Pedobaptist and campbellite immersions : being a review of the arguments of Doctors Waller, Fuller, Johnsn, Wayland, Broadus, and others

Introduction

Since it was at my solicitation that the author consented that his reviews of Waller, Johnson, and Fuller, originally published in the Southern Baptist Review, might be given to the public in the form of a " httle book," it seems but proper for me to introduce it to the rehgious public.

I do this, not only cheerfully, but wiih a degree of pleasure seldom experienced in performmg a similar office, for several reasons:

1. The question is a most important one — vital to the peace, prosperity, and perpetuity of the Baptist denomination.

2. The denomination is divided in sentiment. By far the largest majority — perhaps nine-tenths of the churches in the North — receive the immersions and ordinations of Pedobaptists and Campbellites as valid, and regard their societies as evangelical, i. e., scrip-

IV INTRODUCTION.

» tural churches. From the North, the practice has

been introduced into the South, and it was supposed that a few years since, before so bold a stand was made against it by several leading papers, a majorit}^ of the churches in some States would recognize such immersions as valid baptisms, and, perhaps, the majority of the churches in Kentucky, Missouri, and parts of South Carolina would to-day' receive such acts as baptism.* I confidently believe that this work will be influential in bringing about a unanimity of sentiment touching this subject.

3. The question is most widely agitated, and the denominational mind is greatly excited upon the subject, especially in the South, and this must be regarded as a favorable time to discuss the question in all its bearings, and establish those principles, if possible, and apply those scriptures that must forever put the question at rest, before our churches become more entangled and confused.

4. We commend this work because we believe that the author has most conclusively shown that the Scriptures clearly forbid any body but a scripturally organized church to authorize baptism, and then by an administrator connected with a scriptural church. Will not every Baptist bow to the authority of God's Word?

♦The practice prevails to a larger extent in those States whose Baptist papers and leading men advocate the validity of such baptisms.

INTRODUCTION. V

5. He has shown that all the examples of baptism in the Scriptures are opposed to the administration of the ordinance by those neither baptized nor members of a scriptural church.

6. We commend it to all other denominations be" cause from it they can learn how they are regarded by all consistent Baptists, and how rigidly consistent is the practice of all those Baptists who reject Pedobaptist and Campbellite baptisms, whether the action was sprinkling or immersion, as well as in denying these societies to be evangelical or scriptural churches.

7. We introduce it with the greater pleasure because we verily believe that it will prove the end of all controversy upon this subject, to every candid and true principled Baptist. If the end of this controversy cannot be looked for in these pages, where can •we reasonably look for it? The ablest advocates of the validity of such immersions, have here put forth their strongest arguments, and between this array of doctors of divinity every possible argument is urged that any other advocate can consider at all relevant. Surely the advocates of such baptism can well afford to trust their cause in such hands. And, I am confident, that all who oppose such baptisms are perfectly willing to intrust the advocacy of their cause in the hands of our author. If this question is not settled in the minds of all Baptists by this work, we may not expect that it will be settled in our day.

1*

VI INTRODUCTION.

There are two points that might be urged with great force upon all Baptists, of which the author has not seen fit to avail himself.

The recognitions of such baptisms as valid, forces all Baptists logically and irresistably into open communion, and more, to the admission that the existence of Baptist churches is not necessary !

We reject the premises from which such a conclusion follows, because the conclusion is an untruth — an absurdity to every Baptist who holds the avowed principles of our denomination. To every true Baptist, open communion is unscriptural and unwise. This has been satisfactorily demonstrated to him by the Scriptures and the English experiment. It is axiomatic to every real Baptist, and, therefore, to him this argument is conclusive, for he cannot embrace a conclusion that is contradictory to the fundamental principles of his faith.

Let me examine this question briefly. We take it for granted that every Baptist will admit, "That the proper administrator, as well as the proper subject of baptism is clearly designated by the Scriptures, for, he is an essential part of the ordinance of christian baptism, since baptism involves the ideas of administratovy subject, action and design, and therefore, it is supposed that if any one of these is described and enjoined in the Scriptures, we must suppose that each one of them is clearly indicated and enjoined. And then again, Baptism is a positive law and since

INTRODUCTION. Vll

no positive law is left to be inferred, certainly no essential part of a positive law can be supposed to be left to be inferred, but must be clearly indicated. If Baptists deny this, they must repudiate one of their most cherished and distinguishing principles, i, e.^ that the Scriptures are a perfect rule of practice as well as faith.

Baptists, then, must admit that this question is settled bv the Scriptures. If this is granted, all Baptists must admit that christian baptism can only be Scripturally administered by a duly baptized administrator who is a member of a true visible Church and acting under the authority of such Church. If Baptists recognize the immersions of Pedobaptists and Campbellite Societies, they thereby recognize such Societies as truly Scriptural and Evangelical Churches ?

But to admit this they must admit that the Scriptures authorize several radically diverse forms of Church GoffernmeLt, and membership, and ordinances, and faith, and orders in the ministry. And since a Church can be no more than. Evangelical, or Scriptural, and not less, and still be Scriptural, it follows that Baptist churches, being only Scriptural, are only equal to Pedobaptists and Campbellite Societies, since things equal to the same thing are equal to one another.

If then such Societies are Scripturally equal to Baptists Churches, why may they not commune

VIU . INTRODUCTION.

with each other as Baptist Churches do? And what is the necessity for Baptist Churches at all ? Since, it is sufficient for any christian to belong to a Scriptural or Evangelical Church?

We see here that the logical and irresistible conclusion that follows from the admission that the immersions of such Societies are valid, not only forces Baptists into open communion, but to concede that were all their Churches annihilated from the face of the whole earth, still there would exist thousands and tens of thousands of Scriptural churches, amply sufficient for the wants of the world.

The Baptist who can embrace these conclusions is not a Baptist in principle, and renounces not only the faith of the Baptists, but the plain teachings of inspiration.

2. The second fact which must be influential with Baptists is, by receiving such immersions for valid baptism they would repudiate the universal practice of their ancestors for more thani<;welve centuries past.

Does not every Baptist glory in the fact that he is a descendant of the martyred Anabaptists, with whose blood, the woman robed in scarlet was drunken for so many centuries before Luther, or Calvin, or any one of the Reformers was born ? The Baptist who is not proud of his descent, from that martyred host who are resting under the throne until the day of God's vengeance and their glorification shall come,

INTRODUCTION. IX

either is ignorant of the history of Baptists, or unworthy of being numbered among them. Why were they called Anabaptists ? Because they baptized all who came to them from the Catholic party, or any sect, which they regarded as heretical. Why did they reject the immersions — for immersion was the prevailing practice for more than 1300 years, says Wall himself — of the Catholics and of heretical sects? Because, they believed that a corrupt or unscriptural Church could not give valid baptism.

This fact is patent upon the face of history. We can learn from Augustine, why the Donatists of the 5th century re-baptized those who came to them from the Catholic party. "You Donatists say they are baptized in an impure church by heretics.*

The Paulicians were hooted at in Councils for re-baptizing in private houses (says Robinson) and holding conventicles, and for calling the established Church a worldly community, and re-baptizing such as joined their churches, f

The Novatianists were banished and slain by the Catholics because they re -baptized those who came into their communion. *' In the fourth Laterau council, canons were made to banish them as Heretics, and these canons were supported by an edict, A. D., 413, issued by the Emperors Theodosius and Horonius, declaring that all persons re-baptized, and the re-bap -

* Orchard, page 95. f Robinson Resh., page 92.

X INTRODUCTION.

tizers, should be punished with death. Accordingly Albanus, a zealous minister, with others, was punished with death for re-baptizing."*

The Waldenses, according to the testimony of Reiner, a messenger sent by the King of France to learn their doctrines and practices, expressly taught **that a man is then first baptized, that is rightly baptized when he is received into their Society. f

Of the Albigenses and others, about the year 500, we read that they held the Catholic community not to be a church of Christ. They therefore rebaptized such as had been baptized in that community, before they admitted them to their fellowship. For this conduct they were called Anabaptists.];

The Beghards or Picards, according to Dr. Wall, ' required of every one who came over to their church, to be baptized anew in mere water. §

It was charged against the Baptists by the famous Roman Catholic Bishop Bossuet, that "This re-baptizing is an open declaration that in the opinion of the brethren, the Catholic Church has lost baptism. ||

That the Baptists of Germany, even in Luther's day, were like their predecessors, the Waldenses and Albigenses, Paulicians, Novatianists and Donatists, is

* Orchard, page 61— Bap, Mag. 256,

. t Alex. Pred, ch. c. 20, p. 190, quoted by Orchard, p. 283, X Orchard, page 167.

§ History Infant Baptism, qaoted by Orchard, page 329. II Rob. History of Bap., p. 463.

INTRODUCTION. XI

evident from the fact, that ** He persecuted them under the name of re-dippers, re-baptizers, or Anabaptists."*

The very term by which Cardinal Hosius designates our Churches, establishes our position, when he says, *• If the truth of a religion were to be judged by the readiness and cheerfulness which a man of any sect shows in sufifering, then the opinions and persuations of no sect can be truer or surer than those of the Anabaptists, (that is, the re-baptizers,) since there have been none for these 1,200 years past that have been more generally punished." This shows that they had always been accustomed to baptize again, or rather truly to baptize those who come to them from other communions.

That they rejected not only Roman Catholic but also Protestant baptisms, is evident from the testimony of Bullinger. He says :

** The Anabaptists think themselves to be the only true Church of Christ, and acceptable to God ; and teach that they who by baptism are received into their churches, ought not to have any communion [fellowship] with [those called] evangelical, or any other, whatsoever, for that our [i. e., evangelical, protestant, or reformed] churches are not true churches any more than the churches of the Papists.**

The position that we take, in rejecting such immersions, is identical with that maintained by our

* Rob. History of Bap., 540.

XU INTRODUCTION.

ancestors in the face of every fearful form of death. Will the Baptists of America repudiate it? But, •what should be far more influential, will the Baptists of to-day reject the Bible as the -perfect and only rule of practice, and resort to special legislation to legalize confessedly informal acts ? Did not the only Lawgiver of his Church see all the circumstances by which the Church would be surrounded ? Did he not see the existence of these ** irregular christian churches," and their informal acts ? If He provided no law to legalize them, will a Baptist church do it?

J. R. G.

Nashville, January, 1858.

Chapter I. Introductory

"WHO SHALL DECIDE WHEN DOCTORS DIFFER?"

And what if it should chance that for the most part the doctors are agreed? would it not be the veryheight of rashness and egotism for a plain and unlearned man to differ from them all, and even go so far as to fancy that he might he able, by the mere force of simple truth, to set at rest forever a question which had long disturbed the minds of those who thought about it, and settles it, too, upon a position directly the reverse of that, for which the doctors had contended ?

It certainly would seem so. But then our case is not quite so bad as this. Here is a question — a serious and practical question of official duty to the churches of Christ. One upon which almost every church is likely, sooner or later, to be called on to take decisive action. It is whether a person who has been immersed upon profession of his faith, by a Pedobaptist minister, acting in behalf of a Pedobaptist church, and who thereafter shall apply for admission as a member of a Baptist church, shall by that church be regarded as having been truly baptized, or not baptized at all? If he has been baptized, the ordinance must not be repeated ; for Christ requires but one baptism. If 7ioi baptized, the ordinance must be administered, for Christ requires that every member of his church shall have been baptized. Here, then, is the point which the churcli must determine: Was that immersion a true baptism, according to the Scriptures, or was it not ? Upon her decision of this question her action in regard to his reception will depend.

That the question is one of great practical importance, and that it has been so regarded by the churches, is evinced by the discussion which it has provoked. That it is exceedingly desirable that it should, if possible, be so answered, once for all, as to secure uniformity of action among all churches, no one will doubt. But many will doubt whether this can ever be done. That very great diversity of opinion does exist, will be seen by the following letters. The majority of the "Doctors," so far as we have been able to gather their opinions, are either undecided, or else believe that the churches should regard such persons as baptized. Were we to be decided by the influence of great names, we should probably ourselves lean to that opinion. But we long since have learned to take no teaching in regard to religion, of any man, however great and good, and learned, as certainly true, until we had ourselves carefully tested it by the word of God. The Bereans were not praised because they implicitly believed without examination the teachings, even of an apostle, but because they *' searched the Scriptures daily whether these things were so." When, therefore, my attention was first called to this subject, by a letter from a brother beloved, in South Carolina, enclosing a copy of the published letter of Elder Fuller, of Baltimore, with a request that I would review it, I carried it to the Bible, and by its teacliiDgs endeavored to ascertain what was the truth concerning it. So ignorant was I, that I did not know but that it was a neio question, for the first time presented to the consideration of the churches. To me the teachings of the Word appeared so plain, that it was a matter of wonder that even one had come to what appeared so strange and unscriptural a conclusion.

I afterwards learned, however, that so faiv from being a new question, it was one which had, for a long time, distracted and rent oui Zion ; that it had been, again and again, the object of earnest, and sometimes of almost angry contention ; that Elder Fuller, so far from standing alone, was sustained by the opinions of such "Doctors" as Curtis and Johnson, Wayland and Waller, and that there were many who believed that it had been the uniform practice of the denomination in all times to receive immersions so administered as valid baptism. Such a discovery, made after my review of Elder Fuller's letter had been written and published to the world, might well have given pause to one much better qualified than I to conduct such a discussion. It seemed more likely that I should be in the wrong than that so many, so wise, so good, so learned men should have been mistaken. It surely called for a re- investigation upon my part of the grounds upon which I had so hastily ventured an opinion.

That re-examination has been made. I have endeavored carefully to study the subject in all its bearings. The published opinions of all the "Doctors," so far as I could find them, have been collected and compared, analyzed and tried by the teachings of God's Word.

The best and strongest arguments which they have made are here presented by themselves. They have all the advantage which talents and learning could give them. What these ** Doctors" have not done for the defense of these opinions we take for granted cannot be done. They are to this cause what Hector was to Troy. If any could defend th^ir positions successfully they were the men. If Fuller and Wayland, if Johnson and Waller, cannot make good the point, which they contend for, others need hardly make the attempt. Upon that side, we suppose, we have the end of the strife. No new arguments are likely to be presented — or if there should be, the gleaner on the field which such men have reaped, will not be likely to gather any thing of equal value to that which they have already brought in. If, therefore, we have succeeded in showing that they have failed, utterly failed, to establish their position, may we not hope that this will decide the controversy at once and forever. Not because the talent and the learning are not theirs, but simply because the truth is ours. Whether this hope be the mere suggestion of egotism, or whether it have a good foundation in the nature of the reasonings presented, the reader must decide.

As neither of these articles, nor our review of them was originally intended for publication in this form there may be repetitions of the same thoughts, and possibly of the same language. We trust the reader will excuse this upon the ground, that to make it otherwise would mutilate the argument which was designed to be in each case a mere reply to that presented on the other side. The object of the reviewer in each case was not so much to discuss the whole subject in all its bearings as to meet that peculiar phase of it which had been put forward by the author

■whose article was the subject of examination. And it will be observed that in each case the materials for our argument in reply have, to a great extent, been drawn from the author himself to whom we were replying. This plan, though probably by no means the best mode of discussing the question in a book which should at once embrace the whole subject, WKS thought to be the most effective and proper for a review in which each article reviewed stood upon its individual merits, and was in part, at least, sustained by the previously acquired and well deserved reputation of the autlior of it.

Of the opinions and arguments here collected in favor of the reception of Pedobaptist immersions as true and genuine christian baptism, those of Elder Waller were first published, and we have thought best to place them first in order in the body of this work. The reader will perceive that he is much less confident than "Doctor Wayland," whose sentiments were published in The Western Baptist Review, vol. iv. p. 31.

Says Wayland :

"I have not the shadow of a doubt in regard to the question of which you write. The only command is, to be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ; that is, as I suppose, in baptism (that is immersion) to profess to submit ourselves in all things to God. It is the outward manifestation of what we have done before, in the recesses of a contrite heart. This is the whole of the command. There is no direction given beyond, nor have we a right, to make any. It is convenient, as a matter of church order, that there should be some general rule, and that this rite be administered by a

2* clergyman, and it would be naturally performed by one who had been himself baptized by immersion. But if these things be absent, from necessity or ignorance, they alter not the fact, that the person who has been immersed on profession of faith, is, as I understand it, a baptized believer. This is a very common case with us in this city. Congregationalists, Episcopalians and Methodists here quite frequently baptize persons on profession of their faith. We consider them as baptized believers, and when they request it, admit them upon a simple relation of their experience. Indeed, were not this admitted, I know not to what absurdities we should be reduced. If the obedience to Christ depends upon the ordinance being administered by a regularly baptized administrator, where are we to stop, and how shall we know who is regularly baptized, or who has obeyed Christ. All this looks to me absolutely trivial, and wholly aside from the principle which, as Protestants and Baptists, we have always considered essential to Christian liberty. It seems to me like assuming Puseyism under another name, or in fact going back to the elements of the Catholic church. Such are my views. How they meet the views of others, I know not, but to me these principles of Christian freedom are above all price. It is time that we, above all others, should "walk in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and not be entangled with any yoke of bondage.'*

On the same page we find the opinion of "Doctor Johnson," of S. C, who seems scarcely less confident than the other. It is as follows :

" I have carefully examined the New Testament in

DIVERSE OnisIONS. 19

reference to the manner in which the preacher of the gospel is to be brought into the office, and the nearest approach to it is found in 1st Cor. 14th chapter. The brethren of a religious society should exercise their respective gifts in the presence of the body, and then the gifts will be apparent. Those who are blessed with an aptitude to teach will show it, and its recognition by the body is the authority to preach ; and whoever is authorized to preach, is authorized to baptize— the latter being the minor work. I therefore receive those who are recognized as preachers by Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, and all orthodox bodies of believers, as preachers of the gospel, and receiving them in this relation, I receive them as baptizers; and when the ordinance is administered by any of them to one who professes faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, I receive it as valid."

The reader will observe that he regards all "religious societies'^ as churches, and all equally authorized to confer authority to preach and to baptize. As we are informed that he is the same with *' W.,'* wliose arguments we have examined at large in another place, we will not comment on that strange pobition here.

Rev. D. Bythewood says:

" I have always thought the "Beaufort church right in leaving the question to the conscif-nce of the candidate. I could never see any reasuu from the Bible for requiring re-baptism. I remember, rr.any years ago, the question was proposed to an Association in England, which decided that the want of baptism in the administrator did not invalidate the act to the person baptized."

The Rev. Mr. Lathrop thus spealcs in behalf of himself and the leading ministers of N. York :

"So far as it has been in my power, I have ascertained the views of leading brethren in this city. Brethren in this quarter are pretty generally agreed on this point. Perhaps nine out of ten of our ministering brethren regard baptism in the case proposed as valid. Their reasons are as follows : The individual was immersed in good faith, viz : had repented of sin, believed in the Lord Jesus ; and on looking into ihe Bible, saw that the first thing afterwards lo be done, was to be baptized, and "arose and was baptized.

"But the administrator, you think, and so do I, was not qualified, that is, who is not himself a baptized man. The question arises — Is it essential to the validity of baptism that the administrator shall be in all respects qualified? It is always desirable, but is it essentialt It is thought not. What in an administrator is a higher quali6cation than piety ? Yet how many unholy, unconverted Baptist ministers, as we have reason to fear, have administered the ordinance of baptism to true converts. When, afterwards, such men have apostatized, no one has supposed that all whom the apostate (unqualified as he was) had baptized, should be re-immersed. If in good faith and to answer a good conscience, the individuals supposed have been baptized, they have discharged their duty. The administrator must settle his account with God

"The case, I admit, is a somewhat difficult one, from the fact that there is nothing in the Bible that bears directly on the point. We can be guided only by general principles, and a reference to consequences. I confess, that in looking over tlie whole matter, I am inclined to the opinion, that to re-immerse under the circumstances mentioned, would be to establish a worse precedent than to pursue the contrary course.'*

'•Doctor" Curtis, of S. C, says :

** The result at which I have for a length of time arrived, is quite similar to that to which you appear to have come. The immersion of unbaptized parties received at the time by the baptized in good faith, and as the counsel of God, are irregular, but not invalid— undesirable — not to be encouraged — palpably inconsistent on the part of the administrator — but, as I have been taught, not requiring to be repeated. In special cases, and where a scrupulous conscience in the subject urged the repetition, I should not perhf^ps be scrupulous about repeating it. But I am clear that this is not required."

Benedict, the Historian, (after mentioning the opinion of the Richmond Association, that re-baptism is to be required,) says:

"As persons are frequently applying for admission into Baptist Churches, who have been immersed by Methodist and Congregational ministers, this question has, within a few years past, been often proposed, and most Associations have decided differently from this. All agree that it is an unadvisable measure, for a person to apply to unbaptized ministers to lead them into the water ; but after they have been properly immersed on a profession of their faith it is generally thought that it would be improper to immerse them a second time. It is difficult to conceive why they would not, in this case, come under the denomination of Anabaptists." — ( Vol. IL, pp. 472-3.)

But now, lest it be thought that all the "Doctors" and great men of the denomination agree substantially with these, we will subjoin a few opinions on the other side. ** Doctor Manly," in 1848, writes as follows :

** About the question of re-baptizing, I must say I have been greatly in the dark. On the question of independent abstract propriety of repeating a baptism once rightly administered, there can be no difficulty. Butthis case is embarrassed by many circumstances that throw the administration into great doubt. I can suppose a case, (an extreme one) in which the want of baptism to the administrator would not vitiate his performance of it to others. But ordinarily or when it can be avoided, is it best or as good to have an unbaptized administrator ? I would not choose to volunteer a declaration that I thonghfc^heir baptism invalid. But I would not assert that it is valid. I lean over to the side of baptizing them when they come to us. I can have no doubt they are baptized acceptably in this case. In the other I might have some doubt. And I decide the case rather on the ground of expediency ; because I cannot see far enough into other grounds to know on which side the argument preponderates."

But after the publication of the letter of ** Doctor Fuller," herein reviewed, he gives as the result of his furtheir investigations, the following :

*'Dear Brother : — * * * I do not wisli to write and publish my views on this subject, still less would I have my views presented uncalled, in any meetiog either of a church or Association. But I may say to you in friendship, privately, that I do not think it would be expedient for Baptist Churches in this country to recognize the baptisms of Pedobaptist ministers. They never immerse, when the candidate can be persuaded to any other method ; they generally speaJc against that particular mode, and sometimes ridicule it, snd they seldom fail to make a ridiculous and contemptible farce in their way of administerin.^ it — to say nothing of these administrators being themselves unbaptized — this saying and unsaying — this doing of what they dislike and condemn, and which they treat as if they despised it, is not to be presented to Baptist churches as an act which they are to approve or sanction. Like Eli's sons, these administrators make the oflfering of the Lord, i7i that instance, to he abhorred — it is their wish. to do so ; and to prevent any one who witnessses their performance from ever desiring to see it repeated, or to have it in that form themselves. Now, when Baptists are asked to receive these baptisms, they are asked, in effect, to sanction these proceedings, and thus to become partakers with them in this objectionable administration.