ES eee eee eee κυ ϑϑδιαα UC TSO υ χα πὸ τον νυν νὰν νυ πντοῦ να . y SRA RTS δὰ ον τ᾿ ως ee oe δ = Sn i = Sn ae τος δὰ Baas το ee ae νυν παν ΘΟ a resaie παν EERE! . = = = —— - “ὡν..,»σ.».... τὰν Ὡπ.».«..» 5... «ὦ. 1.-.-χ. ὕὕ... ee, ee eee tate neat: Mortiectine lian Moran aes an, terete, ried een eatin te eke ee ο...- “« ~_ sen se Ξ Ξ ee ee -— ayn 3 eee οἱ tie Cheologiryy rae af ® ¥ Ἂν , FRINCETON, N. J. Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library http://www.archive.org/details/treatiseonbaptisOOke ty) Wes ener eh ᾿ τ τι i A TREATISE ON et Pk oe: WITH AN EXHORTATION TO RECEIVE IT, TRANSLATED FROM THE WORKS OF ST. BASIL THE GREAT. TO WHICH IS ADDED A @reatise on Confirmation, BY FRANCIS PATRICK KENRICK, Bishop of Philadelphia. “ΕἼ δὲ a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God.’’ 1 Cor. iv. 1. PHILADELPHIA : M. FITHIAN, 61 NORTH SECOND STREET. Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1843, by FRANCIS PATRICK KENRICK, in the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia. PRINTED BY KING AND BAIRD, No. 9 George Street. To The Right Rev. Benedict Joseph Flaget, Bishop of Louisville. ἘΊΘΗΥ Rev. Sir, The permission received from you several years ago, to publish, with your sanction, some discourses then recently delivered by me on baptism, in your Cathedral, emboldens me to dedicate to you the treatise on this sacra- ment, of which those sermons form the rude materials. Although my rela- tions to you have changed, I entertain the same profound veneration for your character, and the same devoted attachment to your person. I have the honor to be, Right Rev. Sir, Your devoted brother in Christ, + FRANCIS PATRICK, PHILADELPHIA, Bishop of Philadelphia. Feast of the Purification, 1843. 4 ἥν Ῥ a Ἢ ‘a ς - . ἫΝ - γ eb . αἱ 6 ls ‘ 4 - a ro a Pe εν ᾿ . Ε i ᾿ 7 ™ wh ᾿ τ ᾿ Ey la : - ΄ ; ‘ + ς 4 A oe εὐ J τ a ᾿ ᾿ . . . anit = \ i. ᾿ ; ; \ 7 » ‘ } ι La ! γ᾽ ‘ x 4 ἋΣ ᾿ = a: ‘ + ἢ ἡ Leh yles Eda) ἢ ν δν , 3 Ἢ ὡς , 4 his / ‘ : wl Joly 10 The ᾿ ous) suki we é } ΝΕ A Ai od ᾿ Lass ai αὶ ἡ θῖν ¥ { h iy 7 Mis “ ἐ " ad “΄ ὯΝ ee et . ϑῆνυνν, vee agacy ᾿ ν J nett awn 1 Ξ i ΝΜ 1 © 204 a ι δ ᾿ ae δ" PRE PACE. Some years ago, when I was a Missionary in Kentucky, an invitation or challenge given me by a Baptist Minister, to preach in his Meeting-house on the subject of baptism, which 1 declined, induced me to deliver in the Cathedral of Bardstown, four sermons on baptism, which I subse- quently published. I have been frequently urged to reprint them ; and have, at length, determined to throw the mate- rials of them into a new form, better suited to the critical nature of the investigations which they embrace. My present position, in a city wherein ihe Society of Friends is numerous, has led me to treat in this work of the insti- tution of water-baptism, which was not called in question by those who invited the original controversy. The learned tract on this subject from the pen of Dr. Pusey has so abundantly established the efficacy of this Sacrament, that I have been less solicitous to multiply proofs of it, although I have treated of it at some length. The necessity of 1* δ ἐὰν vi PREFACE. baptism, and the lawfulness of baptizing infants, and the validity of the various modes of baptism are the chief points on which I dwell. To immersion we are by no means opposed, although we maintain the sufficiency of other modes, and the necessity to respect the established immemorial usage of particular places. In a controversy between Charles Blackwood, an Anabaptist, and Thomas Blake, a Presbyterian, the former having alleged in his behalf the authority of St. Thomas Aquinas, Blake re- plied: «* Aquinas was a man zealous for the use of dipping, as is generally the popish party and popishly inclined.’’* The practice of sprinkling, which prevails among Presby- terians, is exposed to so great danger of nullity, from the light manner in which it is performed, that Catholics are not favorable to it; although they hold such aspersion as may be reasonably deemed an ablution, to be valid bap- tism. In maintaining Catholic truth, I have had occasion to notice the opposite errors, held by various sects, and advo- eated in the writings of individuals still living. This I have done without respect of persons, yet, as I hope, without forgetting the courtesy and charity which become the apologist of religion. ΤῸ give pain to others affords me no gratification, but I dare not dissemble the awful de- parture from the ancient and unchangeable principles of * Infants Baptisme freed from Antichristianisme, by Thomas Blake, Minister of the Gospel. London, 1645, p. 10. PREFACE. vil faith, which is perceived among the professed ministers of Curist. I have subjoined to this Treatise the translation of a discourse of St. Basin THE Great, in which he exhorts the many who in his age delayed baptism, although con- _ vinced of the truth of Christianity, to hasten to receive it. The readers will no doubt be gratified to hear, as it were, this venerable Doctor of the East, after fifteen centuries, explaining the nature and effects of baptism, enforcing its necessity, and pointing to the vain pretexts on which it was by many postponed. His discourse will be particu- larly felt by some, who in our day likewise postpone, from time to time, the reception of this most necessary Sacra- ment. I take this opportunity of correcting a mistake into which I fell, in my work on Justification, concerning the view given of the nature of justifying faith in a work then recently published by Mr. Vanbrugh Livingston. It ap- peared to me similar to one of the views presented by Luther: but as this very respectable gentleman immedi- ately on the appearance of my book assured me that he rejected altogether the theories of Luther on this subject, I cheerfully retract my assertion. Since that time the esti- mable author has abjured every error opposed to Catholic truth, and has taken refuge in the ark. I have annexed a short Treatise on Confirmation, as it is meet that these sacraments should not be separated, vill PREFACE. whenever they may be conveniently received at the same time, according to the ancient discipline of the Church, Controversy on this latter subject being rare, although it be cancelled by the sects generally from the number of the sacraments, I have not thought it necessary to enter very deeply into the examination of the proofs and objections. To my readers I earnestly recommend devout and humble prayer, to prepare their minds for the strong Catholic truths which they will meet with in this work. The institutions of our Divine Redeemer are to be regard- ed with the eye of enlightened faith ; and with an entire acquiescence in the justice and wisdom of His laws. It is weakness to attempt to soften down what may appear harsh in the divine teaching, and to present the revealed truths in a garb that may suit the capricious fancy of erring man. CONTENTS. Cuapter I.—Baptism of John, - - - Society of Friends.—Views of Sects concerning John’s bap- tism.—Ancient Jewish usages.—Mosaic rites—Heavenly character of John’s baptism.—Ends of baptism of Christ.— Baptized by John again baptized.—Testimonies of Fathers. Cuaprer I].—Christian Baptism, - - Views of the Friends.—Inward testimony.—Literal mean- ing.—Baptism with the Holy Ghost.—Barclay’s objection.— Nicodemus.—Calvin’s interpretation.—Interpretation of the ancients. Cuapter III.—Apostolic Practice, - The Apostles baptized—Acknowledgment of Lewis, and Gurney.—Practice of Jewish ceremonies.—St. Paul’s language to the Corinthians.—Baptism of the Apostles. Cuapter [V.—Objections of the Friends, - One baptism.—Putting on Christ.—Text of St. Peter— Baptism of Converts.—Relic of Judaism.—Material observ- ance.— Visible instruments of grace.—Ancient practice.—Sects. 13 27 40 48 = CONTENTS. xa ride Cuapter V.—Original Sin, - - - 59 Pelagius.—Sentiments of Baptists, and other sects.—Catho- lic doctrine—Evidence of our fallen condition.—Barnes.— Many and all.—Death of Christ for all.—Silence in sacred narrative.-—Job.— David.—Ancient fathers. CuaptTer VI.—Necessity of Baptism, - - 72 Anglicans.—Bishops McIlvaine and Onderdonk.—Presbyte- rian confession.—Proof.—Baptist interpretations.—Pangs of new birth.—Twofold regeneration.—Judge Rush.—Ancient Fathers.—A postolic commission.—Lot of unbaptized persons —of children.—Misquotation by Bishop MclIlvaine.—Opinion of St. Augustin. Cuarter VII.—Effects of Baptism, - - 93 Views of the Sects—Changes in Book of Common Prayer. —General view.—Catholic faith—Scriptural proofs.——-Objec- tions.—Testimonies of Fathers —Regeneration—F eigned dis- positions.—Character impressed. Cuapter VIII.—Origin of Baptists, - «i Muncer.—Storck.—Leyden.—Mode of baptism.—English Baptists.—Pretensions of Baptists. Cuapter [X.—Baptism of Infants, Β a ee Opinions of Sects.—Scriptural proofs of Infant baptism.— Practice of the Apostles—Testimonies of the Fathers——De- crees of Popes and Councils.—Anglican appeal to Church tradition.—Testimony of Taylor.—Peculiar views of Tertul- lian and St. Gregory of Nazianzum.—Instances of adult bap- tism.—Objection from ancient practice of giving the Eucharist to children answered.—Recapitulation of proofs.—Infants bap- tized by all the Eastern Sects. Fe δὴ ΤΩΣ yt Oe CONTENTS. xi 4 ad ¥ Cuaprer X.—Modes of Baptism, - - 150 Immersion common to Baptists, Campbellites and Mormons. —Principles of Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans and Metho- dists—Slight sprinkling.—Catholic principles and usages.— Burial in baptism.—Scriptural allusions.—Baptism a laver.— End of baptism.—Ancient modes of baptizing.—Testimonies of Fathers.—Tertullian, St. Cyprian, Pope Cornelius——Can- ons of Councils.—Facts.—Baptism of the sick.—Proof drawn from necessity of baptism.—Baptists suffer the sick to die with- out baptism.—First Baptists rebaptized by persons themselves baptized in infancy -by infusion.—Custom of the Greeks.— Causes of change of discipline.—Indecency of immersion. Cuapter XI.—Meaning of the term baptize. - 178 Classical meaning, primary and secondary.—Examples.— Hebrew Hellenistic usage.—Examples from the Septuagint— Figurative meaning—New Testament examples——Mode of John’s baptism.— We with the Fathers. APPENDIX, - - = - - 195 Cuapter XI].—Apostolic precedents, _ - - 199 Baptism of 3,000.—Jailer.— Cornelius.—Disciples at Ephe- sus.—Eunuch.—Presumptions.—Divine voucher. Cuarpter XIII.—Dispositions for Baptism, - 205 Infants need none.—Adults must believe all revelation.— Scrutiny.—Apostolic Symbol.—Law of God.— Renunciation of Satan.—Impression of character.—Preservation of grace. Cuaprer XI1V.—Ceremonies of Baptism, ew Ste Cure of the deaf and dumb man.—Questions.——Breathing. —Sign of the Cross.—Imposition of hands.—Salt.—Exor- cisms.—Stole—Symbol.—Lord’s Prayer.—E phpheta.-—Saliva. —Anointing.——Nudity.—- White robe.—Light. ExuortaTIon To Baptism, by St. Basil the Great, 225 Xli CONTENTS. TREATISE ON CONFIRMATION. CuApter I.—Divine Institution, - - - 242 Views of the Sects——Catholic doctrine-—Imposition of hands by Peter and John.—Paul at Ephesus.—Miraculous gifts—Acknowledgment of the Oxford divines.—Fathers of the Church.—Use of Chrism.—Minister of the Sacrament.— Practice of the Greeks.—End of Confirmation.—Spiritual character. Cuapter II.—Rites of Confirmation, - simmers D5'7 Power of the Church.—Present rite—Extension of hands. Prayer.—Imposition of hand.—Signing with Chrism.—Blow on the cheek. ΟΝ.» AvP ToS! Mi CHAPTER I. BAPTISM OF JOHN. Berore I treat of the baptism instituted by Christ our Lord, I am under the necessity of considering the nature of the baptismal rite which John performed. The ““ Friends,”’ or ‘* Quakers,”’ as they are popularly called, , whose Society derived its origin from George Fox, an English Anabaptist,* discarding all external rites, say that * He was by trade a shoemaker, and gave rise to this Society about the year 1650. The appellation of Quakers was given them, as some say, because George I’ox bade a magistrate tremble at the word of the Lord, or as others explain it, from their trembling in their meetings occasionally, when imwardly struggling with the enemy: “As they come to be sensible of this power of his that works against them, and to wrestle with it by the armour of light, sometimes the power of God will break forth into a whole meeting, and there will be such inward travail, while each is seeking to over- come the evil in themselves, that by the strong contrary workings of these opposite powers, like the going of two contrary tides, every individual will be strongly exercised as in a day of battle; and thereby trembling, and a motion of body will be upon most, if not upon all.” Barelay Apol: Prop. xi. 8. 8. 2 ᾿ baud 14 BAPTISM OF JOHN. the baptism of Christ is no other than an interior opera- tion of the Divine Spirit, and is thus distinguished from the baptism which John performed, which was in water. The Catholic Church maintains the distinction of the two baptisms, and anathematizes whosoever asserts that the baptism of John had the same virtue as the baptism of Christ: but holds that water is to be used in Christian baptism, as it was in that of John.* Calvin, with his‘ad- herents, was aimed at by this canon, since he taught that the difference between them lay in the accompanying in- struction, rather than in the rites themselves, or their effects, inasmuch as John taught that Christ was about to come, whilst the Christian rite supposes Him already manifest- ed.t Dr. Miller, however, although an ardent Calvinist, says, ‘‘It is certain that John’s baptism was not Chris- tian baptism.”’{ The members of the society called Baptists peak to the same effect, and consider their name as iden- hifying them with John, who is ‘styled rue Baptist, be- cause he baptized the multitudes that approached him, confessing their sins and professing repentance. Their confession of faith, however, is silent as to the Baptism of John, and speaks only of baptism as an ordinance of the New ‘Testament appointed and ordained by Jesus Christ. Isaac Taylor Hinton, a recent Baptist writer, says: “1 regard the baptism of John as Christian baptism * Conc. Trid. Sess. vii. de Bapt. can. 1. Dr. Pusey has well shown the harmony of the Fathers, in acknowledging the excellence of Christian Baptism, notwithstanding some difference of views as to the effects of the baptism of John. Tract on Baptism. p. 208. { Inst. liv. c. xv. 7. This error ‘is triumphantly refuted by Dr. ἡ Pusey, in his learned Tract on Baptism, p. 193. et seq. Am. ed. + Miller’s Tract on Baptism, p. 38, cited by Hinton, p. 68. BAPTISM OF JOHN. 15 in an incompletely developed state; yet with all its ele- ments of character strongly marked.”’* He glories in the idea that he has been baptized with the same baptism of which his Great Master and ‘Teacher personally partook.t This, I believe, may be considered as the general senti- ment of Baptists. Whether the rite of baptizing was practised among the Jews previously to the time of John, is a subject of dispute , among the learned. Maimonides and other Jewish writers state that it was used on occasion of admitting to Jewish privileges the Gentiles, who sought to be incorporated with the nation; but many maintain that the Gentile converts. merely bathed, to express by the act that they cleansed and put away all the defilements of idolatry. Various purifica- tions were prescribed in the Mosaic law, wherein the priest sprinkled with blood, or water, those who had con- tracted legal uncleanness. ‘The washing of the whole body was also, in some instances, enjoined, yet it was to be — performed by the individual himself : and was therefore a bath rather than a baptism, as this term is now understood. In the consecration of Aaron and his sons, Moses was directed to wash them with water ;§ which is the only in- stance of the ablution of the whole body performed by a person different from the individual washed. Whatever resemblance may exist between this rite, or the legal as- persions, and the baptism of the multitudes by John, it was peculiar to him to baptize on a profession of repent- ance, and asa means of preparation for the immediate coming of the Redeemer. His baptism was consequently * A History of Baptism, p. 65, by Isaac Taylor Hinton, Philadel- phia, 1840. t Ibidem, p. 68. + Lev. xv. § Exod. xl. 12, 16 BAPTISM OF JOHN. different from the legal purifications, or other Jewish usages, and differed likewise from the rite subsequently instituted by Christ. Of John Christ had spoken by the prophet Malachy: ‘* Behold, I send my Angel, and he shall prepare the way before my face.”’** His father Zacharias, under divine in- spiration, had declared the preparatory character of his ministry: ‘‘ Thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Most High: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord, to prepare his way: to give knowledge of salvation to his people, unto the remission of their sins.’’t We are not authorized by any expression of the sacred writers, to consider the baptism of John as a rite of divine institution. He certainly was ‘‘ a man sent by God,’’ and he acted under the influence of the Divine Spirit, both in his fervent exhortations to penance, and in his adoption of this rite, the natural emblem of the purification of the penitent. It is on that account called purification, where mention is made of a dispute between the disciples of John and the Jews on this subject.{ It does not, how- ever, appear that any grace was imparted by it, although it is styled ‘* the baptism of penance for the remission of sins.”’§ God, no doubt, granted pardon to the penitent ; and therefore the rite of baptism, which, with the preach- ing of John, was intended to awaken sentiments of peni- tence, and to excite those baptized to make to themselves a new heart and a new spirit, is properly so designated by the Evangelist. We know of no form of words accompa- nying the ablution ; but it was preceded by the announce- * Malach. iii. 1. t Luke 1. 76. + John iii. 25. § Mark i. 4. BAPTISM OF JOHN. 17 ment of Him who was to come, that is Jesus, in whom he taught them to believe. The baptism of Christ by John was intended to give a public sanction to the ministry of the Precursor; whereby all might be encouraged to hearken to his preaching, and every appearance of rivalry between him and Christ might be taken away from the minds of the Jews.* It was at the same time the occasion of a public and solemn testimony of John to Christ, confirmed by heavenly evidences of his divine character; and it was, as it were, to consecrate the waters by the contact of the Incarnate God, that they might thenceforward be the instrument of human sanctifi- eation. He, holy and undefiled, needed not ‘the baptism of penance for the remission of sins ;’’ but when the Pre- eursor hesitated, and acknowledged his own need to be washed and purified by Christ: “1 ought to be baptized by thee: and comest thou to me ?’’—* Jesus answering, said to him: Suffer it to be sonow. For so it becometh us to fulfil all justice.’’t That the baptism of John was a mere preparatory rite, emblematic of penance, is most evident from the divine * Among the reasons which Witsius, as quoted by Booth, gives for the baptism of Christ by John, one is “to declare by his voluntary submission to baptism, that he would not delay the delivering up of himself to be immersed in the torrents of hell, yet with a certain faith and hope of emerging.” Miscel. Sac. I. I. Exer. xv. §63. In reply to Adam Clarke, who affirms that Christ was baptized as High Priest, Hinton observes: “ As a Jew, it would have been criminal, instead of praiseworthy, for our Lord to have appropriated to himself any of the ceremonies belonging solely to the tribe of Levi.” A History of Bap- tism, p. 81. It is thus that men rashly speak of our Divine Lord! + Mat. iii. 14. Q* 18 BAPTISM OF JOHN. scriptures.* Had it been the same as the baptism of Christ, no one would have been baptized anew, who had received the ablution of the Precursor: yet we find that persons who had been baptized by John were not considered mem- bers of the christian church, until they afterwards received the baptism of Christ. ‘There went out to him all the country of Judea, and all they of Jerusalem, and were bap- tized by him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.’’t In less than five years afterwards, Peter, in Jerusalem itself, addressed the multitude that had gathered together to wit- ness the miraculous manifestations of the presence of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles. Many, who had come from distant nations to worship in the Jewish temple, were pre- sent on the occasion: but it is highly probable that the vast majority were of Jerusalem, or of some part of Judea. Peter addressed them as guilty of crucifying Jesus, and putting him to death by the hands of wicked men: and as they were moved to compunction, and inquired what they should do, to obtain forgiveness, he told them: ‘‘ Do pen- ance and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.”+ He urges each one of them to seek christian baptism, although doubtless many, perhaps most of them, had been baptized by John. ‘‘ They therefore that received his word were baptized: and there were added in that day about three thousand souls.’’§ * Enoch Lewis, having quoted the words of John to our divine Master, observes: “ From this account it is obvious that John did not consider his baptism as a part of the christian system.” Essay on Baptism, Philadelphia, 1839, p. 21. This is quite true; but the inference the author draws thence, that baptism by water is no part of the christian system, does not follow. 7 Mark i. 5. + Acts 11. 38. § Ib. 41. It is wonderful with what sang frovd Hinton, contrary BAPTISM OF JOHN. 19 In the nineteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles a fact is recorded, which establishes most clearly the dis- tinction between the baptism of John and that of Jesus. “ΤῸ came to pass when Apollo was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper parts, came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples. And he said to them: Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? But they said to him: We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost. And he said: In what* then were ye baptized? Who said: In John’s baptism. ‘Then Paul said: John baptized the people with the baptism of pen- ance, saying, That they should believe in him who was to come after him; that is to say, in Jesus. Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”*+ We need no clearer evidence of the distinction of christian baptism from that of John, and of the necessity of baptizing anew, with the christian rite, those whom John had baptized. These disciples were supposed by the Apos- tle to have received christian baptism, and were therefore interrogated by him whether they had received the Holy Ghost by the imposition of hands; he being solicitous to strengthen them by this new gift, in case they had not already received it. To his surprise they were ignorant to the plain import of the sacred text, observes: “I have always considered this number to include those who had been baptized either by John, or by the disciples of Christ during his lifetime, who availed themselves on the first public appearance of the church in its organized capacity to unite with it.” A History of Baptism, p. 92. * “Eis here, and often, does not denote purpose,—but εἰς with the accus. is put for ἐν (by) with a dative, as in forms of swearing, 6. gr. Matt. v. 35, évs Ιεροσόλυμα, which is just after followed by duvvew ἐν τῇ γῃ. Bloomfield in locum. { Acts xix. 1. 20 BAPTISM OF JOHN. of the rite of which he spoke, and of the gift imparted by it. They said that they had not even heard that there was a Holy Ghost. The question put by the Apostle, ‘‘In what then were you baptized ?”’ supposes that express belief in the Holy Ghost was required of applicants for christian baptism, and that He was solemnly invoked in its administration; and consequently that no adult could be baptized without a knowledge of His divine influence and gifts. The baptism of John was accompanied with no such invoeation: and although the Divine Spirit, in the shape of a dove, descended on our Redeemer when bap- tized, it was not the effect of the rite, but the testimony of the Father to His beloved Son, and the pledge and token of the grace to be annexed to the baptism which He was to institute. The baptism of John was a peni- tential rite, emblematic of the purification of the repentant sinner; and it served as a preparation for Him who was to come, who should baptize in the Holy Ghost. The explanation given by the Apostle was followed by the ad- ministration of christian baptism: ‘* Having heard these things they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.’’* The attempt of some to refer this to the baptism of John, as if they were the words of Paul, rather than of the sacred historian, is too destitute of all plausibility to deserve refu- tation; especially as the sacred writer immediately adds, that Paul imposed hands on them, thus identifying the persons baptized with those who received the imposition of hands.t * Acts xix. 5. + Gilbert, in his excellent Tracts on Baptism, p. 21, handles this argument with great ability. Dr. Pusey happily exposes the absurdity of the exposition of the text invented by Marnix, and adopted by BAPTISM OF JOHN. 21 It may be useful to show how the ancients understood the words of the sacred text. TerRTuLLIAN observes: ‘“‘In the Acts of the Apostles we find, that those who had the baptism of John, had not received the Holy Ghost, of whom they had not even heard: therefore it was not heavenly, since it. did not im- part heavenly things.”* Sv. Oprarus says: “ΝΟ one had been baptized in the Trinity : no one had yet known Christ: no one had heard of the Holy Ghost: the baptism of John was different from the baptism of Christ. Paul said: In what baptism have you been baptized? And they said: John’s. He persuaded them to receive the baptism of Christ.”*+ The motive of the second baptism is justly stated by Sr. Aveustin to have been no other than the difference between that of John and that of Christ: ‘* We read,” he says, ‘‘in the Acts of the Apostles, that those were baptized by Paul who had already been baptized by John for no other reason but because the baptism of John was not the baptism of Christ.’’{ These testimonies show Beza, and many reformed and Lutheran writers: “ When scripture says, ‘ they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came on them, and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. And al] the men were about twelve:’ ‘they’ in the first place means all who in Judea re- ceived John’s baptism, and in the second, the twelve only who were at Ephesus; so that scripture does not mean that St. Paul laid his hands on the same persons who had been baptized, for these were, according to this exposition, all John’s disciples, but that it does mean, that St. Paul laid his hands upon these twelve, as having been some of those formerly baptized by John: and this though scripture adds, ‘And all the men were about twelve.” Tract on Baptism, p- 214. * Lib. de Bapt. { L. v. contra Parmenian. + L. v. de Bapt. c. ix. 92 BAPTISM OF JOHN. the sense which the sacred text naturally presented to minds unbiassed by the controversies of modern times. The distinction between the two baptisms is broadly stated by these ancient writers, on the authority of the divine scriptures: ‘“‘The baptism of penance,’ 'TERTUL- LIAN observes, ‘‘ was given as the disposition for the forgive- ness and sanctification which were to ensue in Christ: for the baptism of penance for the remission of sins which he’ preached, was announced for the future remission : since penance precedes, remission follows ; and this is to prepare the way: he that prepares, does not himself per- fect, but leaves the perfecting to another.”’* Sr. Jzrom calls attention to the preparatory and imperfect character of the baptism of John, and appeals to the divine writings : “ραν what the scriptures teach: the baptism of John did not remit sins, but was a baptism of penance for the remis- sion of sins, that is the future remission, which was after- wards to come by the sanctification of Christ.”t Sr. ATHANASIUS, explaining the words of the Baptist, ob- serves: ‘That expression, ‘He will baptize you in the Holy Ghost,’ means that He will purify you: inasmuch as this could not be effected by the baptism of John, but by that of Christ, who has power even to forgive sins.” Sr. Basix, urging catechumens to hasten to the font, puts before them the anxiety of the Jews to receive the bap- tism of John as an example worthy of their imitation, and shows how much more. excellent christian baptism is: ἐς John preached a baptism of penance, and all Judea went forth to him: the Lord proclaims a baptism, whereby we are adopted as children of God, and who is there that hopes * Lib. de Bapt. } Dial. adv. Lucifer. + Ex. Serm., sive Comm. in Matth. BAPTISM OF JOHN. 23 in Him, who will refuse to receive it? That baptism was of an introductory character: this perfects the receiver ; that separated from sin: this unites with God. The preaching of John was of one man, and yet it drew all to penance: you are taught by the prophets: ‘ Wash your- selves, be clean;’ you are admonished by the psalmist: ‘Come ye to Him, and be enlightened ;’ you hear the glad tidings from the Apostles: ‘Do penance and be baptized each one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you will receive the pro- mise of the Holy Ghost;’ you are invited by the Lord himself: ‘Come to me, all you that labour, and are bur- thened, and I shall refresh you;’ and yet you tarry, and deliberate, and delay.”’* The grace of the Holy Ghost is declared by the F salient on the divine authority of scripture, to be peculiar to, chris- tian baptism. ‘TeRTULLIAN, speaking of the baptism of John, observes, that though it was heavenly, inasmuch as he was divinely sent, it was not heavenly in its effects, since ‘*it would give the Holy Ghost and the remission of sins, if it were heavenly. He declares that he baptizes unto penance only, and that there would shortly come one who would baptize in the Spirit.”+ Sr. CHrysosrom says: “« The grace of the Holy Ghost is in the baptism of Christ: but the baptism of John is destitute of this gift.”+ Sv. Grecory, of Nazianzum, writes: ‘‘John baptized, no longer indeed after the manner of the Jews, for it was not merely in water, but unto penance: and yet not altogether spiritually ; for he does not add: in the Spirit. Jesus also baptizes, but in the Spirit: for this is the perfection.’’§ ἈΚ Hom. xiii. in S, Baptisma. t De Bapt. + Hom. xi, inc. iii. Matt, § Orat. xxxix. 24 BAPTISM OF JOHN. Calvin confesses that the Fathers distinguish the two baptisms, and contemptuously rejects their authority, on the pretext that it is opposed to. scripture: ‘* Let no one be disturbed at the attempt of the ancients to distinguish one from the other, since their opinions should not be looked on of such importance as to weaken the certainty of scrip- tune.” The proper view of the baptism of John is that given by Sr. Joun Damascene: ‘{ The baptism of John was intro- ductory, and it led the persons that were baptized to pen- ance, that they might believe in Christ. For I, said he, baptize you in water; but he that shall come after me, shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and in fire. 'There- fore John purified previously for the Spirit: but we are baptized with the perfect baptism of Christ, by water and the Spirit.”’"t | The same view is constantly presented by TERTULLIAN: ‘* We recognize John as a kind of limit esta- blished between the old and new dispensations, in whom Judaism should terminate, and from whom christianity should begin.’’{ In thus appealing to the Fathers I ask nothing but what must be conceded by every rational inquirer. I rest not on their authority ; but in examining the nature of this an- cient rite, and its relation to the initiatory rite of christian- ity, the judgment and testimony of ancient christian writers, most of whom held high stations in the church, must have weight. They had in their hands the sacred books, and were acquainted with the public doctrine of the church. Their proximity to the apostolic times, and their utter estrangement from the controversies which are now agi- * Inst, |. iv. 6. xiv. 7. { L. iv. de fide orthodoxa. + L. iv. contra Marcian, c, xxxili. BAPTISM OF JOHN. 25 tated, must recommend their calm testimony to our serious consideration. ‘‘In what depends on testimony,” the learned critic George Campbell observes, ‘‘they are in every case wherein no particular passion can be suspected to have swayed them, to be preferred before modern inter- preters or annotators. 1 say not this to insinuate that we can rely more on their integrity, but to signify that many points were with them a subject of testimony, which with modern critics are matter merely of conjecture, or, at most, of abstruse and critical discussion. It is only from ancient authors that those ancient usages, in other things as well as in language, can be discovered by us, which to them stood on the footing of matters of fact, whereof they could not be ignorant.”’* According to the Fathers there is a manifest distinction made in the scriptures between the baptism by John and that which Christ instituted. Both are in water; but christian baptism is the instrument of the Holy Spirit for the regeneration of the soul, and is made in the name of the three Divine Persons, whilst the baptism by John was an incentive to penance, and a symbol of the purification of the penitent, without the express invocation of the Trinity. Nor need we be moved by the observation of Enoch Lewis : “6 ΤῈ is strange,” says he, that nothing appears in their (the Apostles) history to show that they accompanied the act with a declaration that it was done in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”t For us * The Four Gospels translated from the Greek, with Prelim. Diss. by George Campbell, D. D., Principal of Marischal College, and one of the Ministers of Aberdeen. Diss. iv. p. 112. { Essay on Baptism, p. 29. 3 26 BAPTISM OF JOHN. it is sufficient to know, that they were commanded to bap- tize in this way: for surely they fulfilled the injunction. To confound things so clearly distinguished in the divine scripture 15 to set at naught its authority, whilst professing to revere it. ‘The christian who adheres to its teaching, regards the baptism of John as a preparatory rite, adopted for a time, to express the purity of soul with which Christ should be received when He should publicly manifest him- self. When He came, John gladly saw the multitudes flock to Him to receive His baptism. ‘This my joy, therefore,’’ he said, ‘is fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease.’”* From the time of its institution it alone was to be sought after, and its nature, qualities, and effects are to be determined, not by reference to the baptism of John, but by those divine testimonies which specially regard the christian institution. * John 11. 29. 27 CHAPTER II. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Tue ““ Friends,” as I have already stated, maintain that Christian baptism is the interior purification and sanctifi- cation which the Spirit of God effects, without any ex- ternal ablution. Barclay, the celebrated Apologist of the Quakers, states their principles on this head in the following terms: ‘‘As there is one Lord, and one faith, so there is one baptism: which is not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience be- fore God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And this baptism is a pure and spiritual thing, to wit, the baptism of the Spirit and fire, by which we are buried with Him, that being washed and purged from our sins, we may walk in newness of life, of which the baptism of John was a figure, which was commanded for a time, and not to con- tinue for ever.”’* Inasmuch as “the Friends” appeal to the inward revela- tions of the Spirit as the formal object of faith, and refuse to subject them to the test of the outward testimony of the Scriptures, although they contend that these divine reve- lations neither do, nor even ean, contradict this outward testimony ;t there is little ground for hoping to convince them by an appeal to the Sacred Writings. Yet must we not on this account abandon the proofs which are abun- * Prop. xii. Theses Theologice. { Prop. ii. 28 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. dantly furnished us in the pages of the New Testament, of the divine institution of baptism by water. These pas- sages will confirm the faith of believers, and may enlighten many, who have never considered them with attention, and serve to show how great is the delusion of those who resist evidence so striking. © Barclay himself lays down the Scriptures as a ground whereon the Friends are ready to meet their adversaries, and admits the maxim that ‘* what- soever any do, pretending to the Spirit, which is contrary to the Scriptures, be accounted and reckoned a delusion of the devil.’’* ‘*Strange reasoning!”’ justly exclaims Frederick Lucas, the distinguished convert: ‘* The Scripture is too uncertain and doubtful to be the rule itself, but it is, never- theless, the test of the application of the more perfect miler? The literal and obvious meaning of the term ‘‘ baptize,”’ is acknowledged to be, fo plunge in water, or, in its modi- fied acceptation, to wash in some way: but, like other terms, it is sometimes used figuratively. ‘Thus to be over- whelmed with affliction, is in Scriptural style to be bap- tized: “51 have a baptism,” said Christ, to represent the greatness of his sufferings, ‘‘ wherewith I am to be bap- tized, and how am 1 straitened until it be accomplished.’ It is used also to express the pouring out and communica- tion of the gifts of the Holy Ghost: ‘* You shall be bap- tized with the Holy Ghost,’’§ said He to his Apostles, consoling them with the assurance of the communication * Prop. iii. §. 6. t “Reasons for becoming a Roman Catholic, addressed to the So- ciety of Friends, by Frederick Lucas, Esq., of the Middle Temple, Barrister at Law, London. ‘+ Luke xii. 50. § Acts i. 5. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 29 of the divine gifts on the day of Pentecost. It naturally expresses a washing with water: yet figuratively it was said by John of Christ: ‘* He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire :’’* to indicate the divine influence on the heart, whereby the love of God is excited, and earthly affections are consumed: the external emblems whereof were seen in the tongues of fire reposing on the Apostles when the Holy Ghost descended. ‘‘ What means,”’ cries Sr. Curysostom, “in the Holy Ghost and fire? Call to mind that day whereon tongues as of fire appeared divided on the Apostles, and sat on each one of them.”t These figurative meanings being acknowledged, it becomes im- portant to know, by what rule the signification of the com- mand to baptize is determined. ‘The Friends”’ say, that the baptism of the Spirit, and not any external ablution is meant in the commission, and that the precursor declared that his external washing of the body was to give place to this invisible baptism: “1 baptize in water’’—said he to the multitudes :—‘‘ he it is that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.”’{ We, on the contrary, maintain, that as to bap- tize, in its natural and usual meaning, is, to wash with water, it must be so understood in a solemn commission, since words are used in their obvious sense on occasions of this character. The humility of the Precursor leads him to declare, that he only performs a mere external ab- lution, whilst all sanctifying influence comes from Christ. The grace received by the penitent whom he baptized, was the giftof Him who baptizes in the Holy Ghost. Thus in the very baptism of John the external rite was distinguish- ed from the grace granted to penitence on occasion of its * Matt ne, 11. { De Bapt. Christi hom. + John i. 26, 33. 3* 90 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. ministration. Between that baptism and the baptism in- stituted by Christ, there exists-an immense distance, since John’s baptism was a mere ablution with water, having no inherent efficacy; whilst Christ baptizes in the Holy Ghost, using the water only as the emblem and instrument of his grace. In contrasting the two rites, water is men- tioned in the first place as constituting altogether the rite which John performed ; and is afterwards omitted, that the excellence of the baptism of Christ may alone be consi- dered in the divine effects which it produces. This by no means excludes water, which is elsewhere positively spe- cified, and which is naturally included in the idea of bap- tizing. Had we nothing to argue from but this text, we might hesitate ; but it is fair to supply what is here omitted by the many other texts wherein water is mentioned as the element used in Christian baptism. Christ is said to baptize with the Holy Ghost, because his power. is invisibly employed in sanctifying the soul ; but he cannot be supposed to command the Apostles to baptize in this way, since they can exert no divine power. They can only perform some external act, to which a cer- tain virtue may be divinely annexed: but they cannot directly operate on the soul; so that to order them to bap- tize, in the sense of purifying the soul by an immediate invisible influence, is to enjoin that which is utterly beyond their power, and which is the exclusive prerogative of the God-man, whose ministers they are. The words, then, in which he addressed the apostles cannot be so interpreted : Go, teach all nations, sanctifying them by the Holy Spirit. This cannot even be referred to a divine influence attend- ing their preaching; since this influence was not theirs, and they could not be ordered to impart it. It must neces- CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 31 sarily proceed immediately from a divine source. There is no parity in the example of miraculous operations ; be- cause the external act is done by the agent, and the Divine power makes it efficacious ; but baptizing in the Spirit is a purely internal act, necessarily Divine, and cannot be enjoined on men. They might be directed to instruct men, and a divine blessing might be promised to their labors : but they could not be called on to give the Holy Ghost, by internally communicating His influence, which must wholly depend on God. Had Christ meant to employ the term ‘baptize’ to express the operation of the Holy Ghost on the mind, he might have said: ‘ Go, teach my doctrine in all nations, and I will baptize them unto the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost;’’ but he could not direct them to baptize in this sense. No where is it said that the Apostles baptized in the Holy Ghost, although Cornelius was thus baptized whilst Peter was speaking. The natural force of the term employed in this solemn com- mission must, then, be retained, since the figurative appli- cation of it is totally inconsistent with the circumstances in which it was used, and the persons to whom it was ad- dressed. In its obvious sense every thing is plain and harmonious. ‘The Jews were accustomed to divers wash- ings with water.* John had baptized with water on re- ceiving to penance the multitudes that flocked to his preaching. ‘The disciples of Christ, in accordance with his will, had been accustomed for some time to perform the same ablution to such of their countrymen as applied for it. When, then, He said, ‘‘ Go, teach all nations, baptizing them,”’ they were necessarily led to understand Him as ordering them to wash in like manner all, without * Heb. ix. 10. 32 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. discrimination of nations, and thus to initiate them into his Church. ‘The command is to do unto the nations gene- rally, what they had hitherto performed within the limits of Judea: to instruct them, and to baptize them: and the rite of baptism, as well as the teaching, is to continue to the end of time.* Whenever the term ‘baptize’ is qualified by other words, a secondary, or figurative, meaning may be attached to it, as when John says of Christ: ‘‘ He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire ;’’t and Christ promises to his Apostles: ‘You shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.not many days hence.’”’{ All occasion of mistake is removed, and the secondary meaning is fixed and de- * Barclay objects that the washing of the feet is neglected, although enjoined apparently in stronger terms than baptism ; and Judge Rush admits the force of the objection, and complains that “the Catholics and nearly all the Protestant churches in Christendom have conspired to lay it (the washing) aside.” An Inquiry into the doctrine of Christian Baptism, by Jacob Rush, Presiding Judge of the first judicial district of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1819. But there is no foundation for the reproach to Catholics, nor for the objection. The rite is practised at Rome on Holy Thursday, by the Sovereign Pontiff, who washes the feet of thirteen Priests ; in many dioceses, as at St. Louis, by the Bishop; and in religious communities generally by the Abbot, or other Superior. It is prescribed in the Roman Missal among: the rites of Holy Thursday, and may be practised in every church. Yet there is no divine command for this ceremony. The words of our Saviour aré evidently meant to insinuate and recommend mutual kindness and humility; and the persuasion and practice of the Church are sure guarantees that the act was not commanded. On the contrary, the declarations concerning baptism are explicit; and the practice of the Apostles, and of the Church, leaves no room for explaining away their force. { Matt. iii. 11. + Acts i. 5. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 33 fined by the terms added: but when the word is simply and absolutely used, every just rule of interpretation re- quires that we should understand it in its natural and ordi- nary meaning. ‘The*Apostles were led by the promise of Christ to expect the Divine influence of the Holy Spirit, to be exercised on them in an extraordinary manner: and the miracles of Pentecost surpassed their expectations. The communication of the divine gifts to others may also be styled a baptism of the Holy Ghost, since Peter ap- plies the promise to Cornelius and his family, who were supernaturally sanctified.* But what pretext can be de- rived from expressions thus qualified in order to force on the term, when used alone, a meaning which is foreign and figurative ?t Barclay contends that the spiritual character of the bap- tism of Christ is declared by the words subjoined: “" εἰς τὸ dvoua, that is, into the Name: now the Name of the Lord is often taken in scripture for something else than a bare sound of words, or literal expression even for his virtue and power, as may appear from Psalm liv. 3, Cant. i. 3, Prov. xviii. 10, and in many more. Now that the Apos- tles were by their ministry to baptize the nations into this name, virtue and power, and that they did so, is evident by these testimonies of Paul, where he saith, that as many of * Acts xi. 16. ἡ Smith Travers says, that the baptism of which Christ speaks is the gift of tongues! “ Multum examinans, multum conferens, judi- cavi τὸ yapiouo γλωσσων, baptisma esse, de quo locutus erat Dominus; atque alia χαρισματα;, etiam postea comprehendi.” Disquisitionem de Sac. δ. de Baptismate. Philadelphia, 1820, Such is the capri- cious mode of interpretation adopted by those who reject Catholic authority. 94 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. them as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.’’* This observation, however, does not affect the necessity of the ablution with water, which is implied in the command to baptize ; for waiving the literary inquiry whether the accusative form be a Hebraism,t or designate the end for which the ablution is made, it is certain that christian bap- tism is a work of divine power, consecrating to the adorable Trinity those who receive it, and clothing them with Christ, by the communication of his merits. This interferes not with the ablution, or the invocation of the three Divine Persons, whose name is invoked, that their power may effect the sanctification indicated by the external act. The end, or effect, of the act being declared, necessarily presup- poses the reality of the act itself. No parallel passage ean be alleged, wherein the name of God is added to take away the natural and obvious meaning of a preceding term. The baptizing with the Holy Ghost is nowhere called a bap- tizing unto the name of God: so that this is a forced and gratuitous wresting of the words. The interpretation of some moderns, who explain the whole passage of a mere initiation into christianity by instruction in its truths,.is * Apol. Prop. xii. p. 376. + Eis τὸ ὄνομα μὲ is used to express the assembly convened under the invocation of Christ. Matt. xviii. 20. Alexander Campbell, in Christian Baptist, vol. vi. p. 522, maintains that there is a great dif- ference between immersing in the name, and into the name, the former mode of expression denoting the authority whereby the act was per- formed, the latter the object for which it is performed: but the exam- ple just adduced shows that these prepositions are not always used with this nice discrimination. In the narrative of the conversion of Cornelius and his family, it is said that Peter ordered them to be bap- tized in sy the name of the Lord, Acts x. 48, which surely is equiva- lent to what is said elsewhere of the disciples at Ephesus, who were baptized into εἰς the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts xix. 5, CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 35 equally unsupported by parallel passages, and does equal violence to the text, which points out baptism as the means of initiation. The liberty which the sacred writers use in speaking of baptism as conferred in the name or unto the name of the Lord Jesus, only shows that baptism makes “us His disciples, as well as worshippers of His Father and of the Holy Ghost, and that it is conferred by His authority, and in virtue of His institution. There. is nothing to warrant us in regarding the baptism as a mere internal operation; but on the contrary the external act is plainly and positively declared. It is said of the Samaritans that they were baptized in the name of Jesus,* by Philip, who no doubt used water for that purpose, as well as in the case of the eunuch, which baptism was re- ceived even by Simon Magus: and the disciples at Ephe- sus are stated to have been baptized in the name of Jesus,t after they had been instructed by Paul, who, afterwards, by the imposition of hands and prayer, communicated to them the Holy Ghost. When Nicodemus approached Christ, to learn from Him the truths of salvation, our Redeemer at once solemnly de- clared the necessity of a new birth, in order to enter into the kingdom of God: ‘‘ Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’’t This excited the astonishment, and provoked the curiosity of the Jewish ruler. Attaching himself to the most literal meaning of the words, without having regard to the style of the Jews, who were wont to call the baptism of a Gen- tile proselyte a new birth,§ inasmuch as he became a mem- * Acts viii. 16. { Ibidem xix. 5, + John iii. 3. § See Calmet, Dissertation sur le baptéme de Jean; also Wall's History of Infant Baptism, Introduction. 36 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. ber of the Jewish nation, Nicodemus asked; how could a man in old age be born anew ; and as it was naturally im- possible for him to be so born, he intimated that even a new birth, by an entire change of sentiment and con- duct, was morally impracticable. In reply our Lord said : ἐς Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the king- dom of God.”’* The manner of the new birth is here spe- cified: it is by water, even as that was which, in an en- larged sense, was styled a new birth, the incorporation of a Gentile with the Jewish nation: but it is also by the Holy Ghost, and therefore it is truly a new birth, because His divine influence purifies and sanctifies him who is washed, and makes him truly a child of God. He was before a carnal man, born in a natural way of earthly parents : he is now a spiritual being, living by faith: ‘ that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit. Wonder not, that I said to thee, you must be born again.”’+ ‘The sanctifying influence of this Divine Spirit is the free exercise-of His sovereign bounty; and is oftentimes experienced by those who are unconscious of the divine source of their sentiments and feelings: ‘* The Spirit breatheth where he will ; and thou hearest his voice, but thou knowest not whence he cometh or whither he goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.”{ The child of God, born of the Spirit in the bap- * John Π|. 5. : + Ibidem 6, 7. + Ibidem 8. The Protestant version renders this: “'The wind blow- eth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof.” According to this a comparison is instituted between the uncertain and change- able motions of the wind, and the secret operations of the Spirit of God. The Fathers understand the whole of the Divine Spirit him- sf CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 37 tismal laver, continues to receive the divine inspirations, _ without knowing their origin, in a sensible and manifest manner. In this context there is nothing to warrant a de- parture from the obvious meaning of the term water, used in speaking of the new birth; or to establish a birth of the Spirit, so as to exclude water, as the instrument and sign of regeneration. Nevertheless, not only the followers of George Fox have interpreted the words of Christ without reference to baptism ; but Calvin himself, although admitting the use of water in baptizing, has employed his ingenuity in explain- ing away their obvious meaning. He maintains that water is mentioned in connexion with the Holy Spirit, as fire in another passage in similar connexion, to indicate His effects on the soul, which He purifies and inflames.* But the passages are not parallel. In the text which we bring for- ward, Christ is explaining to Nicodemus the new birth, the necessity whereof He had already declared. When Nico- demus. had addressed Him, professing his conviction that He was a teacher divinely sent, Christ said: ‘* Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”’ Nicodemus asked how a man could be born again: ‘* How can a man be born when he is self, which is in harmony with the whole context. The wind cannot be said to will. * Inst. 1. iv. c. xvi. ἢ. 25. In this, as well as in many other re- spects, this bold innovator has undermined the foundations of chris- tianity. Mr. McLean, a Baptist writer, admits that this text has refer- ence to baptism : “ Water here undoubtedly means the watet of baptism, for it is distinguished from the Spirit; so that to be born of water is to be baptized.”—*Thus this passage, John iii. 5, and Tit. iii. 5, were universally understood till the days of Calvin.” 4 Commission, p. 131. 98 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. old? can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb, and be born again?” The answer of our Lord is explana- tory of this difficulty : ‘‘ Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can- not enter into the kingdom of God.’’ . Water is distinctly and emphatically mentioned, when the object manifestly was to explain the manner of this birth: it is not mentioned after the Holy Ghost, as the emblem of his purifying influ-- ence, in the way fire is elsewhere connected with him: ‘“‘he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire :”’ but it is distinctly and primarily mentioned as the obvious and external means of the second birth, which is effected by the power of the Holy Ghost. The mention of water in this place was useless, and calculated to lead into error, if no such instrument of regeneration was meant. The subsequent verses, as we have already seen, do not weaken the force of this explicit declaration. It should suffice to put to silence the authors and sup- porters of this new interpretation, to know, as Hooker tes- tifies, ““ that of all the ancients there is not one to be named that ever did otherwise either expound or allege the place, than as implying external baptism.’’** Dr. Pusey observes : ‘‘ However men may think that the words do not require this interpretation, they will readily admit that it is an ob- vious, perhaps (apart from other considerations) the more obvious meaning; add, then, to this, that the christian church uniformly, for fifteen centuries, interpreted these His words of baptism; that on the ground of this text alone, they urged the necessity of baptism; that, upon it, mainly, they identified regeneration with baptism. If, then, this be an error, would our Saviour have used words which * L. v.c. 59. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 39 (since water was already used in the Jews’ and John’s bap- tism) must inevitably and did lead His church into error? and which He, who knew all things, must, at the time, have known would lead His church into error; and that, when, according to Zuingli’s or Calvin’s.interpretation, His meaning had been as fully expressed, had it stood, ‘born of the Spirit,’ only.’’* Unless, in the interpretation of the sacred scriptures, we admit, I shall not say the authority of the church, but the ordinary rules of explaining books from the context and parallel passages, they become of no use whatsoever, since their most evident testimony may be rejected, on the plea that it does not harmonize with the internal teaching of the Spirit. ‘The appeal to this immediate revelation throws open the gate for enthusiasm and fanaticism of the wildest and worst character, and deprives us of every standard for discriminating between the teaching of God, and the vaga- ries of a disordered imagination. For the man who fancies himself internally enlightened and instructed in the revela- tion of God, all proof and argument are powerless and vain: and the only hope left is in humble prayer, that God would vouchsafe to remedy that delusion, and make him sensible of the need in which he stands to be taught by those to whom the divine scriptures and the whole deposit of revelation have been entrusted. * Tract on Baptism, p. 39, Am. ed. 40 CHAPTER III. APOSTOLIC PRACTICE. WueEn the meaning of a commission is called in. ques- tion, the public acts of those who received it, must have great weight in determining its nature and character: and when the authority of the commissioners is vouched for by him who gave the commission, their acts are decisive evidence. Christ ordered his disciples to baptize. An attempt is made to explain this of a mere internal work of the Spirit, towards which the Apostles could co-operate no further than by preaching. Did the Apostles themselves so understand it? Did they not rather conceive themselves authorized and commanded to wash with water those who professed faith in the Gospel preached by them? When the Jews felt compunction for the death of Christ, and asked of Peter what they should do to be saved, he exhorted them to be baptized ; and three thousand persons on that occasion were added by baptism to the Church. From the baptism of three thousand persons in one day, it might be pretended that it was only figurative, and consisted in the grace of the Spirit being poured out on them, when they received the words of Peter; but they were already touched with compunction, when they inquired of him what they should do that they might be saved, and when told: ‘*let every one of you be baptized,” they were ne- cessarily led to understand the command of a washing with APOSTOLIC PRACTICE. 41 water, since this was the received acceptation of the term. The use of water by the Apostles on several occasions is admitted by the opponents of baptism: “It is freely ad- mitted,”’ says Enoch Lewis, “ that the Apostles, after our Lord’s ascension, did sometimes baptize their converts with water:’’* but any possibility of cavil on this point is pre- cluded by the positive declaration of St. Peter, when Cor- nelius was to be baptized: ‘¢‘ Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.”t On this fact, Sr. Cyrixn, of Jerusalem, remarks: ‘* Cornelius wasa just man, favored with angelic visions, whose prayers and alms were like a high pillar erected in the heavens reaching unto God; Peter came, and the Spirit was poured out on the believers, and they spoke with strange tongues, and prophesied, and after the gift of the Spirit, the Scrip- ture says, that Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus:Christ: that the soul being born anew by faith, the body also might receive grace by the water.’’t The Eunuch learned from Philip the necessity of this ab- lution with water. ‘‘ See, here is water, what doth hinder me from being baptized?’’§ Ananias called to Saul: “Rise up, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins.””|| The Apostle himself constantly speaks of baptism as a laver. Christ loved the Church, ‘cleansing it by the laver of water.”] It was, then, the persuasion of those who received the commission, and of those who were associated with them in its execution, that they were empowered to * Essay on Baptism, p. 35. { Acts x. 47. ¢ Cat. iii. de Bapt. § Acts viii. 36. || Acts xxii. 16, 4 Eph. v. 26. 4* 42 APOSTOLIC PRACTICE. perform an ablution with water. ΤῸ say, as Barclay in- sinuates, that the Apostles mistook the meaning of their Master, is destructive of the certainty of Christian faith, and is irreverent to Him, who, in that supposition, ill pro- vided for the correct manifestation of his will to men. Who can read without horror the language of this Apologist? ‘‘ Although it should be granted, that for a season they did so far mistake it as to judge that water belonged to that baptism, (which, however, I find no necessity of granting,) yet I see not any great absurdity would thence follow. For it is plain they did mistake that commission, as to a main part of it.’’* Joseph John Gurney, a recent writer on the same sub- ject, has not hesitated to say that the Apostles were unpre- pared for the perfect spirituality of the Christian dispensa- tion, although the germs of it were in their hearts: ‘* As long as they observed the ceremonies of the law in their own persons—as long as they continued unprepared for a full reception of the doctrine, that the ordinances and sha- dows of the law were now to be disused, and that God was to be worshipped in a manner entirely spiritual—so long would they, as a matter of course, persevere in the practice of baptizing their converts in water.’’t The practice of the Jewish ceremonies by the Apostles, and the doubt raised as to the admissibility of the Gentiles to the privileges of the Church, and their subjection to the Mosaic ceremonial, are alleged by Barclay and by Gurney, in proof of their having mistaken the commission, and not understood fully the spiritual character of the Christian dispensation: but there is no evidence whatever of such * Prop. xii. Object. { Observations on the Religious Peculiarities of Friends, p. 100. APOSTOLIC PRACTICE. 43 misconception. ‘The renitence of Peter to eat of meats legally unclean, when presented to him in vision, was a natural result of long habits of legal observance, and the command given him not to designate as unclean what God had sanctified, was not so much to enlighten him with re- gard to the admissibility of the Gentiles to the Church, as it was to enable him to defend their admission against the converts from Judaism, whose prejudices might lead them to condemn it: whence he appealed to those who accom- panied him :. ‘“* Can any one forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we!’’* In observing the legal ceremonies, the Apostles conformed to the will of their Divine Teacher, who him- self observed them, and wished them to be respected, although they were to be discontinued as soon as the amal- gamation of Jews and Gentiles in one Church suffered their discontinuance, without prejudice to their original in- stitution. ‘The Gentiles were authoritatively declared by the Apostles to be free from the yoke of the law, both in the council of Jerusalem and in the epistles of St. Paul ; and the conduct of Cephas, in withdrawing from the com- mon table, was an act of condescension to Jewish prejudice, unattended with any false teaching. The retention of some ceremonial observances for a time did not arise from any imperfect conception of the spiritual character of the Chris- tian dispensation, much less from any positive error; but from considerations of prudence, and a necessary regard to their divine origin. It is impossible to consider water baptism as one of them, since it is no where prescribed in the Mosaic law. Whatever may be thought of the baptism of John, baptism is simply and absolutely an institution of * Acts x. 47. 44 APOSTOLIC PRACTICE. Christ himself, since he commanded it, and prescribed the form of words that should distinguish it. His promise to be with the Apostles, baptizing and teaching, is a pledge and guarantee that they should be directed by Him for the proper performance of each duty, and does not suffer us for a moment to think that they should have administered-a baptism which He did not institute. As then the fact is manifest from the Scriptures, and conceded by the Friends, that the Apostles did baptize with water, the conclusion is irresistible that water baptism is of divine institution. Who- soever says that they misunderstood the intentions of Christ, or that they were unprepared for the full develop- ment of the spiritual character of the New Covenant, makes void the promise of Christ to be with them, to send them the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of truth, to teach them all truth; and thus overturns the whole fabric of Christianity. The words of St. Paul to the Corinthians are alleged, to show that baptism with water is no part of the Christian dispensation, and that if permitted for a time, and useful to lead the Jews, who had been accustomed to external rites, to the knowledge of. the mysteries of faith, it was in no way suited to the Gentiles, and but rarely practised, and that the Apostle regretted having adopted the practice even for a time: “1 give God thanks, that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Caius: lest any should say that you were baptized in my name. And I baptized also the house- hold of Stephanus: besides, I know not whether I bap- tized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.’”’* The inferences drawn from this pas- sage are altogether unwarranted. The Apostle spoke in reference to their personal partialities for their teachers, * 1 Cor. 1. 14. APOSTOLIC PRACTICE. 45 which. were an oceasion of schism ; and he reminded them, that they were disciples of Christ, and not of the indi- vidual who: brought them to the knowledge of. salvation, or received them into the Church by baptism. ‘Is Christ,”’ he asks, ‘‘ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul ?’’* He rejoices that he had baptized but few of them, because there was so much the less reason to fear that they would cling to him as a leader, to the detriment of the unity which they should cherish in Christ: and he states that the chiet object of his vocation was to preach the gospel, to bear the name of Christ before the Gentiles, and their kings, and the children of Israel. In calling him to the faith, Christ wished the converted persecutor to become an illustrious witness of his divinity, that Jews and Gentiles might be led by his testimony and example to believe and to adore. He was, doubtless, commissioned to baptize, as all the Apostles were. positively ordered by Christ himself; and he actually baptized several among the Corinthians; but he generally left the performance of that duty to others. It was not a rite of rare performance, since it was the gate of the Church, and all who bore the Christian name had en- tered thereby. ‘The Apostle addresses all the Corinthians as baptized persons, and reminds them that they had not been baptized in his name: ‘* Were you baptized in the name of Paul? ‘In one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.”’t This cannot be wrested to signify a mere internal baptism, as by it all were made ‘ one body,”’ being aggre- gated to the Church. All foundation for the assertion that the rite was used in condescension to the Jews, is taken * da@ors i.013, t 1 Cor. xii, 13. 46 APOSTOLIC PRACTICE. away by this passage, which is directed to Gentile con- verts, and declares that all of them had been baptized. In vain is it pretended that baptism with water is not implied in the term baptize. The Apostle evidently speaks of their unity as a body, which is effected by baptism, where- in they are born of water and of the Holy Ghost. But we are asked where is the proof that the Apostles themselves were baptized with water? If they were, it must have been, it is said, with the baptism of John, since Christ baptized no one. Of the baptism of Paul himself we have positive testimony. ‘That the other Apostles were baptized, we have reason to presume from the fact,. that they were chosen to be the first ministers and heralds of Christ, and the first priests of the new dispensation, al- though, if Christ so pleased, he could no doubt have dis- pensed them from this necessity. ‘That He himself bap- tized some, is stated in the Gospel ;* and when it is said in another place, that not He, but His disciples baptized, this is manifestly meant of the ordinary and frequent perform- ance of this rite.t ‘* Whether,” says Tertullian, ‘ they were baptized in any way, or continued without baptism, so that what was said by our Lord to Peter concerning his being already washed, should be referred to us only, it is altogether rash to doubt of the salvation of the Apostles, since the prerogative which they enjoyed in being first chosen by Him, and afterwards continuing in intimate fami- liarity with Him, could supply the place of baptism.”’{ The proof, then, of the meaning of the divine commis- sion, derived from the practice of the Apostles, is nowise weakened by the silence of the sacred writers as to the fact of the baptism of most of them. Admitting that they were * John iii. 22. f Ib. iv. 2. + De Bapt. n. 12. APOSTOLIC PRACTICE. 47 not baptized, it does not follow that the command of Christ was not to be executed by them in regard to others. But as no book of scripture professes to be a full record of all the acts of Christ, it is not wonderful that we should not have positive testimony of facts, which may well be pre- sumed from the general rule established for initiation into the church. We have positive statements that the Apostles baptized with water those who sought admittance into the church, and these justify us in maintaining that the com- mand given them must be so interpreted. 48 CHAPTER IV. OBJECTIONS OF ‘‘ THE FRIENDS.” Tue ingenuity of the adversaries of baptism has been displayed in evading the very clear proofs of its institution, and in gathering objections from every quarter against it. ‘They say, that according to St. Paul, there is but ‘ one baptism’’* under the new dispensation, as there is but one Lord, and one faith: and therefore they reject water-bap- tism, as the admission of it, they pretend, implies two bap- tisms, namely, one with water, the other by the Spirit. This objection is too subtle to be weighty. ‘There is in reality but one baptism under the christian dispensation, an ablution with water, in the name of the Divine Trinity, and accompanied with the regenerating virtue of the Holy Ghost. The grace which is imparted, does not constitute a distinct baptism, since it is attached to the rite. There is no contrast made in scripture between the ablution with water in christian baptism and the sanctifying influence of the Spirit: since all the passages alleged to establish it, have manifest reference to the baptism of John. There is one Lord, Jesus Christ, in whom the divine and human nature are united, the fulness of the Divinity dwelling corporally in Him: there is one faith, the supernatural assent of the mind to all revealed truth, which is, nevertheless, manifested by the external profession: since ‘* with the heart we believe unto * Eph. iv. 5. OBJECTIONS OF ‘‘ THE FRIENDS.” 49 justice, but with the mouth confession is made unto salva- tion.”’* So also there is one baptism, the external act being the sign and instrument of the internal operation. It is insisted on, that the one baptism is the mere internal work of the Spirit, whereby we are clothed with Christ, since St. Paul says: ‘‘as many of you as have been bap- tized, have put on Christ.’ But the context plainly shows, that the Apostle speaks of their having by baptism been adopted into the family of God, and having received the privileges of children, which Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, imparted to them, by means of this sacrament. Jewish teachers had endeavoured to induce the Galatians to adopt the ceremonial observances of the Law, and the rite of circumcision: wherefore the Apostle pointed out that such observances were adapted to the infantile and servile state in which men were before the coming of Christ, but not at all obligatory on those who by baptism had become children of God, being clothed, as it were, with Christ, partaking of His Sonship, and of His merits and privileges: ‘‘ After the faith is come,”’ he says, ‘‘ we are no longer under a pedagogue. For you are the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ.’’ This is literally true of all who had been baptized with water, because the effect of this sacrament is regeneration, adop- tion, and incorporation into the mystical body of Christ: and although the unworthiness of some candidates may prevent their enjoying all the effects, yet their state is that of children, and they bear the christian character ; where- fore even they are taught to address God as a Father, and to implore pardon of their sins. * Rom. x. 10. + Gal. ill. 25. 50 OBJECTIONS OF “ΤΗΕ FRIENDS.’” A passage of St. Peter is often objected, wherein speak- ing of the saving of eight persons from the deluge by the ark, he adds: ‘‘ Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience to- wards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”** The original text calls baptism the *‘ antitype” of the waters of the deluge, that is, the corresponding object to that type, the reality shadowed forth by that figure. No ground would exist for this comparison, were not the waters of baptism the instrument of salvation, as the waters of the deluge buoyed up the ark of safety. It is not, however, the putting away of the filth of the flesh which saves us, since the ablution is not directed to cleanse the body, but rather to signify the purification of the soul, for which the dispo- sitions of faith and repentance prepare the adult receiver, and which must be followed by a life corresponding with our baptismal engagements. ‘ The examination of a good conscience towards God seems to refer to the ancient apostolic rite of questioning the candidate as to faith, and demanding of him the renun- ciation of Satan, and of his works and pomps. The sin- cere answer of the applicant to these interrogations pre- pares him for that salvation, which, in its principle, is given in baptism; and a life in conformity with his bap- tismal engagements secures to him its final attainment. St. Grecory, of Nazianzum, speaking of water-baptism, applies to it the same terms: ‘The illumination,”’ which, in the writings of the Fathers, means baptism, “15 the splendour of souls, the change of conduct, the interroga- tion of conscience unto God.”’+ It is indeed strange that * T Pet. 1121. Τ Orat. xl. OBJECTIONS OF ‘‘ THE FRIENDS.”’ δὶ from a passage which expressly treats of baptism by water, oceasion should be taken by any one to exclude water altogether; especially as the same Apostle is known to have urged the use of water in the case of Cornelius, whose conscience already was good towards God. It is objected by some that baptism supposes conversion from infidelity, or from a worship entirely opposed to that which by this rite is adopted: wherefore those converted from Heathenism or Judaism were baptized, as proselytes had been under the previous dispensation: but those who have always professed christianity cannot be baptized, since they need no change; and the command evidently regards a different class of persons.* This is a gratuitous supposition: the words of the commission are as general as can be conceived, and although the command to teach, and form to the christian rule, precedes that of baptizing, there is nothing to warrant us to put any limit to either precept, which does not arise from the very nature of the duty enjoined. ‘Teaching is directed to instruct the mind, and is specially necessary for those who are unacquainted with the Gospel: baptizing, being a wash- ing with water, regards all who are defiled, and must, therefore, embrace all who are stained with sin, what- ever be the religious profession of their parents, or what- ever principles they themselves may have professed. If professors of christianity, they still need the teaching of the apostolic ministry, to advance in saving knowledge, and learn the practical influence of its maxims. They must be baptized, in order to wash their robes white in the * This is maintained by Judge Rush in his Inquiry, as also by the Friends. It was one of the errors of Socinus. pist. de Baptismo apud Vosstum, de Baptismo disp. xiii. 52 OBJECTIONS OF ‘‘ THE FRIENDS.” blood of the Lamb, and to put on Jesus Christ. No argu- ment can be drawn from the practice of the Jews towards proselytes from Heathenism, whose descendants enjoyed Jewish privileges without any baptism; for the christian rite is not borrowed from the Jews, nor regulated by prin- ciples of analogy; but is wholly dependant on the divine authority of Jesus Christ, who made it a necessary condi- tion for entrance into his kingdom. His law is universal, and the practice of the church, during all ages, is a satis- factory evidence that it regards the posterity of believers, as well as those who grew up amidst the darkness of infi- delity. Without any semblancé of justice, it is alleged that baptism is a relic of Judaism, one of those divers washings observed under the law, an ablution like that of John, and one of those observances which were tolerated for a time in condescension to Jewish prejudices. It certainly can- not be viewed in this light. Although divers purifications by washing were prescribed in the Mosaic law, they were totally different from Christian baptism. In place of many ablutions, we have one: they were performed by the indi- viduals themselves ; this must be performed by another: they were accompanied by no solemn invocation, such as is made in Christian baptism, in the name of the three Di- vine Persons: they were types; baptism is an instrument and means of grace. Even conceding what many learned men deny, that the Jews baptized proselytes, as some of their writers testify,* and that this practice was anterior to Christianity,t and was apparently supported by passages of * See the testimonies in the Introduction to the History of Infant Baptism, by W. Wall, Vicar of Shoreham, in Kent. London, 1707. { Lightfoot, Hor. Hebraic. Grotius, in Mat. iii. 6. OBJECTIONS OF ‘‘ THE FRIENDS.”’ 53 the law ;* their custom, however ancient, cannot be iden- tified with the divine institution which Christ has so distinct- ly marked as his own, by the invocation of the Trinity, and the sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit. For the same reason it is not the baptism of John; but it is that perfect baptism to which, as Joln testified, his ablution should give place. ‘*'The Jewish purification,” it is ob- served by St. Curysostom, ‘‘ did not free from sins, but only from corporal defilements : ours is not such, but much greater, and full of much grace: for it frees from sins, and cleanses the soul, and imparts the gift of the Spirit. The baptism of John was far more sublime than that of the Jews, but inferior to ours, and as a kind of bridge between both baptisms, leading from theirs to ours: for he did not invite them to the observance of corporal purifications ; but drawing them off from such things, he exhorted and per- suaded them to pass from vice to virtue, and to place their hope of salvation in the amendment of their conduct, not in divers baptisms and purifications by water.”’+ Baptism is not a rite merely tolerated, but specially commanded by Christ himself; pointed out by Peter to the Jews as the necessary means for the remission of sin; and administered to Cornelius, even although already baptized with the Holy Ghost; and enjoined by Ananias on Saul as a positive duty, after his miraculous conversion. An ablution with water appears to some to be too mate- rial a rite to belong to the Christian dispensation, wherein God is to be worshipped in spirit and in truth, and his gifts invisibly descend on the children of men. But shall we judge of the divine institutions by abstract ideas of per- * Comp. Numb. xv. 15. and Exod. ix, 10. { Hom. de Bapt. Christi. 5* 54 OBJECTIONS OF ‘* THE FRIENDS.”’ fection, rather than by the positive testimony of God him- self? He is to be worshipped in spirit and in truth; that is, spiritually and truly, with the homage of the mind and of the affections, and in conformity with the great princi- ples which he has revealed. His gifts invisibly descend, and the sanctifying influence of his grace is not visible to the carnal eye: yet it is no wise. inconsistent with his spiritual nature, as it is not certainly unworthy of his good- ness and bounty, to exhibit, even to the eye of flesh, the token and seal, nay, the very instrument of his grace; that faith and hope may be excited and sustained, and that we may be made sensible, by the external exhibition, that an interior work of grace is performed, which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, and of which the conceptions of the mind are necessarily imperfect. It becomes us not to be more spiritual and wise than suits our present state of be- ing, but rather to recognize with gratitude the spiritual and divine character of the gift conveyed under the external form. ‘It is not,” says St. Curysostrom, ‘‘ a mere sen- sible gift, which Christ has left us: under sensible forms we receive gifts which the understanding alone can con- template. ‘Thus in baptism in the external rite water is perceptible: but the effect is present to the mind, namely, the birth, and regeneration or renewal of the soul. If you were without a body, he would doubtless have bestowed on you spiritual gifts without any envelop: but since your soul is united with the body, he bestows on you spiritual gifts under sensible forms.’’* ‘‘Since we consist of two parts,’ Sr. Grecory Nazianzen observes, “ that is soul and body, the one visible, the other invisible, the purifica- * Hom. Ixxxil. alias Ixxxiii. n. 4. OBJECTIONS OF ‘‘ THE FRIENDS.”’ 55 tion is also twofold, namely, by water and the Spirit, the one visibly and corporally received, the other incorporeally and invisibly concurring therewith; the one typical, the other true, and purifying the depths of conscience.”’* Sr. Cyri, of Jerusalem, speaks to the same effect: ‘‘ Since man is formed of two substances, soul and body, the puri- fication is twofold, incorporeal for the incorporeal sub- stance; corporeal for the body: the water cleanses the body, the Spirit seals the soul; that our heart being sprin- kied by the Spirit, and our bodies washed with water, we may approach God.’’t Not only the express institution by Almighty God of external worship by sacrifice and ceremonies, but the whole conduct of our Divine Redeemer warrants us in expecting that the communication of his gifts should be externally manifested. He used external forms in the cure of the deaf and dumb, and of the blind: the touch of his garment was the occasion of virtue going forth from him to dry up the fountain of blood: the walking home of him who had been palsied, was the evidence of the pardon of sin. Why, then, shall we imagine that every external rite is banished from the new dispensation? ‘There is,’ as Lucas has well observed, ‘‘ nothing unspiritual in the belief that Christ established as a perpetual ordinance in his Church a par- ticular outward act as a means or instrument of grace, and it seems to me a fearful thing for men in the pride of hu- man reason, to reject an ordinance most clearly commanded, because we cannot perceive the reason why the ordinance and grace are conjoined. Let it be remembered that if baptism is commanded by Christ, it is a fearful thing to dis- obey his commands.’’} * Orat. xl. { Catech. iii. de Bapt. + Reasons for becoming a Roman Catholic. 56 OBJECTIONS OF ‘‘ THE FRIENDS.”’ Need we be surprised that in baptism the purification of the soul by the Divine Spirit should be externally display- ed, when the whole Christian teaching is the promulgation of truth as revealed and manifested by our Lord Jesus Christ? ‘That which was from the beginning,” says St. John, ““ which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the word of life, for the life was manifested, and we have seen and do bear witness, and declare unto you the life eternal, which was with the Father, and hath appeared to us: that which we have seen, and have heard, we declare unto you.’’* Barclay reproaches us with pre- ferring the shadow to the substance,t because we retain a rite which is at once the external exhibition and the effi- cient instrument of a divine work wrought. in the soul. The ablution with water is not a mere shadow. Τί repre- sents and effects the invisible purification of the soul. Lucas justly observes, that the objections of Gumey, a recent writer, are founded on entire misapprehension: ‘¢ His interpretation of the texts in which there is an allu- sion to baptism, depends wholly upon the unfounded notion that an outward ceremony conjoined with and made the means of conveying the grace of God is the same in prin- ciple with an outward ceremony connected with no grace whatsoever, but merely used as a sign; and that a system of ordinances for the transmission of spiritual influence is unspiritual in the same manner as a system of ordinances for the transmission of no spiritual influences whatever.” If the practice and persuasion of the whole Christian world, from the earliest times to the latest, can afford any aid in understanding the nature of the institutions of Christ, ἘΠῚ Johni. 1. ἡ Prop. xii. proof 3. OBJECTIONS OF “ΤΗΕ FRIENDS.” 57 no doubt can be entertained as to baptism by water, which has been always deemed the primary and essential rite of Christianity. In the ancient epistle, ascribed to St. Bar- nabas by Vossius, and other learned critics, and which all must acknowledge to belong to the Apostolic age, it is said: ‘‘Let us inquire whether the Lord was pleased to forewarn men of water and the cross. - As to the water, it was written concerning Israel, that they would not em- brace the baptism which leads to the remission of sins, but that they would form to themselves another.”’* The writer interprets mystically the text wherein the Psalmist speaks of the:tree planted near the streams of water: “" Observe how he mentioned at the same time the water and the cross: for this is what he means: blessed are they who hoping in the cross, descend into the water.’’t TeERTULLIAN speaks of the mystical appellation of fishes given to Chris- tians, with reference to the Greek initials expressing, in their combined form, a fish, and separately: Jesus Christ, Son of God, the Saviour: ‘ We little fishes in regard to Jesus Christ our ΓΧΘῪΣ are born in the water.’’*{ The testimonies of all the ancient Christian writers could be quoted, and I shall have occasion to quote many of them hereafter; but for the present I shall merely remark, that the Christian doctrine and practice was notorious even to the heathens, by whom they were surrounded. A pagan writer, in the decline of the second century, introduces a Christian speaking of the Divine Author of his religion, and says: ‘* He renovated us by water.’’§ * §. xi. { Ibidem. + De Baptismo. τι. 1. 8 δι᾽ ὕδατος yuas ἀνεχαὶνισεν. In Philopatris, a dialogue by some ascribed to Lucian; by others said to be of a contemporary, or of a more ancient writer. 58 OBJECTIONS OF ‘‘ THE FRIENDS.’ There were, indeed, some of the various sects separated from the church, who denied baptism ; but they were few, and they were regarded as the enemies of the Christian name. Quintilla, a woman of the sect of Caianites, is mentioned by Tertullian as destroying baptism ; viper-like, he remarks, for vipers and asps love dry places. She sought to allure Catholics to her sect, knowing, as he also observes, that to take fish out of water was certain death.* St. Augustin states that the Manicheans declined baptizing their proselytes, since they acknowledged no saving virtue in the water.t The Seleucians also rejected baptism.{ In the twelfth century the Bogomili and Albigenses, being in- fected with Manicheism, assailed the same sacrament.§ But the vast body of those who claimed the Christian name, whatever errors particular sects may have otherwise broach- ed, retained it. The distinguished convert whom I have more than once quoted, thus compresses the proofs of the divine institution of baptism, giving us the result of his own investigations : “1 found that Christ sent out His disciples to baptize, and they baptized with water under His immediate superinten- dence. His last command to them is to baptize, and they believe, and act upon the belief, that He meant baptism by water. The words of Christ and His Apostles, speaking of baptism, contain, as J. J. Gurney admits, allusions to baptism by water, and the Apostles continued all their lives the practice of water baptism, and transmitted it as an or- dinance to the church, by which it has been preserved in an unbroken descent.’’|| * De Baptismo, n. i. + L. de haeres, τι. xlvi. + Ib. n. lix. § Bossuet, Histoire des Variations, 1. xi. passim. || Reasons for becoming a Roman Catholic. 59 CHAPTER V. ORIGINAL SIN. Berore treating of the necessity of baptism, it becomes necessary to explain and defend the faith of the church in regard to original sin. A fundamental truth of christianity is that all men are naturally children of wrath, being conceived and born in sin. On this foundation reposes the belief of the need which the whole human race had of a Redeemer ; and of the necessity of grace to work out our salvation. It was denied by Pelagius, a British monk, in the early part of the fifth century; but triumphantly maintained by St. Augustin, and solemnly proclaimed in various councils of Africa, and from the chair of Peter, by Popes Innocent and Zosimus. The General Baptists were said by Wall to deny original sin: ‘* Many, (but it seems not all) of the General men are Pelagians in the point of original sin. They own nothing of it. ‘The other do, as appears both by the, confession of faith of seven churches of ’em, and also by their present profession.”’** The American Bap- tists, in the confession of faith published in 1742, express their belief in original sin, and its consequences in terms much stronger than the Catholic doctrine on this subject: “Our first parents by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them: whereby death came upon all, all becoming dead in sin, * Hist. of Infant Baptism, p. 2, ch. viii. 60 ORIGINAL SIN. and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body. They being the root, and, by God’s appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind : the guilt of sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subjects of death, and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus set them free.’’** The substance of this doc- trine, and for the most part, the words, are taken from the Westminster Confession.t The Anglican articles contain similar sentiments: ‘* Original sin standeth not in the fol- lowing of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk ;) but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit; and therefore in every per- son born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation.”’*t The Catholic doctrine may be learned from the anathemas pronounced at Trent against the contrary errors. Adam himself in body and soul was changed for the worse by his prevarication, and we forfeited in him sanctity and justice, and incurred the penalty of death, contracting sin, which is the death of the soul: ‘If any one say that the prevarication of Adam injured him alone, and not his posterity, and that he forfeited for himself alone, and not for us also, the sanctity and justice which he had received from God, or that he being defiled by the sin of disobedience, transfused death and corporal afflictions only to the whole human race, and not sin, which 15. the * Ch, vi. 2, 3. + Ch. vi + Art. ix. ' ORIGINAL SIN. 61 death of the soul, let him be anathema; since he contradicts the Apostle who says: ‘By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed unto all men, in whom all have sinned.’’’* In the following canon it is said, that the sin of Adam is one in its origin, and being transfused into all, by propagation, not by imitation, is in each one of us. ‘The difference between the Catholic faith and the Calvinistic error has been well pointed out by Mohler in his celebrated work.t Catholics believe in the spoliation of human nature, which has lost in Adam the supernatural graces wherewith divine bounty had adorned it: they believe that the soul is dead to God, because de- prived of grace which is her life: they believe that she can never see God, unless raised from her fallen state: but they do not believe that nature itself is corrupted, although it be weakened and despoiled. Man bears in himself the evidence of his fallen condition. The miseries and infirmities of his body, but still more the disorders of his mind, and the weakness and evil propensi- ties of his heart, are melancholy proofs of his degradation. Whatever effort may be made to account for our numerous and grievous corporal afflictions by natural causes; who will suppose that man originally came forth from the hands of his Creator with a mind so clouded, and liable to err, and with passions so violent? The mystery of moral weakness united with theoretical admiration of virtue, and an habitual determination to practise it, can only be explained by admitting, that, although God created man free from any moral imperfection, he is now imperfect and defiled: and this defilement cannot otherwise be accounted for, than by reference to the sin of the parent of the human * Sess. v. { Symbolik, 1. i. ch. ii. ; 6 62 ORIGINAL SIN. race, whereby grace being forfeited, interior disorder and revolt ensued. The doctrine of original sin has been insidiously attacked by Albert Barnes, a Presbyterian minister of this city, in his Notes on the Epistle to the Romans, which occasioned his suspension from the ministry, to which, however, he was subsequently restored, when the New School pre- vailed in the General Assembly. On the pretence that the Apostle did not mean to deliver any theory, but from ad- mitted facts extolled the benefit of the atonement, Barnes bends to his own views the clear and strong testimonies which declare that all had sinned, and thus incurred the penalty of death. Gratuitously assuming that the doctrine of original sin is a metaphysical speculation of later ages, he explains what is said of the effects of Adam’s sin on the human race, as indicating its influence, but not any com- munication of guilt or punishment. Yet by the same rule of interpretation every revealed doctrine may be rejected as a theory which the sacred writers did not deliver. The Apostle testifies a fact when he declares: ‘* By one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned.”* Τῇ the sin of Adam did not directly and as a cause induce the guilt of the human race, there was no ground for stating that ‘so death passed upon all men ;” for in many of them it would not be the effect of sin, since a vast portion of our race die before the age of reason, and consequently without any actual sin. In this theory, which may be traced to the days of Pelagius, death is not the effect of Adam’s sin, even as to the adult, but it is caused by personal sins, to which Adam contributed no further than by the perverse * Rom. v. 13. ORIGINAL SIN. 63 example of his disobedience. ‘The connexion then be- tween Adam’s sin, and the necessity of death which em- braces all, adults and infants, is destroyed by this interpre- tation, which further contradicts the positive testimony : ‘¢in whom all have sinned.’’** Whether this version be admitted, or the text be rendered, as some will have it, ‘*inasmuch as all have sinned,”’ the fact of sin being com- mon to all who die, equally results from it, death being in all caused by sin: wherefore, as infants are manifestly in- capable of actual sin, it must be admitted that they are sinners, in consequence of the act of the first man, whereby he and his posterity fell from original justice and innocence. ‘‘Death,”’ says the Apostle, ‘reigned from Adam unto Moses even over them that had not sinned after the simili- tude of the transgression of Adam.”’*+ Before the promul- gation of the law on Sinai, and the transgressions conse- quent thereon, death held its sway over the whole human race, even over infants who had not sinned actually, as Adam sinned. ‘There must be a cause for this universal necessity: there must be a sin common to all, of which death is the punishment. Barnes endeavours to confine the Apostle’s words to actual transgressors of the natural law ; but the empire of death was not confined to them. It extended to the tender infant, because it entered into the world by the sin of the father of the human family, in whom all sinned, being all involved in the guilt and pun- ishment of his transgression. But how can this be? Is it not a manifest absurdity to say that those sinned who had no existence? It were absurd to assert it in its ordinary meaning, because it implies actual prevarication: but it is not absurd to say that all fell from the unmerited elevation * ἐφ᾽ @ πάντες ἥμαρτον. + Rom. v. 14. 64 ORIGINAL SIN. which Adam forfeited by his disobedience: that all lost, through his act, the gratuitous gifts which had been be- stowed on him, as the head of his race: that all were thenceforth estranged from God, children of wrath, stained with sin, which is the death of the soul. There is indeed much that is mysterious in this economy of Divine Provi- dence, but nothing absurd: of it we have a faint image in some legal enactments, which subject to penal disabilities the descendants of traitors even to the twentieth generation.* It behoves us to recognize and adore a truth of which the evidence presents itself constantly to us in the moral infir- mities which we suffer. ‘The gloomy reign of death over all men, for which so many evils prepare us, is as inexpli- eable without the admission of a general sin, of which it is the punishment, as the communication of the sin of Adam to the whole human race. Let those who say that the Apostle means only that death is universal, because men generally prove transgressors, show how this accounts for the pains, and sufferings, and death of millions of children before the use of reason. The alternate use by the Apostle, in this chapter, of the words many and all, shows that when he says, ‘‘ by the offence of one many died;’’ he means that ‘all were dead,’’ as he elsewhere says; and ‘‘ the offence of one was unto all men to condemnation :’’ and when he says, ‘by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners,” he means that ‘in him all have sinned.”’ 'The comparison which he makes between the consequences of the sin of Adam and the fruits of the sacrifice offered up by Christ, shows that as ““ Christ died for all, all were dead,’”’ and that as all who are sinners are such in consequence of the * Blackstone’s Comm. I. ii. n. 252, and 1. iv. ἢ. 389. ORIGINAL SIN. 65 sin of Adam, so all the just owe the gift of grace to Christ their Redeemer. The actual communication of the justi- fying grace of Christ is not indeed made to all, but it is offered to all, and its superior efficacy is manifest, since, _whilst the sin of Adam brought with it necessarily the general fall of the human race from original justice, the grace of Christ suflices to cancel not only that stain, but the innumerable prevarications of men, and is accompa- nied with great gifts, and followed by life eternal: «*‘ Judg- ment, indeed, was by one unto condemnation; but grace is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man’s offence death reigned through one, much more they who receive abundance of grace, and of the gift, and of justice, shall reign in life through one Jesus Christ.’’* If Adam influenced the human race merely by his example, and thus gave occasion to their sins, so should we consider, as Uni- tarians do, Christ leading men to justice by example, rather than by any actual communication of grace; and the pernicious.results of Adam’s fall would so outweigh the fruits of Christ’s offering, that there would be scarcely any plausibility in the reasoning of the Apostle: whence Ro- senmuller, following this rationalistic view, ventured to state that the Apostle argued conformably to Jewish preju- dices, rather than to faets.t The Apostle, in clear terms, affirms that all were dead to God, wherefore Christ offered himself up a victim for the sins of all men. ‘If one died for all,”’ he says, “" there- fore all were dead. And Christ died for 811. -The ar- gument loses its force, if the death of all by sin be denied. Since, then, all have not committed deadly sins, their death * Rom. ν. 16,17, 7 See my Theologia Dogmatica, vol, ii. ch. iii. + 2 Cor. v. 14. 6* 66 ORIGINAL SIN. must be the consequence of the sin of him from whom all derive their origin. Christ died for all: His divine heart embraced children as well as adults: His blood flowed to obtain for both pardon and salvation. ‘* Therefore all were dead,” void of the life of grace, and subject ‘to the decree of eternal death. ‘The harshness of this language is con- siderably mitigated, when it is considered, that, according to the prevailing sentiment of divines, it implies no more as to infants than the privation of supernatural beatitude. Is it likely, it may be asked, that a dogma like this should have been unknown until the days of Paul, and that no trace of it should appear in the inspired narrative of the fall of man? The penalty of disobedience intimated to him was death, and ‘‘ we have no reason,’’ observes Mr. Barnes, “to think he would understand it as referring to any thing more than the loss of life, as an expression of the displeasure of God. Moses does not intimate that he was learned in the nature of laws and penalties; and his narrative would lead us to suppose that this was all that would occur to Adam. And indeed there is the highest evidence that the case admits of that this was his under- standing of it. For in the account of the infliction of the penalty after the law was violated; in God’s own inter- pretation of it, in Gen. ili. 19, there is still no reference to any thing further. ‘Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.’ Now, it is incredible that Adam should have understood this as referring to what has been called ‘ spirit- ual death,’ and to ‘eternal death,’ when neither in the threatening, nor in the account of the infliction of the sen- tence, is there the slightest recorded reference to it.’’* *In Rom. v. 12. Alexander Campbell maintains, that not even Adam himself incurred the penalty of eternal death by his transgres- ORIGINAL SIN. 67 This reasoning goes to overthrow not only the transfusion of original sin, but the moral guilt and eternal punishment of Adam’s personal prevarication, so that it savors of Uni- versalism. It was not, indeed, necessary that Adam should be ‘learned in the nature of laws and penalties,’ in order to understand that by violating the law of God he should fall under the divine displeasure, and deserve to be cast away for ever. It was sufficient to have the most common share of intellect to perceive, that by transgressing the law, he should cease to enjoy the divine favor, the loss whereof is the death of the soul. ‘The penalty of corporal death intimated to him, was an assurance that God must be obey- ed; and without deep reflection he might know, that hav- ing incurred His anger, he should lose for ever all claim on His bounty. The threat and its execution were the immediate significations of divine displeasure, and as the command was an addition to the natural law, so likewise the penalty was added to the necessary guilt and punish- ment which every grievous transgression produces. Can Mr. Barnes mean to deny that Adam by his prevarication lost the grace of God, and forfeited all claim to Heaven, nay, incurred the penalty of eternal death? If he deny it, the Universalist may insist that grievous sin does not ne- sion, but that he lost by his fall a certain splendor which before en- compassed his person, and lost likewise a true idea of the image of his Creator, and the actual moral likeness he before had to him; with this he lost his favor also, and was thereby not only obnoxious to all the punishment annexed to his original transgression, but was as far as in him lay, utterly disqualified to regain either a true idea of God’s mo- ral character, conformity to him, or the enjoyment of his person. See Christian Baptist, vol. vi. p. 485, Such is the strange view present- ed by this antagonist of creeds, and advocate of general union, ground- ed on the sole admission of the Bible. 68 ORIGINAL SIN. cessarily draw after it these consequences. If he admit it, notwithstanding the silence of the sacred text, he cannot argue from that silence that the guilt of that transgression was confined to our first parents; When we consider that the gifts with which Adam was adorned, and the glory for which he was thereby prepared, were supernatural, we shall perceive no need of an express declaration on the part of God, that in case of his prevarication, they would be forfeited for his race, as well as himself, since this must appear to be a natural consequence of the position which he occupied as head and source. In vain does Mr. Barnes observe, that ‘‘the word representative implies an idea which could not have existed in the case—the consent of those who are represented.”** Adam was the head, the father, and fountain, and consequently the natural repre- sentative of the human family, which was to spring from him. He was not chosen, as delegates are elected to re- present constituents, but his creation placed him at the head of his posterity. It is unnecessary to conceive a compact between God and him, or a divine decree whereby he was constituted the representative of all; much less need we presume the implied consent of his posterity that he should represent them. It suffices that he was the first man, and the first transgressor, and that all come from him a fallen and guilty head. The doctrine of the communication of the sin of Adam to each member of the human family was not unknown to the Jews, although not declared in the history of the fall. Job makes reference to it, when in extenuation of his weakness, he asks: ** Who can make clean him that is conceived of unclean seed ?’’t or in the concise lan- * In Rom. v. 14. { Job xiv. 4, ORIGINAL SIN. 69 guage of the original text: “* Who can make clean of un- clean ?’’* or as the Septuagint rendered it: ‘‘ There is no one free from stain, not even though his life be of one day.’’t Each one comes into the world, defiled and unclean, where- fore he is also prone to personal prevarication; nor can he be purified unless by God. David declares this truth more explicitly, when imploring pardon for the crimes into which passion had betrayed him: ‘‘ Behold I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins hath my mother conceived me.”’t To understand this of the sin of his parents, would be to favor the Manichean heresy, which condemns the use of mar- Tiage : to explain it of the imperfection sometimes attendant on what in itself is lawful, would be to wrest the terms from their obvious signification: wherefore we must avow that David himself was conceived in sin. The use of the plural number in the Latin version can create no difficulty, since the original text is in the singular, and the plural may be used considering the consequences of original sin. The ancient faith of the church is evident from all the Greek fathers, from St. Clement of Rome downwards, who quote the words of Job according to the Septuagint: ‘* No one is free from stain, even though his life be but of a day.” The infant can have no personal stain, and consequently there must be an hereditary stain common to all. Sr. Justin says that Christ went to the Jordan, through no necessity, “but on account of the human race, which by the sin of Adam had fallen under the power of death, and “TINY KO N‘QWD TTD IN" { Ovders xaSapds ἀπό furs εδὲ ἐν μιᾶς ἡμέρας ἢ ζωη ἄντε. Clement Romanus, in his first letter to the Corinthians, ch. xvii. and the Greek Fathers generally, quote it in this way. eg len te 70 ORIGINAL SIN. the deceit of the serpent; besides the particular cause which each of them by his own evil doing presents.’’* TERTULLIAN Says: ‘every soul is reckoned in Adam until it be newly enrolled in Christ; and it is unclean until this enrolment; and it is sinful, because unclean.’’t OricEN quotes the above passage from the Septuagint: ‘* The Scrip- ture declares of every one who is born, whether male or female, that he is not clear of defilement, although his life be but one day.”’{ ‘* Hearken to David, who says : ‘I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother bring me forth ;’ whereby he shows that every soul which is born in the flesh, is defiled with iniquity and sin.”§ Sr. Cyprian urges as a reason for the baptism of infants, with- out awaiting the eighth day, that pardon is granted in bap- tism to the worst sinners: ‘‘ how much greater reason,” he asks, ‘‘is there for not rejecting the infant, that being lately born has committed no: sin, but being carnally born according to Adam contracted at its first birth the contagion of the ancient death ?”’|| On this point, as on a vital doctrine of religion, the fathers, councils, and pontiffs of the fifth century particu- larly insisted. It cannot be questioned without destroying the necessity of grace,§ and overturning the mystery of redemption. [If all are not conceived and born in sin, then * Dialog. cum Tryphone. + De anima, c. xl. + Hom, viii. in Ley. § Ibidem. || Ep. ad Fidum, \xiv, ed. Pamelii lix. 4 Alexander Campbell considers grace as the preaching of the Gos- pel, and not an internal operation of the Holy Spirit. See Christian Baptist, vol. ii. p. 138, et passim. He expresses his wish that “ origi- nal sin,” with many other terms, should be expunged from the chris tian vocabulary. P. 159. ORIGINAL SIN. 71 Christ is not the Saviour of all men, since unnumbered infants attain to salvation independently of His atonement: then also man by his mere natural energy can observe the whole moral law, and needs only the application of the sufferings of Christ, when by his personal act he has be- come a prevaricator. Justly did the church at that early period regard these errors advanced by Pelagius, as con- trary to the teaching of the Apostle Paul, and utterly sub- versive of christian faith. After so solemn declarations of ancient belief in Africa, and at Rome, and throughout chris- tendom, it is surely just to regard the dogma of original sin as a fundamental doctrine of religion, which cannot, under any pretext, be denied. It was so judged repeatedly by the highest tribunals of the church at that period; and in that judgment the christian world acquiesced, and for eleven centuries it was regarded as an. unalterable dogma of revelation. Whatever authority centres in the sacred ministry by the promises of Christ, gives sanction to this their solemn teaching: whatever guaranties against error have been divinely given to the church, must here afford security. She would cease to be ‘the pillar and ground of truth,’’ had she incorporated with the revealed doctrines a human error, and made it for centuries the basis of her teaching and practice. I shall not at present dwell more at length on this divine warranty of our faith; but will simply remark that the Council of Trent opposed the errors of the sixteenth cen- tury, by repeating the anathemas which in the fifth and sixth centuries had been hurled at Carthage, Mela, Rome, Orange, and elsewhere, against Pelagius, Celestius, and other ancient innovators. 72 CHAPTER VI. NECESSITY OF BAPTISM. Besipes “the Friends,”’ who deny altogether that water- baptism is a christian rite, many, who admit that Christ instituted it, deny its absolute necessity. This, however, is firmly maintained by the church: ‘If any one,”’ say the fathers of Trent, ‘‘shall say, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary for salvation; let him be anathema.”* The Anglican articles are silent m regard to this point, and Anglican divines, are divided in sentiment. Featley, who wrote about two centuries ago, stated that there was no real difference with us on this subject: ‘All that can be inferred from both,” he says, speaking of the texts in John iii. 15, Mark xvi. 16, ‘‘is that baptisme is the ordinary means of salvation, and that baptisme is so far necessary as well ralione praecepti, as ratione medti, no orthodox un- derstanding Protestant ever denied; neither is there any reall controversie between the Protestants and Papists in this point, but only verball, as Doctor Reynolds excellently clearly proveth in his lectures de censura apocrypho- γῆι. Others however speak differently. Hopkins, bishop of Raphoe, writes: ‘‘ Baptism is not of such ab- solute necessity as a-means, that none can be saved with- * Conc. Trid. Sess. vii. de Bapt. can. v. t The Dippers dipt, or the Anabaptists duck’d and plung’d over head and eares, at a disputation in Southwark, by Daniel Featley, D. D., London, 1646, p. 7. NECESSITY OF BAPTISM. ὶ 3 out it; neither doth our Saviour so assert it. For we must distinguish, between being inevitably deprived of the op- portunity of baptism, and a wilful contempt of it. And of this latter must the words of Christ be understood. He that contemns being born again of baptism, and out of that contempt finally neglects it, shall never enter into the king- dom of God; but for others, who are necessarily deprived of that ordinance, the want of it shall not in the least preju- dice their salvation; for it is a stated rule: ‘ Von absentia, sed contemptus sacramentorum reum facit.’”* ‘This language is quoted and adopted by Bishop Mcllvaine.t Bishop Onderdonk does not recede from these sentiments : ‘‘ Baptism, as well as moral regeneration, is required for our admission into the celestial kingdom—is ordinarily necessary—incapacity, ignorance, involuntary error, and want of opportunity being perhaps the only known excep- tions to the rule so plainly enjoined by our Lord him- self.”’{ ** Infants dying unbaptized, persons ignorant of the Gospel, or not having access to baptism, or omitting it through involuntary error, are exceptions, we doubt not, to the requirement to be born of water.’’§ The Presbyterian confession speaks in ferms evidently designed to deny the absolute necessity of the sacrament: ‘Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or * On the Doetrine of the Sacraments. + Oxford Divinity, p. 446. + Essay on Regeneration, by the Right Rev. Henry U. Onderdonk, D. D., Bishop of the Prot. Episcopal Church in the ae of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1835, p. 69. § Ibidem, p. 105, 7 Ψ ΣᾺ eh al en a 74 NECESSITY OF BAPTISM. saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubt- edly regenerated.”* The Baptists say that “ baptism and the Lord’s Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only Law- giver, to be continued in His church to the end of the world.’’t In admitting the command, they do not suppose an obligation to execute it, when it cannot be done by immersion, whence they suffer the sick to depart from life unbaptized: nor do they consider the want of it an obstacle to salvation, unless when disobedience to the divine man- date is wilful.t Judge Rush gives a peculiar view: “In the present state of the christian church, baptism is neces- sary for persons of four descriptions, the Jew, the heathen, the Mahometan, and the avowed infidel.’’§ The necessity of baptism for salvation is chiefly proved by the words of our Lord to Nicodemus: ‘Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” A new birth had been already declared necessary, and the inquiry of Nicodemus as to the manner in which it could take place, is now answered, by affirming the necessity of being born of water and the Holy Ghost. Water is to be the instrument of this new birth: the Holy Ghost is to be * Ch, xxviii. 5, { Confession of Faith, ch. xxix. + Hinton observes that pedobaptists are deprived of the blessings associated with the ordinance of baptism, but adds: I rejoice, indeed, that however much it deprives them of happiness, and Christ of His honour, now, it will not, unless it be a case of known and wilful dis- obedience, deprive them of a place in heaven.” History of Baptism, pr 158. § An Inquiry into the Doctrine of Christian Baptism, p. 43. | John ii. 5. «Ἐν NECESSITY OF BAPTISM. 75 its author: and until it take place, entrance into the church of God on earth, and into the glorious kingdom of God above is impossible. The necessity of this new birth arises from the supreme will of Christ, and is founded on the defiled state of the children of Adam, and the super- natural quality of the glory of Heaven. In Adam all have sinned: each one is conceived in iniquity: all are children of wrath: the defilement must be washed away, for nothing defiled can enter heaven: the child of Adam must be made a child of God, by the regenerating influence of the Divine Spirit, This is the simple obvious force of the text. The sentence is general, and imports the absolute necessity, that each one be born of water and the Holy Ghost, in order to enter into the heavenly kingdom. We have already considered the vain attempt of Calvin and of Barclay to interpret this text of a mere spiritual birth, independently of water. It may be proper here to notice the interpretations given by Baptist writers: ‘ That both water and the Spirit,” says Mr. Gale, ‘‘ are necessary in the case our Lord is speaking of, is plain from the words themselves, and that regeneration really consists but in one, and the other is only used as a means, or the like, is, I think, full as plain.”* ‘If our Lord speaks only of adult persons, who have heard the word of God preached ; then any one in the text can mean only any one such adult hearer.’’*t To be born of the Spirit, in this view, is to conceive faith in the divine promises, and the assurance of one’s own justification in Christ, through the operation of the Spirit of God. When horror for sin committed has seized the soul, and despondency preyed on it, the sudden conviction of forgiveness obtained in Christ, according to * Letter xii. page 483. { Letter xi. p. 414. 16 NECESSITY OF BAPTISM. this system, is regeneration. ‘This would confine the ne- cessity of baptism to adult hearers, and would deny it to be the new birth. To this we object that it is a novel and fanciful interpretation, not sustained by the context or by any parallel text, and entirely unknown to all christian antiquity. It is not allowed thus capriciously to detract from the means divinely chosen for this new birth, and to ascribe all to that change of feeling, which is oftentimes produced by impassioned declamation, or is the mere play of imagination. The early Baptist writers rely on this passage to prove the use of water in connexion with rege- neration, or in reference to it, rather than as its instrument, whereas the obvious force of the terms exhibits it as an instrument and cause.* ‘‘ Not only,’ as Dr. Pusey well remarks, ‘‘is there nothing in Scripture to sever regenera- tion from baptism, but baptism is spoken of as the source of our spiritual birth, as no other cause is, save God: we are not said, namely, to be born again of faith, or love, or prayer, or any grace which God worketh in us, but to be born of water and the Spirit, in contrast to our birth of the ftesh ;+ in like manner as we are said to be born of God.’’¢ The attempt of Baptist writers to appropriate the new birth to the Spirit, and regard the water as not concurring to it efficiently, though not equally bold, is as unwarrantable as the attempt of Calvin to deny the natural meaning of the term water in this place. It is even more inconsistent, since the connexion of water and the Spirit being imme- diate in the text, the natural meaning being admitted, its * γεννηθῆ "EX ὕδατος χαὶ ΤΠΙνεύματος. John iii. ν, ἵ τὸ γεγεννημένον ἘΚ τῆς σαρχός. Ib. ν. 6. + ov οὐχ ἘΞ αἱμάτων---ἀλλ᾽ ἜΚ Θεοὺ ἐγεννήθησαν. 1. 18. See Dr. Pusey, on Baptism, p. 25, NECESSITY OF BAPTISM. 77 efficiency as an instrument in regeneration necessarily fol- lows. It is equally opposed to the consent of all antiquity, on which Baptists rely against Calvin; for all understood baptism to be the instrument and means of regeneration, through the grace of the Spirit: and no one ever thought of that work of imagination which is now called regenera- tion, being indicated by this birth of the Spirit. There is no reason to suppose that Christ spoke only of adult hearers, although he addressed Nicodemus ; for the Greek term rus—any one—is the most general that could be used, and there is nothing in the context to restrict it. On the contrary, by saying: ‘‘ That which is born of the flesh, is flesh: and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit ;’’* Christ teaches us that by our natural birth we are all with- out any title to beatitude, and must be born anew in order to enter into the kingdom of God. The Baptists allege that regeneration can suit only those who discern the ope- rations of the Spirit: but is it wonderful that a new and supernatural birth should in some cases take place without co-operation, whilst we are altogether passive in our natu- ral birth? It is surely worthy of the power and goodness of the Holy Spirit, who breathes where He willeth, to create, as it were, anew, to His own image, by His mercy, those who cannot by the exercise of free will prepare for this new birth. This was always believed to take place in baptism. It was reserved for later times to explain the new birth of a state of mind, in which presumption follows remorse and despair. Alexander Campbell observes: ‘‘ The popular belief of a regeneration previous to faith, or a know- ledge of the Gospel, is replete with mischief. Similar to this is a notion that obtains amongst many of a ‘ law work,’ * John iii. 6. 7* 78 NECESSITY OF BAPTISM. or some terrible process of terror and despair through which a person must pass, as through the pious Bunyan’s slough of Despond, before he can believe the Gospel. It is all equivalent to this; that a man must become a desponding, trembling infidel, before he can become a believer.’’* It is popularly believed that men must experience the pangs of struggling conscience until the soul is born anew. “« Enthusiastic teachers,’’ says Bishop Onderdonk, ‘‘ dwell - much on the necessity of violent pangs, in order to the ac- complishing of the new birth, and not only justify on this ground many improper excesses, but require the calmer Christian to force himself into a similar excitement, under the penalty of being accounted void of true piety.’’t ““ Al- though Christians of a calm disposition judge chiefly by the life and conversation whether that act has occurred, enthusiasts appeal rather to the feelings, and require in these a foken, usually of strong agitations, often of terrors, ending in rapture, before they allow a person to be consi- dered as regenerate. And this token once perceived, the individual is unreservedly classed among the pious, and Calvinists add, that he is now, to human judgment, marked for final perseverance.”’{ ‘Those who thus understand re- generation, do not deny that water should be employed to associate the regenerate to the visible church, although they apply the term itself to the work of the Holy Spirit exciting and agitating the heart, and creating the new man. Hinton, however, perceiving that the admission that bap- tism is at all referred to in the discourse to Nicodemus, is fatal to this explanation, abandons the former Baptist wri- * Christian Baptist, vol. i. p. 49. + Essay on Regeneration, p. 106. + Ibidem, p. 96. NECESSITY OF BAPTISM. 79 ters: ‘*The passage plainly means, of water ‘ even of the Spirit ;’ the former being the figure of the purifying influ- ence of the operation of the Divine Spirit. I am well aware that Baptists even have been misled by the early Fathers on this point. Of late, however, the incorreétness of this interpretation and its formalizing tendency have been more generally acknowledged. Certain it is, that the reference is to the heavenly state; for any one can see that men can and do enter the visible ‘ kingdom of God’ with- out the ‘Spirit’; and ‘ God forbid’ we should follow the Fathers in entertaining the idea that none can enter heaven without the water.”* Such is the most recent improve- ment in scriptural interpretation! It is difficult to reason with enthusiasts: but to the calm inquirer it must appear clear that the new birth spoken of. by our Lord, bears analogy to the natural birth, not in the pangs which pre- cede it, but in the dignity of children of God to which it elevates us. We are born of the flesh, flesh: we are “" by nature children of wrath:’? but we cannot enter into the kingdom of God, unless we be born of the Spirit, to a spiritual life, and thus made the children of God’s adop- tion. Bishop Onderdonk offers an interpretation, in harmony with his peculiar views of twofold regeneration. He sup- poses that our Lord, in speaking of a new birth, at first merely meant a thorough change of mind and affections, and was so understood by Nicodemus, who objected to Him, that such a change was as difficult as a second natu- ral birth. ‘* Our Lord then replies more fully, that he must not only be thus morally born again, but also, by the * History of Baptism, p. 300. 80 NECESSITY OF BAPTISM. new birth of baptism, assume the Christian covenant, and enter the Christian church, which was henceforth to be the especial channel of the grace producing and furthering moral regeneration—he must be born again of water, as well as born again of the converting influence of the Spirit, in order to an entrance into the kingdom of God. Then our Lord returns to the subject of the moral new birth. ** This is the key,’”’ the bishop says, ‘‘ we prefer for this highly important conversation. The necessity of the change of character was the first, and is throughout the principal topic. But the necessity of baptism also is de- clared.’’** To this novel interpretation, which separates what Christ unites, water and the Spirit, and makes two regenerations where one is plainly spoken of, we demur; and plead the congruity of the ancient and unanimous in- terpretation of the Fathers. Christ declared to Nicodemus, in the first instance, the necessity of a new birth, which Nicodemus did not understand, and was therefore reproach- ed with his dulness by our Redeemer. He explained to him afterwards the nature of this birth, pointing to the in- strument whereby the Holy Spirit would effect it. It may be useful to notice another interpretation, given by Judge Rush, which shows how fancy perverts the sa- ered volume. He adduces many passages of Scripture, in which waters are used as a figure of tribulations; and in- sists that the birth by water is the patient endurance of affliction by which we are prepared for the kingdom of God: “ΔΑ man born of water,’ says he, “is a man that has passed through much trouble. Having escaped through the waters of affliction, he is like one new born. The sentiment contained in the passage is simply this: unless * Essay on Regeneration, p. 69. NECESSITY OF BAPTISM. 81 ‘a man be overwhelmed with a sense of sorrow for sin, like one overwhelmed in water—unless the waters of repent- ance compass him about even to his soul, accompanied with operations of the blessed Spirit, he can never enter into the kingdom of God.’”’* ‘The learned Judge failed to observe that in the passages which he conceived to be parallel, the plural form occurs, the rush of many waters being an apt figure of overwhelming affliction, whilst wa- ter in the singular is not so understood. From the confused and incoherent interpretations of modern writers, [ turn to the venerable ancients. Their minds being unbiassed by our disputes, they can best attest the obvious meaning of the sentence, and the belief and practice of the church in her earliest days grounded on it. In addition to the testimonies already adduced, I shall take leave to quote others more directly bearing on the neces- sity of baptism. St. Justin the Martyr, who lived in the decline of the second century, gives a statement of our celestial and new birth by baptism, and to prove its neces- sity adds: ‘for Christ says, ‘ Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ ’’t ‘ Sal- vation,’’ writes Tertullian, at the commencement of the third century, ‘‘appertains to none without baptism, espe- cially on account of this sentence of our Lord, who says: * Unless one be born of water, he hath not life.’ The law of baptizing is enacted, and the form prescribed: ‘ Go,’ said He, ‘teach nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of ‘the Holy Ghost.’ * An Inquiry into the doctrine of Christian Baptism, by Jacob Rush, Presiding Judge of the first judicial district of Pennsyl- vania, Philadelphia, 1819. { Apol. i. 61, 82 NECESSITY OF BAPTISM. With this law, this definitive sentence being compared : ‘Unless one be born again of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God,’ has imposed on the believer the necessity of receiving baptism.”’* He in- sists on this in order to show that although salvation might be obtained before our Lord’s death and resurrection by faith, without this rite, since its institution it became alto- gether necessary. St. Cyril, of Jerusalem, thus addresses the Catechumens: ‘* Whosoever thou art who art about to descend into the water, do not look to the mere water, but accept salvation in the power of the Holy Ghost: for without both it is impossible to be initiated. It is not I who say this, but the Lord Jesus Christ, on whose will it depends: for He says, ‘ Unless a man be born again,’ and He adds, ‘of water and the Spirit,’ he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’’t St. Chrysostom is in strict har- mony with the other Fathers, in his interpretation of these words of Christ: ‘‘ He that is not born of water and the Spirit, cannot, He says, enter into the kingdom of heaven, because he wears the mantle of death, and malediction, and corruption, and has not yet received the symbol of the Lord: he is a stranger and foreigner, and has not the king’s badge: ‘ Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’”’t St. Ambrose writes: ‘* No one ascends into the kingdom of heaven without the sacrament of baptism, for ‘ unless one is born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’ ’’§ St. Basil says, “" The Jew * De Baptismo, n. 13. “Obstrinxit fidem ad baptismi necessita- tem. { Cat. iii, de Bapt. + Hom. xxiv. in Joan. § L. ii. de Abraha, c. ii. NECESSITY OF BAPTISM. 83 delays not circumcision on account of the threat, that ‘every one that shall not be circumcised on the eighth day, shall perish from among his people ;’ and you -put off the cir- cumcision, which is not made by hands, and does not con- sist in the stripping of the flesh, but is perfected in baptism, though you have heard the words of the Lord: ‘Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’’’* I forbear for the present other quotations, and content myself with observing, in the words of Wall, a celebrated Anglican divine: ‘All the ancient Christians, (without the exception of one man) do understand that rule of our Saviour, John ili. 5, of baptism.’” ‘This writer denies the charge of the abandonment of this doctrine by those of his communion. In reply to Mr. Stennet, who asserted that Protestants had justly abandoned it, he observes: “" If he mean the prin- ciple of an impossibility of salvation to be had, according to God’s ordinary rule and declaration, any other way than by baptism, I shall by and by show, that not all the Pro- testants, if any, have abandoned it.”’t That some have abandoned it is apparent from the words already quoted of Bishops Hopkins, Mecllvaine, and Onderdonk. To this celebrated passage in our Lord’s discourse to Nicodemus, we may add the words of the commission given by Him to the Apostles: ‘* Go into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature; he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”{ Baptism is clearly marked as a condition for salvation in regard to all those to whom the gospel is preached: and although such as have * Hom, xiii. de Bapt. ὑ History of Infant Baptism, p. ii. ch. vi. + History of Baptism, by Isaac Taylor Hinton, p. 166. § Mark xvi. 15. 84 NECESSITY OF BAPTISM. not the use of reason are not capable of hearing preaching, yet as the terms are so emphatic, it is not a great stretch of reasoning to maintain that every creature—every child of Adam—is embraced by the Gospel, and may be made par- taker of its benefits. But if the rigour of scriptural exegesis will not allow us to maintain the universal necessity of baptism, by an inference of this kind, the obligation of re- ceiving it at least must be admitted to be co-extensive with the preaching, which embraces all capable of hearing. It has been observed, that our Lord menaces the unbeliever with perdition, and omits any penalty for the non-reception of baptism: but the reason is obvious. Unbelief supposes a rejection of baptism, the duty of receiving which, in obe- dience to the principles proclaimed by the preachers of the Gospel, had been already clearly stated. There was no just reason for speaking of baptism in connexion with faith as a condition for salvation, if the believer neglecting it could be saved. Hence all the illustrious christian writers of antiquity have proclaimed in unqualified terms its abso- lute necessity. ‘* Without baptism,”’ says St. Curysostom, ‘* we cannot obtain the heavenly kingdom.”’ ‘It is impos- sible we should be saved without it.”* 'The martyr alone, or other who desired the laver, but could not receive it, was excepted. Of the soldier who took the place of a weak apostate, and filled up the glorious band of forty martyrs, Sr. Bast remarks: ‘he was baptized in Christ, not by another, but by his own faith; not in water, but in his own blood.’’*t “ἸΓ any one receive not baptism,” says St. Cyrit, of Jerusalem, ‘he is void of salvation, unless the martyrs alone, who without water receive the kingdom : for the Saviour having ransomed the world by his cross, * Hom. ii. in 1. Ep. ad Cor. ο. 1. 7 Hom. xl. Martyr. NECESSITY OF BAPTISM. 85 and his side being pierced, water and blood issued from it, so that in time of peace some are baptized in water, and others, in time of persecution, are baptized in their own blood: for the Saviour calls martyrdom baptism, saying: ‘Can you drink the chalice which I drink, and be bap- tized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized?’ ”’* What then must we believe to be the lot of those who die without baptism? If they have obstinately refused it, when sufficient proofs had been presented to them of its divine institution, there can be no doubt of their having sinned grievously, and incurred the penalty of eternal death. Whether the prejudices of education united with a disposi- tion to know and do the will of God may plead for others, who, in virtue of this disposition, may be considered as having implicitly desired it, even when under the delusion of false principles they expressly refused it, it were rash to affirm. We can entertain greater hope for such as never heard of its institution, if with all their heart they sought God, under the influence of His grace, and with an earnest desire to accomplish His will in all things.t But for such * Cat. ii. de Bapt. { Bishop M‘Ilvaine charged the Council of Trent with teaching “that baptism is the ‘only instrumental cause’ of justification; so absolutely necessary thereto, that without it justification is obtained by none,” and quoted to this effect these words of the council: “In- strumentalis causa—sacramentum baptismi sine quo nulli unquam justificatio contingit.” In my work on justification, p. 133, I pointed out the gross errors in the quotation, whereby the text and its mean- ing were entirely perverted. The council does not say, that baptism is the only instrumental cause, or that without it no one was ever Justified, but.it declares it to be the instrumental cause, and styles it the sacrament of faith—sacramentum fidei sine qua nulli unquam contigit justi ficatio—without which no one was ever justified, since 8 86 NECESSITY OF BAPTISM. as may be guiltless in not having received it, because they were ignorant of its divine institution, salvation is not secure. ‘Their delinquencies against the natural law are a just subject of condemnation: ‘for whosoever have sinned without the law, shall perish without the law.”’* It is not for us to excuse, or to condemn, but simply to recognize baptism as a necessary means of salvation. This article of our belief does not lead us to deny salvation to such as have desired it sincerely, although they did not actually receive it; and it does not force us to scrutinize the divine counsels in regard to those in whom the desire may be deemed im- plicit.t It must, however, be remembered that salvation, aecording to the Apostle, “without faith it is impossible to please God.” Heb. xi. 6. ‘Mr. Livingston has since adverted to the misquo- tation, in a treatise “on the salvability of the Heathen :” but I am not aware that the Bishop has pointed to the source of his error, as in defence of his literary honesty he seems bound to do. * Rom. u. 12. { Several Catholic divines hold that the explicit belief of the mys- teries of the Trinity and Incarnation is only required as a condition for salvation of those to whom the Gospel has been preached. But a wish to appear liberal and charitable may easily betray men into lati- tudinarian expressions not consonant with the language of scripture and the Fathers on the necessity of baptism. In what Father of the church can we find a sentence like this of Bishop Onderdonk? “The hopes of the Heathen, of Mahomedan and like infidels, and of all who are not baptized into the visible body of Christ, are vague and general ; for they do but argue, or we in their behalf, that God may be mereiful to them.” Essay on Regeneration, p. 61. Compare this with the language of Aueustin. Whatever hope may be entertained of the salvation of those who have not heard the name of Christ, it must always be limited to such as, through the inspiration of divine grace, conceive supernatural faith in the existence of God, and the rewards of a future life; for without such faith it is impossible to please God. Heb. xi. 6. NECESSITY OF BAPTISM. 87 and the means of attaining it, are the gratuitous gifts of divine bounty, and that the judgments of God, though just, are unsearchable. When a condition of salvation is pro- claimed on divine authority, it is rash to indulge in specula- tion; it is impious to arraign the decree at the tribunal of our erring reason. Our duty is to obey, to fulfil the condi- tion, and await in futurity the full manifestation of its jus- tice: **O! the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are His judg- ments, and how unsearchable His ways!’’* What madness is it not, to deny a condition of salvation so clearly stated in Scripture, and so fully admitted by the christian world for eighteen centuries ! But what shall we believe in regard to infants who die without baptism? We must hold, according to the words of our Lord, that they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. The Catholic church dare not add or take away from the divine sentence. ‘Their exclusion from the glory of heaven is the privation of supernatural bliss to which no one can have the remotest title unless from the gratuitous bounty of God. ‘They bear the penalty of the sin of the first parent, which was the common act of the human race represented by him as their head and source. ‘They are children of wrath, not admitted to the sight of their heaven- ly Father. The wicked, who by their wilful prevarica- tions have provoked the divine justice, are punished with eternal torments: but even the harmless infants, who knew no guile, and violated no law, by their own act, are excluded by a just decree of God from his beatific presence. ‘Believe not,” said Augustin, speaking the language of ancient faith, ‘* assert not, teach not that infants seized by * Rom. xt. 99. 88 NECESSITY OF BAPTISM. death before the reception of baptism can obtain the for- giveness of original sin, if you wish to be a Catholic.’’* ‘* Whosoever shall say that even infants departing from this life without partaking of this sacrament, shall receive life in Christ, truly opposes the apostolic preaching, and con- demns the whole church, in which they hasten ‘and run with children to have them baptized, because it is believed without doubt that they cannot otherwise at all live in Christ.”’*+ This truth, maintained by the Catholic church in the fifth century, against the errors of Pelagius, was ex- pressed in the thirteenth by Innocent III. in these words: ‘‘ The punishment of original sin is the privation of the vision of God; and the punishment of actual sin is the torment of hell-fire.”=+ What then will the condition of infants be? If we listen to St. Grecory, of Nazianzum, he will tell us: ‘* They will neither be glorified nor pun- ished by the just Judge; because although not baptized, they have no personal malice, and are rather ill sufferers than ill-doers. Not every one that does not deserve to be punished, deserves to be honoured, and he who is not worthy of honour, does not always deserve punishment.’’§ * L, iii. de anima et ejus orig. { Ep. clxvi. alias xxviii. ad Hier. How different is the language of Bishop Onderdonk, who grants heaven to unbaptized infants—un- regenerated either ecclesiastically, or morally, according to his favour- ite distinction : “Infants dying unbaptized . . are exceptions, we doubt not, to the requirement to be born of water.. And we further believe that dying infants, as they are not subjects for the moral change we are describing, enter the kingdom of heaven without it: at least, we account this a just view of that part of Scripture—without entering on the mysterious question, how original sin, ‘the infection of nature,’ is in them expunged.” Essay on Baptism, p. 105. + Dec. 1. ii. t. xl. de Bapt. . § Orat. xl. 23. NECESSITY OF BAPTISM. 89 The church does not teach authoritatively any thing save their privation of all supernatural beatitude. On this the Scripture is clear, as the Fathers unanimously testify: “Whilst, however,”’ says Hinton, ‘‘the Fathers of the fourth century differed respecting the exact condition of infants dying unbaptized, they generally agreed that they missed of heaven.’’* Some recent writers have indulged in speculation as to the condition of infants, and supposed that they would enjoy natural happiness. ‘This opinion might at first seem like that which St. Augustine brands as Pelagian heresy : ΠΤ Θὲ no one promise unbaptized children as it were a middle place of rest or happiness of any kind or any where, between damnation and the kingdom of heaven ;’’* but he is answering Vincentius Victor, who taught that they could attain to the pardon of original sin, and be in paradise, as the penitent thief, although they could not reach the kingdom of heaven. ‘This fanciful opinion, which promised such infants a kind of supernatural happi- ness, was justly rejected, and their state was called by the strong term of damnation, because they are totally de- prived of all supernatural felicity : but the opinion which supposes them to be naturally happy, is not to be con- founded with that which Augustin rejects, since he else- where intimates that existence may still.be for them a favor. Although occasionally dwelling in strong terms on their unhappy lot, in order utterly to explode the Pelagian error, he does not venture. to assert that it may not be better for them to exist in that state of privation than not to exist at all: ‘* Who can doubt,” he says, ‘¢ that unbaptized infants, who have only original sin, and * History of Baptism, p. 313. { L-i. de anima, c. xix. 8* 90 NECESSITY OF BAPTISM. are not loaded with sins of their own will, will be in the gentlest condemnation of all? Which, as I am not able to define, what or how great it will be, so I dare not say, that it would be better for them not to exist at all, than to exist in that state.’’* . From the strong language which St. Augustin some- times employs, some have thought that he literally held unbaptized infants to be with the devil, in hell-fire; which sentiment is put forward by Hinton, to throw odium on the doctrine of original sin, and of the necessity of baptism to salvation; but the comparison of the various passages in which he treats of the future state of unbaptized infants, warrants the mildest interpretation of the severe language which he sometimes uses. St. Thomas of Aquin, his great admirer and disciple, explains him as meaning utterly to exclude the Pelagian error, which ascribed to infants supernatural beatitude.t St. Bonaventure understands him in the same manner ;t and the general sentiment of Catho- lic theologians harmonizes with this interpretation, so that, as Sarpi himself confesses, the contrary belief of the first Reformers narrowly escaped condemnation in the Council of Trent. Wall says: ‘‘Upon the Reformation, the Pro- testants generally have defined that the due punishment of original sin is in strictness damnation in hell.’’§ ‘ Father Paul mentions their (the Fathers of the council) disputes among themselves, whether they should condemn as heretical that proposition of the Lutherans, that the punishment for original sin is hell-fire, and says it missed very narrowly being anathematized.”’|| * Contra Julian. |. v. ¢. 11. 7 Qu. v. de malo art. 11, ad i. + In ii. dist. xxxili. art. iii. qu. i. § Hist. of Infant Baptism, ch. vi. 8. 8. | Ibidem, §. 6. NECESSITY OF BAPTISM. 91 Is not this, however, even in its most mitigated form, a gloomy dogma? So many millions of harmless infants ne- cessarily excluded from the kingdom of God; so many millions of adults, for the want of a washing with water, involved in eternal perdition. Let it be remembered. that the glory of heaven is a gratuitous supernatural favor: and that the pains of hell are the just punishment of voluntary actual transgression. Having explained the limits of the dogma, I have nothing to offer in mitigation of its severity, but the proofs of its revelation. God is just and merciful, and if His dispensations seem severe, we must nevertheless adore them, and await with patience the full manifestation of their justice in the light of glory. We cannot, against the ex- press authority of Christ, promise entrance into His king- dom to such as are not born of water and the Spirit. We cannot question a condition for salvation recognized by the whole church of God during so many ages. Charity sug- gests that we should urge our fellow-men to comply with it, and leave to God the vindication of His own justice and goodness. Is it not a lamentable proof of the unbelieving spirit of our age, that whereas, in ancient times, as Augustin testi- fies, they ran with the néw-born infant to the Baptistery, fearing lest it should die without this divine laver, and be- lieving that it could not be saved without it, large bodies of professing Christians now utterly discard the practice, and large numbers of those who theoretically admit it, are in- different and negligent in respect to it. It were esteemed cruelty to withhold from the delicate infant a remedy for some malady, or necessary nourishment to support life ; yet without remorse baptism is denied it, which all ancient Christianity believed to be the remedy of the primeval sin, 99 NECESSITY OF BAPTISM. and the indispensable means for attaining to life eternal. I would fain appeal to the human sympathies of the maternal breast, and implore, from the tenderness of a mother’s love, what is denied to the authoritative command of religion. Take pity on your infants, and even if you disbelieve, or doubt of the necessity of baptism, procure it for them, lest you should, by following a false conscience, be the occa- sion of their losing the sovereign happiness of enjoying God’s glorious presence for eternity, 93 CHAPTER VII. EFFECTS OF BAPTISM. ‘* Baptism,” according to the Baptists, ‘is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with Him in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Him; of remission of sins; and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.”’* ‘This definition is borrowed from the Westminster confession, the word ‘‘ordinance’’ however being substituted for sacrament, and the words, ‘‘ not-only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church,”’ being omitted: as also the concluding words, ‘‘ which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in His church until the end of the world.’’t. In neither definition is any efficacy ascribed to baptism, which is re- garded as a mere sign. Presbyterians make its efficacy dependent on divine predestination, so that ‘the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and con- ferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the coun- sel of God’s own will, in His appointed time.’’ Baptism in this system imparts no grace, although one of God’s elect may receive grace on that occasion, or at some other time, since its ‘efficacy is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered.”” The reprobate receive no * Confession of Faith, ch. xxx. { Ch. xxviii, 94 EFFECTS OF BAPTISM. grace whatever. ‘Some of them,” says the learned An- glican divine, Wall, when speaking of Predestinarians, ‘‘have used such expressions, as that they seem to think that even among the infants of faithful parents, some are so reprobated by the eternal decree of God, that though they be baptized and die in infancy, yet they will be damned.’’* Many Predestinarians are found among the Baptists, and are called Calvinist Baptists, whilst others are styled Armi- nian Baptists. Among those who hold the predestination of the elect, some reject the reprobation of the wicked, by the mere decree of God. Hinton, having declared his most cordial belief that ‘all who are grafted into Christ, will be found in him at the last day,’’ observes: “1 repu- diate, however, with feelings of strong aversion, not to say disgust, Calvin’s doctrine of some being foreordained to everlasting death; a doctrine pardonable, indeed, even in a great man, living in the age in which Calvin’s lot was cast, but for the perpetuation of which ecclesiastical bodies in the present day-are utterly inexcusable.”’+ Calvin speaks of baptism in these terms: ‘‘ At whatever time we are bap- tized, we are washed and purified for the whole of life: whenever we have fallen, therefore, we must recur to the remembrance of baptism, and arm our minds with the con- sideration of if, that we may be always certified and as- sured of the remission of sins.’’} Alexander Campbell maintains that immersion is a divine institution, designed for putting the legitimate subject of it * History of Infant Baptism, p. 11. ch. vi. 8. 9. 1 History of Baptism, p. 343. + Instit, Allen’s transl. v. 3. p. 327, cited by Bp. Onderdonk. This, especially taken in connection with the inamissibility of justifying grace, surpasses the most extravagant idea given by our, adversaries of indulgences—a pardon of sins past, present, and to come. EFFECTS OF BAPTISM. 95 in actual possession of the remission of his,sins; ahd that to every believing subject it does formally and in fact con- vey the forgiveness of sin.* Faith, however, is considered by him as necessary to obtain forgiveness: ‘‘ He that goes down into the water to put on Christ, in the faith that the blood of Jesus cleanses from all sin, and that he has ap- pointed immersion as the medium, and the act of ours, through and in which he actually and formally remits our sins, has, when immersed, the actual remission of his sins.”’t The Anglican article approaches more to the Catholic doctrine, although its wording is such as may be accommo- dated to the Calvinistie view: ‘‘ Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened ; but it is also a sign of regeneration, or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the church; the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; faith is confirmed, and grace increased, by virtue of prayer unto God.’’{ The ambiguous wording of this article, intended probably to convey the views of Calvin, and yet to present a semblance of Catholic language, to satisfy those who retained some- thing of Catholic belief, has given rise to two classes of divines in the Anglican communion, differing altogether in their doctrine on the nature and effects of baptism.§ Hop- * See Christian Baptist, vol. v. p. 401. Jan. 7, 1828. See also p. 415, p. 421. { Ibidem, Ῥ. 436. ¥ Art. xxvii. § In a curious little work written by Elis, in 1660, entitled “ Ar- ticulorum xxxix. Eccl. Anglic. Defensio,” with the imprimatur of 96 EFFECTS OF BAPTISM. kins, Bishop of Raphoe, says: ‘* Baptism is a means of our external and relative sanctification unto God; because, by it, we are separated from the visible kingdom of the devil, and brought into the visible kingdom of Christ, and are devoted by vow and covenant unto the service of God.”’* Other testimonies to the same effect are alleged by the modern representative of the Calvinistic sentiment, Bishop McIlvaine. Dr. Pusey represents the other class of Anglican divines ; but is more unequivocal than most of them in his admission of the Catholic doctrine of the regenerating and sanctifying influence of this sacrament. In an elaborate treatise on this subject, he has presented an admirable array of Scripture and traditional testimony in support of this doctrine, and avowed that baptismal rege- neration was the doctrine of the universal church of Christ in its holiest ages. Bishop Onderdonk distinguishes two kinds of regenera- tion, namely, ecclesiastical and moral, and ascribes to bap- tism the former, whereby the baptized are constituted members of the visible church, and in this sense children Oxenden, Montagu, Beaumont, and Johnson, the Calvinistic view is expressed, yet in language somewhat favorable to the efficacy of the sacrament. In reply to the objection that the eunuch of the Queen of Candace, and Cornelius the centurion, were members of the church before the actual reception of baptism, it is said that for infants baptism is the gate of the church, and that the faith of adults is thereby con- firmed, and that it is the means which God employs to bestow salvation. “ Quanquam Deus salutis sit causa princeps, hoc non impedit quo minus baptismus sit medium, quo Deus in salute conferenda utatur ; deinde baptismus infantibus primus est in Ecclesiam ingressus, licet non adultis, de quibus in exemplis allatis; nec tamen suo caret fructu baptismus in adultis, quippe fidem confirmans.” p. 98. * Cited by Bishop Mclilvaine, in Oxford Divinity, p. 444. EFFECTS OF BAPTISM. 97 of God: but the moral regeneration, which consists in a change of character, is considered by him to be indepen- dent of baptism. ‘'The change of state, which is the transition from being out of the visible church to being within it, is, in the Christian church, effected in baptism, and by the Holy Spirit, the minister being His agent. And this operation of the Spirit, is, in Scripture, called regene- ration.”’ ‘'That change of character, which is recovery from the dominion of sin to victory over it, and when com- bined with baptism, from its curse to pardon, is ordinarily effected in the use of the means of grace, yet by the Holy Spirit, by His power only; and the change is gradual and progressive. ... In baptism, as one of the sacraments, de- voutly received by an adult, piety is furthered; and, in _ both adults and infants, ‘ grace is increased by virtue of prayer unto God;’ this, however, being an element of the change of character, is not to be confounded with the change of state then effected.”’** These views are acknow- ledged by the bishop to be the result of his own reflections and at variance with his earlier impressions. ‘The terms sound strangely. We believe they are most easily recon- cileable with the opinion of those divines of his commu- nion, who deny the sanctifying and regenerating power of baptism. ‘They are certainly opposed to the teaching of the Fathers, as the bishop ingenuously states: ‘It is not uncommon for the Fathers to regard the moral and the bap- tismal as one regeneration, and connected with the. sacra- ment of the font.’’t It is easily perceived that the doctrine of baptismal rege- neration found little favor with the American Protestant Episcopal Convention, that in 1789 remodelled the Book * Essay on Regeneration. Introduct. p, 8. ΤΡ. 47. 9 98 EFFECTS OF BAPTISM. of Common Prayer, for although they suffered it to be said that a.baptized ‘‘child is regenerate and grafted into the body of Christ’s church,’’* they took care to expunge those passages wherein regeneration is expressly ascribed to baptism, as Bishop Onderdonk testifies; ‘‘In the Eng- lish form of receiving into the congregation infants that have been privately baptized, it is declared, ‘ that this child is by baptism regenerate,’—and in a previous part of the office, ‘is now by the laver of regeneration in baptism, received into the number of the children of God, and heirs of everlasting life.’ These passages are not in our Prayer- book ; and the omission is judicious—1. because while the connection of baptism with regeneration is sufficiently de- clared elsewhere, there is avoided too close and rigorous a definition, which furthers contrariety, rather than unity in doctrine—and, 2. because it is not quite correct to say that a certain predicate ‘is now,’ or may ‘now’ be made, which was true ata previous time.”t Many will dissent from the views of the bishop on this point, and think that the omission severed another link of the chain that bound together the American Episcopalians with their Anglican brethren, effaced one of the remaining memorials of Catho- lie doctrines, and opened the way to the spread and in- crease of what Dr. Pusey terms low, rationalistic and carnal views of the sacrament. ‘* We deny,” says Bishop Onderdonk, ‘that any deposite is given in baptism, such as may be figuratively called a seed, germ, or leaven of a moral grace, as essentially connected with the rite.”’{ * The English book of Common Prayer says, “is regenerated.” The change seems intentional. 1 Essay on Baptism, p. 52. Note. + Ibidem, p. 64. Note. EFFECTS OF BAPTISM. 99 The general sentiment of all the Protestant sects in Ame- rica seems to be, that baptism is a mere rite of association to the visible church, imparting ΠΟ. grace—impressing no character, and producing no internal effect whatever. ‘‘ One text misquoted,” as Dr. Pusey remarks, ‘‘in order to dis- prove the absolute necessity of baptism, has ended in the searcely disguised indifference or contempt of an ordinance of our Saviour.”* Bishop Onderdonk indeed protests against ecclesiastical regeneration being regarded as a mere outward grace, and asks: ‘‘Is not the covenant title to moral grace, itself a grace—is not the title to forgiveness of sins, and to heaven, a grace—and is it not conferred on the soul—and is not this gift to the soul ‘an inward grace,’ truly and properly—an inward spiritual grace, ‘ given unto us’ by the ‘one Spirit who baptizes us all into the one body?’ ’’t Notwithstanding these interrogations, most per- sons will consider ecclesiastical regeneration as an outward relation to the visible church, which, though it be supposed to give a title to grace, actually gives no grace whatever. With the exception of such divines of the High Church party as have embraced the Oxford views, I believe the actual communication of sanctifying grace in baptism is generally denied by Episcopalians, as well as by other Protestants. According to the Catholic belief, baptism, like every other sacrament, contains an inherent efficacy. It washes away the stain of original sin, and whatever actual stains may have been contracted by the adult receiver: it regene- rates the child of Adam, and makes him a child of God: it imparts grace and sanctity, and so thoroughly and perfectly * Tract on Baptism, p. 39. { Essay on Baptism, p. 64, Note. 100 EFFECTS OF BAPTISM. purifies and sanctifies, that where no obstacle is presented by the receiver, no cause of condemnation remains in him, so that if summoned immediately out of life, nothing what- ever would withhold him from the kingdom of heaven.* This grace is said to be inherent in baptism, inasmuch as it is attached to it by the divine institution of our Redeemer ; and is infallibly imparted, unless when the incredulity or perverseness of the receiver opposes_an obstacle to its ope- ration. There is no virtue, however, ascribed to the sacra- ment, except as a means divinely chosen to apply to our souls the merits of the sufferings and death of our Lord. The power of God, and the merits of our Redeemer are the sources of sacramental efficacy, and a proper state of mind in adults—faith, repentance, hope, and a commencement of love—are required to receive the grace which the sacra- ments convey. The passage already quoted which declares the necessity of a new birth of water and the Spirit, proves that regene- ration takes place by means of this sacred ablution. The Spirit cleanses the defiled child of Adam, gives him a supernatural birth, and a title to an everlasting kingdom. He is born again of water and the Holy Ghost, and there- _ fore can enter the kingdom of God. Thus he who was conceived in iniquity and was naturally a child of wrath, is cleansed and made a beloved child, in whom God takes complacency. ‘Our birth,”’ Dr. Pusey well remarks, ‘“‘(when its direct means are spoken of,) is attributed to the baptism of water and of the Spirit, and to that only.”’t All actual sins which the soul had committed are at the * See Council of Trent, Sess. v. deer. de pece. orig., quoted at large in my work on Justification, ch. xi. { Tract on Baptism, Ὁ. 27. EFFECTS OF BAPTISM. 101 same time cancelled—even deicide itself was expiated by the baptismal waters: ‘*Do penance,”’ said Peter to the Jews whom he had reproached with ecrucifying the Lord, ‘