. But there were other circumstances, besides, simple baptism, for which John was to make provision. In that country the mercury ranges in winter from forty to fifty degrees, and, in summer from eighty to one hundred, and in the plains at Jordan, where John was baptizing, often much higher. Water, therefore, was in constant demand, not only for baptizing, but more especially for their uses and for their beasts. And the necessity of the people John must see and provide for, whenever he would fix
Page 70
his position for baptizing, unless he would endanger the lives of the people."
But all of this argument in reference to drinking water for the people and beasts is simply assumed. The "much water" spoken of is mentioned in connection with John's baptizing. The Methodists will produce any kind of an absurd argument. This argument is an insult to the enlightened and progressive spirit of the age. My dear reader, accept the truth; unite with the Church of Jesus Christ. Follow Christ in baptism.
THE BAPTISM OF JESUS.
Page 71
CHAPTER II
LET US follow and expose Hibbard further in his strained hypothesis. The Methodists ought to plainly see from the groundless arguments of their own learned ministers that their position is false. They admit that "baptize" means immersion, but they say it also means sprinkling and pouring; and they take the position that all the baptisms of the New Testament were performed by sprinkling and pouring. How can we believe they are sincere? They are objects of pity. No amount of reasoning on the mode of John's baptism will cause an unbiased mind to believe that John did not baptize by immersion, If plain Scripture is to be twisted and strained according to Methodist rule on baptism, when we come to the great plan of salvation, in all of its other ramifications, we had just as well abandon the whole thing. We get more satisfaction and truth out of reading Col. Robert Ingersoll's "Mistakes of Moses" than we get out of these theories. But let us follow Hibbard further:
"We shall now inquire more particularly into the facts recorded in connection with John's
Page 72
baptism, with a view to ascertain the practicability of immersion. In doing this our observations will necessarily become more extended. In constructing our argument we shall direct our inquiries to three several particulars: the population of Palestine, what proportion of the entire population John baptized, and what length of time John was employed in his public ministry.
"1. The Population of Palestine.--The reader must not be startled to find a population in Palestine, in the commencement of the Christian era, vastly superior, in proportion to its extent of territory, to that of our own country, or most, if not any of the modern nations. Many circumstances contributed to the formation of a dense mass of inhabitants, among which may be reckoned the universal passion among the Jews for a numerous offspring, their religious predilection for their native soil, and their aversion to the manners and customs of all other nations; besides, their religion and their customs were so highly national, and so peculiarly their own, as to render all intercourse with other nations, either social or commercial, extremely difficult. These powerful causes checked emigration, and penned the Jews within the narrow confines of their own territory.
"It was not until the disastrous consequences of the Assyrian and Babylonian invasions had torn them away from the land and the graves of their sires, that they first thought of planting themselves on heathen ground. Afterward,
Page 73
though they emigrated to different parts of the civilized world, still, the universal prejudice of the nation, and particularly of the Aramean party in favour of their own land, was expressed in the current maxim, 'Israel is Israel only in the Holy Land.' Hence, we are not surprised to find, in the days of King David, one million three hundred thousand 'valiant men that drew the sword,' exclusive of the tribes of Levi and Benjamin. And in this census was not reckoned any person from twenty years old and under. Now, if we reckon five persons to every warrior, which, considering otherwise disabled from bearing arms, together with all the female population, it is not an extravagant estimate; and if we reckon the tribes of Levi and Benjamin to number one hundred thousand each, which is not their proportion, we shall make the entire population of Palestine to amount to six millions seven hundred thousand. We might corroborate this statement by references to the population of other ancient countries, but our limits forbid such a digression.
"We make these statements merely to show the probable correctness of the following account given by Josephus of the population of Palestine, A. D. 66. That author says:
'While Cestius Gallus was president of the province of Syria, nobody durst so much as send an embassage to him against Florus; but when he was come to Jerusalem, upon the approach of the feast of unleavened bread, the people came about him
Page 74
not fewer than three millions; these besought him to commiserate the calamities of their nation, and cried out upon Florus as the bane of their nation,' etc.
"Now this Florus was Governor of Judea; and when the Jews said he was the 'bane of the nation,' they intended that part of the nation over which he ruled, viz.: Judea; and hence it is probable that these three million Jews who complained to Cestius about their Governor, were mostly citizens of the single province of Judea."
He finally concludes, after giving a great deal of matter that we shall omit, the entire population of Palestine at the time John preached in the wilderness, and baptized in Jordan, was six millions. All of this argument has been produced to show that John did not baptize by immersion.
Every particle of this population argument is based upon strained and extreme hypothesis. Since he has shown this great population, and since John baptized nearly all of them, he could not have baptized them in the length of time he had to baptize in. John did what no other preacher ever did--he was the greatest of all preachers when the Methodists find it convenient to make him great. According to their theory, he baptized nearly all the people he preached to, and yet Christ found the large majority of the Jews to be cruel sinners. The Methodists will make the Bible mean literally what it says, when it seems to support their false doctrine, and when
Page 75
the literal meaning of the Bible is against them they will explain it away.
Now see how Hibbard explains away even the possibility of John baptizing by immersion. He proceeds thus:--
"2. We next inquire what proportion of the population of Palestine attended John's ministry and were baptized of him.--The reader will not look for great arithmetical exactions in our calculations when he considers that a few general facts constitute our only data; nor will he on the other hand, regard our conclusions as 'air built and baseless,' when he reflects that those general facts are the express declarations of Scripture. Previously to all direct investigation of the subject, it is important that we have enlightened views of the object of John's mission. John was sent to 'prepare the way of the Lord.' He was sent to no private sect or party, but to the Jewish nation--to the great Jewish family resident in Palestine. He was received by 'the Jews as a nation. There was no such division of public sentiment in regard to John as prevailed in reference to Jesus Christ. The Pharisees and Sadducees in general submitted to his baptism, ambitious of the distinction thus conferred, and all parties coalesced in the popular sentiment that John was a divine prophet. Indeed, nothing short of this general reception would have fully answered the intent of John's mission. 'He was a burning and shining light,
Page 76
and the Jews were willing, for a season, to rejoice in his light.' These considerations furnish a strong presumption that the major part of the people were baptized of John."
All of his argument is presumption. If it is proper to apply the Methodists' rule of presuming on the subject of baptism, on all the other subjects of the Bible, we will presume away heaven, earth and hell--mortality and immortality.
Hibbard continues with his presumptions:
"In exact accordance with this presumption are the express declarations of Scripture. Matthew says, chapter 3:5, 6: 'Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.' Mark informs us, 1:5, 'that there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him.' Luke says, 3:21: 'And when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus himself, being baptized,' etc.
"The province of Judea comprehended nearly one-half of the entire territory of Palestine west of the Jordan. The 'region round about Jordan' by 'which we are to understand the great valley of the Jordan, lies between the mountains of Israel on the west and those of Hermon, Gilead, and Abarim on the east, reckoning from the northern extremity of the sea of Tiberias, according to Burkhardt to the embouchure of the
Page 77
Jordan. This 'region' embraces most of the territories of Samaria and Perea, besides a large portion of Galilee. The description of Matthew, therefore, is found to embrace the heart of the Jewish population."
After showing what the other New Testament writers say about all Palestine, Hibbard proceeds to presume. Read his next presumption: "How many others from abroad received his baptism, history does not inform us, but the number was, probably, not inconsiderable. The only difficulty that can arise in fixing the sense of the evangelists lies in the use and limitation of the general terms employed. The word 'all' in the several connections cited, must necessarily mean something. It cannot be argued, with good reason, that it here amounts to a mere Hebraism for a great multitude. There exists no reason why the word in the above connections should be understood in proverbial and not in a narrative sense. No impossibility or absurdity is necessarily involved in taking the word literally, or to signify a great majority which is a very common acceptation. Or if any absurdity be involved in such an acceptation, it can be so only on the principles of our opponents, and must therefore lie against their theory, which supposes that John immersed his disciples one by one."
Hibbard continues until finally he decides to put the number that John baptized at three millions. He says:
Page 78
"It would then follow that he baptized in all, three millions of persons. John may not have baptized, in fact, so many. Still, we think the words of the sacred history obliged us to understand something like the result to which we have attained, which certainly is far from being absurd, or impossible considered as a matter of fact.
"3. We now inquire into the duration of John's public ministry. According to Luke, chapter 3:1, etc., John opened his ministry in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Cæsar, reckoning the three years of his reign conjointly with Augustus, which, according to our most approved chronology, answers to the thirtieth year of John's life. It is generally agreed by chronologers that our Saviour was born December the twenty-fifth A. M. 4000. John the Baptist was six months older than Christ, and consequently was born the twenty-fourth of June previous. Allowing, then, John to have opened his ministry at the age of thirty, in the latter part of June, year of the vulgar era 26; and supposing, as Luke says, Jesus was baptized when he was thirty years of age, i. e. about December the twenty-fifth of the same year; it would then follow that John had been engaged six months in his public ministry at the time of Christ's baptism."
Page 79
CHAPTER III.
THE GREEK CHURCH holds that Christ was baptized on the Epiphany, which is the sixth of January, New Style. But the difference of a few days, either way, cannot materially affect the weight of our argument. How long John continued baptizing subsequently to this period we are not definitely informed. But, from a careful collation of facts, we can safely limit the period of his after labors to four months. The last account we have of John, previously to his imprisonment, states that he was baptizing at Ænon near to Salim. (John 3:23.) This was immediately after our Lord had attended his first passover, which was celebrated on the fourteenth day of the month Nisan, which, as the Jews reckoned their years by lunar months, answers to the moon of our March."
Hibbard here gives us a long argument to show that the entire public ministry of John lasted only ten months. Let that be as it may. Let us examine some more of his presumptions:
"But here are several facts to be considered.
"1. John could not have commenced baptizing immediately upon the opening of his mission, and
Page 80
the people be induced to receive his baptism. We will suppose, then, that he preached two weeks before he began to baptize.
"2. John's term of public labour included one wintry season, wherein, though the climate in that country is much milder than in our own, still there would be an unavoidable loss of time, occasioned by foul weather. This, with those who are acquainted with the calendar of Palestine, will not be deemed an insignificant item. During the winter the inhabitants of Palestine often experience storms, especially during the rainy seasons, at which time there is little traveling abroad. This, together with the time occupied in moving from place to place, would require another reduction from John's time for baptizing, of not less than twenty days.
"3. Forty-three Sabbaths are to be deducted, wherein, according to the Jewish observance of those days, it was unlawful for John to baptize. Thus we have left, in all, two hundred and twenty-seven days, in which we may suppose John exercised the function of his ministry. We next inquire, How many hours per day John was employed in the very act of baptizing. If he immersed his disciples, according to the modern mode, he could not have thus laboured more than six hours per day, pursuing his labours in the same ratio for two hundred and twenty-seven days. John was unsustained by any miracle, and must calculate his labours as we would those of
Page 81
any other man, according to a medium ratio of physical strength. And no man could rationally suppose John to have stood in three feet depth of water more than six hours in a day, and for the above-mentioned time, labouring at the top of his strength, without an iron-bound constitution or a miracle of aid. But according to this estimate, the whole number of hours in which John was employed in the very act of baptizing amounted to one thousand three hundred and sixty-two.
"We are now ready for the argument.
"1. John baptized in all, three million persons.
"2. The whole time in which John may be supposed to have been engaged in the very act of baptizing did not exceed one thousand three hundred and sixty-two hours. Therefore John must have baptized in one hour, two thousand two hundred and two; in one minute, thirty-six, or a little over one in every two seconds."
The argument presented here by Hibbard against immersion and in favor of sprinkling is not worthy of the notice of respectable thinkers. How does he manage to find out the exact number of months that John preached? The Bible does not give them. How does he know it was about two weeks after John began to preach before he began to baptize? The disciples on the day of Pentecost, preached and baptized the same day.
When the time comes to baptize the season gets rainy and stormy, so much so, that there is little traveling abroad. But when he explains the
Page 82
word "all," out of which he gets his three millions for baptism, there is nothing said about this foul weather. How does he know it took twenty days for John to move from place to place? The Bible is silent on this point. How does he know that John's baptism was not accompanied by a miracle? The Bible does not tell him it was not.
"Is there a thing too hard for thee,
Almighty Lord of all,
Whose threatening looks dry up the sea,
And make the mountains fall?"
Plainly pedobaptists are without a foundation. Lord, help them to open their eyes. The Baptists have in our favor John baptizing in Jordan, and in Ænon, near Salim, where there was much water. Christ baptized of John in Jordan. And when he "was baptized, went up straightway from the water." And the primary and original meaning of the word "baptize," means immersion and immersion only.
Page 83
CHAPTER IV.
LET US see what Dr. E. Y. Mullins, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, says concerning "Immersion:" "For one man to shout, 'It is!' and another to shout back, 'It is not!'--a reiterated affirmation on the one hand and a reiterated denial on the other --is a see-saw of contradictions, rather than a logical process. It must be confessed that the long-drawn baptismal controversy sometimes seems to degenerate into such a contradiction, issuing in little progress towards unanimity, or other fruits of the Spirit. The careful observer, however, will find evidences of an awakening conscience in many quarters on this subject, and it cannot be in vain for Baptists in all charity to continue to affirm their strong conviction on a matter which so large a portion of the Christian world seems determined to ignore.
"'The case for immersion at present,' is the theme assigned to me. An adequate statement of the case will require some space, and some patience on the part of the reader. The meaning of word, 'immersion,' as based upon the meaning of
Page 84
the Greek word translated 'baptize' in our English Bible is as convincing as it is possible for evidence to make it. The purposes of this article require a brief presentation of this evidence.
"Lyddell & Scott's Greek Lexicon is a universally accepted standard among scholars. It gives immersion, and immersion only, as the meaning of the Greek word 'baptizo.' This applies to classic as well as New Testament Greek.
"Grimm's Wilke's Lexicon of New Testament Greek, says the word means 'to submerge, to wash by submerging.' In the New Testament the word means 'an immersion in water, intended as a sign of sins washed away, etc.' This lexicon gives no other meaning of the word.
"Cremer's Lexicon says the word means 'submerged,' and in the New Testament, 'submersion for a religious purpose.'
"Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, which is a translation revision, and an enlargement of Grimm's Wilke's Lexicon, gives an extended definition of baptizo in its various New Testament connections, and it is uniformly the same as in the lexicons named above--'to submerge,' 'to dip,' 'to plunge.'
"The figurative uses of the word are all based upon the same meaning. Testimony from other lexicons might be given. I will only add that of Professor Sophocles in his Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine period, from B. C. 140 to A. A 1100. He gives the meaning which is
Page 85
found in all the standard lexicons--'dip,.' 'plunge,' 'submerge.' In addition he cites Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Gregory, Epiphanius, Origen, Cyril and others of the early fathers in proof of this meaning.
"The testimony of the fathers is well-nigh universal in favor of immersion for over 400 years. Modern Greeks regard the translation of the word baptizo, 'to sprinkle,' as absurd.
"Dr. Broadus quotes a modern Greek scholar as saying: 'The church of the West commits an abuse of words and of ideas in practising baptism by aspersion, the mere statement of which is itself a ridiculous contradiction.'
"The above position is abundantly sustained on the authority of the reformers of the sixteenth century, as well as by evidence from great numbers of modern scholars.
"Martin Luther advocated a return to immersion as the New Testament form of baptism.
"John Calvin admitted that immersion only was the original mode, but that the form was a matter of indifference.
"Dr. Doellinger, a Roman Catholic scholar of very high standing, has said that, as to the mode of baptism, 'the Baptists are from the Protestant standpoint, unassailable, since for their demand of baptism by submersion they have the clear Bible text.'
"Innumerable modern scholars of all denominations maintain the position that immersion only
Page 86
was the New Testament form of baptism. In Germany two names of interest are Meyer, the great commentator, and Harnack, the great historian. The latter wrote some years ago, to Dr. C. E. W. Dobbs, in reply to questions about the meaning of the Greek word, especially as to whether a 'sacred sense' of the word baptizein is ever to be understood, allowing sprinkling instead of immersion.
"Dr. Harnack wrote, in part, as follows: 'Baptizein undoubtedly signifies immersion. No proof can be found that it signifies anything else in the New Testament, and in the most ancient Christian literature. The suggestion regarding a sacred sense is out of the question. There is no passage in the New Testament which suggests the supposition that any New Testament author attached to the word any other sense than to immerse.'
"Dr. Harnack wrote the above as a statement 'on the present state of opinion among German scholars.' Besides the above, practically all the great names of scholars of the Church of England, who have expressed themselves on the point might be quoted in support of the view that immersion, and immersion only, was the form of baptism taught by the New Testament. In view of the above array of evidence, it would seem that the 'case of immersion at present' is closed, if we confine our view to the meaning of the Greek word of which it is the translation.
Page 87
"The 'Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.'--The above document revived interest in the baptismal controversy upon its publication, some seventeen years ago. Being a witness raised up out of its grave, so to speak, in the Jerusalem library, and dating from about the middle of the second century, its testimony as to baptism was examined with great eagerness by all parties. Both immersionists and anti-immersionists claimed the document in confirmation of their respective views. Baptists have every reason for the claim that in no degree does the teaching of the 'Twelve' weaken their position as to the teaching of the New Testament. Its instructions on the subject of baptism are pronounced in favor of immersion. In brief, it directs that baptism shall be in living water; and if this be not convenient, in other water; and if not in cold water, baptize in warm.
"Finally, if water in sufficient quantity for immersion be not found, then 'pour water thrice upon the head, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.' It is perfectly clear from the testimony of the 'teaching' that its writer held to immersion as the original and proper mode of baptism. The fact that pouring as an alternative mode in certain contingencies is prescribed does not destroy the force of the teaching as to immersion. The only open question which is left by this document, is whether or not the direction about pouring was, in the mind of its author,
Page 88
based upon apostolic example and precept, or upon other considerations. The evidence in favor of the latter view is overwhelming. The following facts shed light on the point:
"Cyprian, A. D. 200--257, wrote a tract in defence of clinical baptism, that is, baptism of sick people, against those who denied its validity. It commonly held about this time that, although in certain cases of sickness pouring was allowable as a substitute for immersion, it was defective baptism and disqualified for the priesthood. 'Moreover,' Schaff says, 'it was probably because Novatian had been baptized by aspersion, when on a sick bed, that he failed of re-election to the See of Rome, and that this fact became the occasion of a subsequent schism which attended his name.'
"As to the existence in the age after the apostles of substitutes for immersion, Baptists do not make denial. But the very fact that the substitutes are never adhered to as resting on scriptural authority and the further fact that they are dealt with and treated as departures from the customary mode, and especially because it was necessary to defend them against many who rejected them, the conclusion is unavoidable that they arose after apostolic times. The adequate cause for their introduction is found in the exaggerated importance attached to baptism, and the supposed peril of unbaptized persons at the point of death. The Greek word employed in 'the teaching'
Page 89
to set forth the threefold pouring which is admitted as a last resort, is a word never once used in the New Testament in connection with baptism.
"The Witness of History.--Let us glance at the case for immersion as witnessed by Christian history. The following are the facts: 'First of all, there is no shred of evidence that the New Testament form of baptism (immersion) was ever departed from in New Testament times. At an early date, however, clinic baptisms by pouring or sprinkling came into vogue. These clinic baptisms were not the rule, but the exception, and were never urged on direct scriptural grounds. Immersion continued to be the usual and preferred mode for over a thousand years.
"In the Greek Church immersion has ever been and is still the practice. The longer catechism of the Russian Church declares that 'trine immersion in water is most essential.' Similar witness is borne by Professor Philaret Bapheidos, of the Russian Church, author of a Church History, and many other living writers testify to the same effect. In the Roman Church, immersion continued the rule until the thirteenth century. In the Anglican Church there is abundant evidence in favor of immersion as the ancient and biblical form of baptism. In theory the Church of England still holds to immersion, as is evidenced by the prayer book and other authorities. In the Rubric of the Church of England we read,
Page 90
as to the baptism of infants: 'Shall dip the child in water; but if they certify that the child is weak, it shall suffice to pour water upon it.' The witness of Christian history is, therefore, conclusive as to the original mode of baptism.
"The admission of other forms was due to circumstances and expediency, and not to Scripture teaching. The Protestant world which practices sprinkling, therefore, must maintain it on grounds which are at variance with the fundamental principle of Protestants--the Bible alone the authority in matters of faith and practice.
"Immersion viewed in its relations.--Baptism when viewed in its relations, strongly reinforces our contention for immersion, as distinguished from all other so-called modes of baptism. This ordinance is not to be viewed apart from its connections in the Christian system. For one thing, it is related in its very form to most vital Christian doctrine. Death, burial, and resurrection strikingly symbolized by the act of baptism! A complete purification and cleansing from sin are also thus set forth; a death to the old, a resurrection to a new life, are among the truths which receive graphic portrayal in the baptismal act of obedience to Christ.
"Rev. William Sandy, D. D., LL. D., author of a very able recent Commentary on Romans, says in connection with Rom. 6:1-14: 'Baptism expresses symbolically a series of acts corresponding to redeeming acts of Christ: Immersion
Page 91
through death; submersion--burial (the ratification of death); emergence--resurrection.'
"Now, so far from being unimportant, because a mere external form is baptism, its real importance arises from the fact that it is a form. Now, we do not exalt the ordinance of baptism over against the truth of the atonement, or other great doctrines, and declare them of equal importance. Such comparisons are unnecessary. To set forms against doctrines, or doctrines against forms, is a thing unwarranted by Scripture.
"To arrive at an understanding of the importance of a form, we must inquire what use it subserves as a form, and what authority enjoins the form. As to the latter, Christ has spoken. This must suffice for all who accept him as Lord. As to the former, baptism as a symbol must remain unchanged in form.
"Symbols, in the nature of the case, cannot save--they can only represent pre-existing spiritual life. As a symbol, form is everything. This is true because only forms can serve as symbols. Truths cannot be symbolized by other truths. Abstract teachings cannot be symbolized by other abstractions. The fitness of the form to shadow forth truth is the determinative principle in the institution of forms. The ritualistic system of the Old Testament illustrates this at every point. Hence it follows that in symbolics, form is all-important.
"Understand me: I do not say that form is all-important in itself, or as compared with doctrine
Page 92
and life; but form, when employed as a means of setting forth truth--form utilized as a symbol-- is all-important. This is true because form as a symbol is a mould of doctrine. The doctrine is contained in the symbol as water is contained in a vessel. To mar the form is to destroy the doctrine, so far as the agency of the form is concerned, just as to break the vessel is to spill the water. Its utility as a symbol is gone the moment you alter its form. Then, too, to change baptism from immersion to sprinkling, when we remember the symbolic uses of the ordinance, is really to make less of doctrine than of form; for it is to make doctrine wait on form, rather than form on doctrine. If doctrine is important in comparison with form, then we should begin with doctrine, and make the symbol conform to the requirements of doctrine. When we alter the form, we compel the doctrine to take its chances for adequate representation in a mutilated form.
"Doctrine is the jewel; form is the casket. Caskets are made for jewels; not jewels for caskets. Whoever heard of a dealer manufacturing a set of handsome jewel cases, and then casting about for jewels to fit them? Baptists desire that the jewel of doctrine shall abide in its pristine beauty, and that the casket of a symbol shall match it in form as in the beginning.
"Another thought related to the foregoing is that Jesus always viewed things in their totality, and not in fragments. He enjoins truth and its
Page 93
expression. The tree is vindicated by its fruits; words are made good by deeds; life authenticated by conduct; so, also, faith ripens into expression. The internal and the external are required to complete the Christian act. Baptism is the outward expression of the inward change. Baptism by immersion is not only the fitting expression of inner life; it is the necessary complement to the Lord's Supper.
"The two ordinances shadow forth the supreme facts, of the Gospel. Christ's death is symbolized in the Supper, his burial and resurrection in the ordinance of baptism. Thus, in their relations to the Christian system, baptism and the Supper occupy a position of unique value. They serve as a medium for the exhibition in striking form of the chief fundamental and vital facts as to Christ and the Christian. Was not this comprehensiveness a part of the design of Christ in instituting the ordinances? Is it not evident that he meant these forms to serve as visible instrumentalities for thus setting forth before the eyes of men a complete Gospel? If this completeness of representation was a part of Christ's original design, can we depart from the forms which are necessary to the symbolic completeness, without violating Christ's will? We must find Christ's point of view in leaving the ordinances to his Church, as well as seek to understand their significance; and having found his point of view, we must adopt it as our own.
Page 94
"The owner of certain grounds devised a landscape gardener's services to lay them out with a view to a given effect from the portico of his residence, which stood on an elevation in the midst of the grounds. The gardener, during the absence of the owner, discovered what he regarded as a better effect from a different point of view, and laid out the grounds accordingly. But he was summarily dismissed upon the owner's return, because of his disobedience, and because his point of view left out of account the chief item in the owner's plan--viz., the effect from the portico of his residence.
"The ordinances of baptism and the Supper constitute a ceremonial survey of the landscape of Christian fact and doctrine, comprehending the chief vital facts. To break the form of baptism is to eliminate a part of its doctrinal significance. sprinkling cannot symbolize burial and resurrection. The ordinance is thus left a mere fragmentary representation. Thenceforth the ordinances cease to give the completeness of representation which Christ designed. We thus lose his point of view. It thus appears that an ordinance even must be viewed in its relations before it can be understood. As a mere form it is nothing. As a form employed to symbolize vital truth, and as a supplement to another form symbolically setting forth other truth, and as a part of an arrangement for the complete exhibition of a group of truths, prescribed by a supreme will, it is much.
Page 95
A very minute wheel lying on a jeweler's table is an insignificant thing; as a part of the machinery of a watch, it is indispensable; for without the tiny wheel the watch would not run, and would cease to have utility as a timepiece."
Page 96
CHAPTER V.
THE OTHER SIDE.
VARIOUS arguments and objections have been urged against the Baptist position. The old claim that the scarcity of water in Jerusalem must have prevented the immersion there of three thousand converted in one day by twelve men is met by the well-known fact that Jerusalem was amply provided with large pools and a water supply which sustained it through numerous sieges of several months' duration, and when the supply was exhausted on the outside it was abundant inside the city; and by the further demonstration, in the immersion of our Telugu converts, of the ability of twelve men to perform the above task. The claim is for a 'sacred sense' of the word baptizo in the Scriptures has never been made out and is distinctly negatived by the consensus of German scholarship, as represented by Professor Harnack, as well as the great mass of scholars of all Christian nations.
"The plea for sprinkling on the ground that immersion is not always 'practicable' is met by the explanation that what is 'impracticable' is
Page 97
what cannot be done, and that what cannot be done is never commanded. The force of the argument based on the rigors of the colder climate is neutralized by the fact that in cold England immersion continued much longer than in Spain and some of the warmer climates of the South. The fact that many learned and good men have believed in sprinkling, which is a solace to some, should not stand a moment as an excuse for personal investigation on the part of all, and personal obedience to the commands of Christ.
"Few of the errors of Christian history in doctrine and life are without learned and good men as their advocates. It was often thus that they originated. Over against this fact is another far more significant, viz.: That there is an increasing demand for immersion on the part of the common people, with their English Bibles in their hands. This demand is witnessed to a greater or less extent in every Protestant community. It has reached such proportions in the Church of England that more than one hundred baptisteries, according to 'The Freeman,' have been erected in recent years for the baptism of adults, and others are in process of construction.
<