A treatise on Baptism : with an exhortation to receive it, translated from the works of St. Basil the Great, to which is added a treatise on Confirmation

Front matter

BX 2205 .K46 Kenrick, Francis Patrick A treatise on baptism

A TREATISE

Φ

Preface

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 I 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 materials 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 the Society of Friends is numerous, has led me to treat in this work of the institution 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*

ΧΙ: 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 replied : «* 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 Presbyterians, 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 baptism.

In maintaining Catholic truth, I have had occasion to notice the opposite errors, held by various sects, and advocated 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 departure from the ancient and unchangeable principles of

* Infants Baplisme 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. Basi. THE Great, in which he exhorts the many who in his age delayed baptism, although convinced 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 particularly felt by some, who in our day likewise postpone, from time to time, the reception of this most necessary Sacrament.

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 appeared to me similar to one of the views presented by Luther: but as this very respectable gentleman immediately 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 estimable 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 regarded 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

CuaptTer |.—Baptism of John, - - -

Society of Friends. —Views of Sects concerning John’s baptism.—Ancient Jewish usages.—Mosaic rites.—Heavenly character of John’s baptism.—Ends of baptism of Christ.— Baptized by John again baptized.—Testimonies of Fathers.

Cuapter I].—Christian Baptism, : ᾿

Chapter I. Baptism Of John

Brrore 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 Fox bade a magistrate tremble at the word of the Lord, or as others explain it, from their trembling in their meetings occasionally, when inwardly 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 overcome 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.” Barclay Apol. Prop. xi. ὃ. 8.

the baptism of Christ is no other than an interior operation 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 adherents, was aimed at by this canon, since he taught that the difference between them lay in the accompanying instruction, 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 manifested.t Dr. Miller, however, although an ardent Calvinist, says, ‘“‘It is certain that John’s baptism was not Christian baptism.’’{ ‘The members of the society called Baptists speak to the same effect, and consider their name as identifying them with John, who is styled rue Baptist, because 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: ‘I 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. 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.

in an incompletely developed state; yet with all its elements 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 sentiment 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 purifications were prescribed in the Mosaic law, wherein the priest sprinkled with blood, or water, those who had contracted 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 instance 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 aspersions, and the baptism of the multitudes by John, it was peculiar to him to baptize on a profession of repentance, 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, Philadelphia, 1840. { Ibidem, p. 68. + Lev. xv. § Exod. xl. 12, 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 inspiration, 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 dive 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.t It does not, however, 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 preaching of John, was intended to awaken sentiments of penitence, 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 accompanying the ablution ; but it was preceded by the announce-

BAPTISM OF JOHN. fis ae ΩΝ 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 sanctification. He, holy and undefiled, needed not ‘the baptism of penance for the remission of sins;’’ but when the Precursor 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. Hl. 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 Baptism, p. 81. It is thus that men rashly speak of our Divine Lord!

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 members 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 baptized 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 witness 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 present 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 penance and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.”’t 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.

§ Ib, 41. It is wonderful with what sang froid Hinton, contrary

In the nineteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles a fact is recorded, which establishes most clearly the distinction between the baptism of John and that of Jesus. **It 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. Andhe said: In what* then were ye baptized? Who said: In John’s baptism. Then Paul said: John baptized the people with the baptism of penance, 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.”t 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 Apostle 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.

* «Be 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, e. gy. Matt. v. 35, gus Ιεροσόλυμα, which is just after followed by ὀμννειν ἐν en yy: Bloomfield en locum.

{ Acts xix. 1. ᾿ a 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 baptized, 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 penitential 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 administration 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 refutation; 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

It may be useful to show how the ancients understood the words of the sacred text.

TERTULLIAN 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 impart heavenly things.”’* Sr. 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 all the men were about twelve: ‘they’ in the first place means all who in Judea received 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, Ῥ. 214. * Lib. de Bapt.

Τ᾽ L. v. contra Parmenian. + L, v. de Bapt. c ix, 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 forgiveness 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 perfect, but leaves the perfecting to another.”’* Sr. Jerom calls attention to the preparatory and imperfect character of the baptism of John, and appeals to the divine writings : ‘‘ Hear what the scriptures teach: the baptism of John did not remit sins, but was a baptism of penance for the remission of sins, that is the future remission, which was afterwards to come by the sanctification of Christ.”t Sr. ATuanastus, explaining the words of the Baptist, observes: ‘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.’ St. Basi, urging catechumens to hasten to the font, puts before them the anxiety of the Jews to receive the baptism of John as an example worthy of their imitation, and shows how much more excellent christian baptism is: ‘¢ 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 Matih.

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 yourselves, 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 promise of the Holy Ghost;’ you are invited by the Lord himself: ‘Come to me, all you that labour, and are burthened, and I shall refresh you;’ and yet you tarry, and deliberate, and delay.’’*

The grace of the Holy Ghost is declared by the Fathers” on the divine authority of scripture, to be peculiar to christian 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 ““1 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. Curysostrom says: ‘The grace of the Holy Ghost is in the baptism of Christ: but the baptism of John is destitute of this gift.”’{ Sr. Greoory, 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.’’§

* Hom, xiii. in S. Baptisma. + De Bapt.

+ Hom, xi. inc. it. Matt, § Orat. xxxix.

y 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 scripture. '?*

The proper view of the baptism of John is that given by St. Joun Damascene: “ The baptism of John was introductory, and it led the persons that were baptized to penance, 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. ‘'Therefore John purified previously for the Spirit: but we are ‘baptized with the perfect baptism of Christ, by water and ithe Spirit.”’t The same view is constantly presented by TERTULLIAN: “* We recognize John as a kind of limit established 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 ancient rite, and its relation to the initiatory rite of christianity, 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. lL. iv. c. xiv. 7. + L. iv. de fide orthodoxa. + L. iv. contra Marcian, ο, xxxiil.

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 interpreters 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 eritics 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 : ‘It 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.”’+ For us

* The Four Gospels translated from the Greek, with Prehm. 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.

it is sufficient to know, that they were commanded to baptize in this way: for surely they fulfilled the injunction.

To confound things so clearly distinguished in the divine scripture is 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 himself. When He came, John gladly saw the multitudes flock to Him to receive His baptism. “ΓΒ my joy, therefore,’’ he said, ‘‘is fulfilled. He must increase, but 1 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.