Sprinkling, the only mode of baptism made known in the Scriptures; and the Scripture warrant for infant baptism

Dedication

U i

%f To the First and Second Congregationa. hurches in Williamstown and to the Faculty and £ iudents of Williams College — the very genera i expression of whose favorable opinion of the substance of the following treatise, as recently presented in the pulpits of these churches, has induced him to prepare it for publication — this littU volume is most affectionately and respectfully dedicated, with every feeling of interest, and 1 1 Christian fellowship,

By their Friend and Servant, In the Ministry of the Gospel,

Part I. Sprinkling The Only Mode Of Baptism Made Known In The Scriptures

SECTION L

General remarks on the institution of baptism, as a Christian Sacrament, and the controversy respecting it, ------ 13

SECTION n.

The controversy stated — Meaning of baptizo, as used to designate the Christian ordinance of baptism — The Greek plow, 20

SECTION ffl.

Scripture illustrations of the meaning of the word baptism, independent of the mode of its administration, and of sprinkling, as the only mode of baptism made known in the Bible, 36

X CONTENTS.

SECTION IV.

The nature and design of John's baptism, and of the baptism of our Saviour by John, 51

SECTION V.

All the questions on the mode of baptism reduced to one — The water applied to the person, and not the person to the water, - 59

SECTION VI.

The mode of John's baptism, - - 68

SECTION vn.

Prophecies intimating the mode of Christian baptism — The baptism of the Spirit, 78

SECTION VIE.

Historical illustrations of the mode of baptism, as it was administered by the apostles — The Greek particles translated into and out of, - 84

1. The baptism of three thousand on the day of Pentecost, ----- 84

2. The baptism of the Eunuch and of Christ, 89

SECTION IX.

Historical illustrations of the mode of baptism,

as administered by the apostles — Continued, 99

3. The baptism of the apostle Paul, 99

4. The baptism of Cornelius and his friends, 99

CONTENTS. X)

5. The baptism of Lydia and her household, 101

6. The case of the jailer and his family, - 102

7. Two other instances, - - - 105

SECTION X.

Recapitulation — Figurative expressions concerning baptism — Conclusion of the argument, 107

SECTION XL

Origin of the mode of baptism by immersion — The Bible does not make the mode essential, yet important — A concession — The great error of the Baptists, - - - - - 1 14

Section I

The meaning of our Saviour's command, (Matt. 28: 19,) in respect to the subjects of baptism — Proselyte baptism, ----- 131

section n.

In all the covenants of God with men, children are included with their parents. - - 140

Xll CONTENTS*

SECTION in.

The Church the isame under the Jewish and Christian dispensations, - - - - 144

SECTION IV.

Baptism the substitute for circumcision, - 149

SECTION V.

The example and practice of the apostles in respect to Infant Baptism, - 162

SECTION VI

Testimony of early Christians, and of histoiy — Origin of the Baptist denomination— Concluding remarks, - - * - / * * 168

PART I.

SPRINKLING THE ONLY MODE OF BAPTISM MADE KNOWN IN THE SCRIPTURES.*

SECTION I.

GENERAL REMARKS ON THE INSTITUTION OF BAPTISM^ AS A CHRISTIAN SACRAMENT, AND THE CONTRO- VERSY RESPECTING IT.

The last command of our Saviour to his disciples was addressed to them, after his re-

* I use the word sprinkling, in preference to asper* §ion, affusion, or pouring, because it is a more familiar word, in common parlance, and is used in scripture, to express the mode of baptism, as it is generally practised. It is also a better translation of the Greek word pavn£w (fantizo) in the Septuagint, and as used by the Apostle (Heb. 9 : 13) in reference to the " divers washings" {baptisms) prescribed under the law. I wish it to be understood, however, that I mean by this word any application of water to the subject of baptism, in larger or smaller quantities, according to the original signification of rantizo, which is to pour all over ; to wet ; to besprinkle.

14 BAPTISM

surrection, when having finished his personal ministry on earth, he was about to ascend his throne. The occasion was solemn and memorable. " Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, Jill 'power is given unto me in heaven and in earth ; Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them

IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE SON, AND

of the Holy Ghost; Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." (Mat. 28: 16-20.) This command is recorded by another Evangelist in different words: "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved ; but he that believeth not, shall be damned." (Mark 16: 15, 16.)

These passages contain the only recorded institution of Christian baptism. The disciples, it is true, had before this baptized. But there is no proof that they had done so in the form which

INSTITUTED. 15

is here prescribed, and no evidence that the Saviour had before required baptism to be performed in the use of these words. In his last command, therefore, as recorded in the above passages, is contained the whole of our direct authority, from Christ himself, for the administration of this ordinance. Here Christian baptism was instituted. This is our only Divine warrant to baptize " in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

This command, to baptize, no doubt, has a definite meaning — a meaning which was understood by those to w T hom it was primarily' addressed, and which ought to be understood by us. And yet it is expressed in the fewest words possible. It is accompanied with no commentary, no explanation of the words. It means, just what the words meant, then and there. And the very brevity of the expressions, and the incidental manner, in which the duty is inculcated in the command, indicate that there must have been, present to the minds of the apostles, circumstances and considerations w 7 hich rendered the words perfectly intelligible to them. They accordingly received the command, asking no

16 BAPTISM

explanations/ and went forth in obedience to it, and administered baptism to their disciples.

It should also be remarked, that the administration of this ordinance, in the time of the apostles, being a matter of visible practice, the mode of it was of course seen and understood by those who received it. It seems indeed to have been understood alike by the primitive disciples. Hence we hear of no dispute or division among them concerning it. They either agreed in a particular mode, w T hich they understood to be embraced in the meaning of the command, or they regarded the spirit of the institution as alone essential, and felt at liberty to vary the mode to meet circumstances and occasions. Accordingly there was no need of any explanation, to them, of the mode of the ordinance. The visible practice of the thing, which they called baptism, explained itself, in this respect.

But there have come dark ages over the church and the world. Scarcely had the apostles been laid in their graves, when a fancy began to prevail, that there was a cleansing power in water baptism. The strange notion of "baptismal regeneration " was early imbibed by professing

INSTITUTED. 17

Christians, and a mode of baptism was no doubt adopted, to imply and perpetuate that idea. Forms and ceremonies were soon introduced from heathen worship, and monstrous abuses were practised, which continue to the present day, both in the Romish and Greek churches. The spirit of the institution w r as buried and lost under the accumulation of its borrowed accompaniments. The leaders of the Protestant Reformation, therefore, have found it necessary to go back to the Bible, to recover the original meaning of this and other ordinances of the gospel.

For reasons, however, which I have already intimated, the import of the Saviour's brief com- 'mand on this subject, is not so readily apprehended by us as by the primitive disciples. The single word fiairr^u), {baptizo,} which defines the ordinance, is not, with us, vernacular, and we are far removed from the usages of those, times in our personal experience. We labor, therefore, under some disadvantages in our endeavors to ascertain the precise truth, as to the original mode of this ordinance. Yet the institution, in its primitive purity, is deemed so im- 2

18 BAPTISM

portant, that learning and ignorance, simple piety and sectarian zeal have all been deeply and perseveringly engaged in its investigation.

The sad result is a controversy, wide-spread among evangelical Christians, as to the mode in which we are required to fulfil this last command of our Saviour. And what is still more sad, principles have been adopted by some parties, which have divided the church, and broken her visible communion.

In such a state of things, if there be any key to the discovery of the root of this evil, any principle which may promise to restore the body of the faithful to its primitive unity, surely every conscientious Christian will rejoice to find it. At least every one rightly affected on this subject, will see to it, that he is not himself, through ignorance of the Saviour's command, a schismatic, or an occasion of divisions among the people of God.

In what mode, then, did the apostles understand that they were to obey the command of Christ, to baptize? To answer this question satisfactorily, we must place ourselves, as far as possible, in their circumstances, and look out

INSTITUTED 19

upon the truths and usages, which must have controlled their perception of the meaning of the words and things embraced in this command.

Section II

THE CONTROVERSY STATED — MEANING OF THE wt)RD Batri?u (baptizo,) AND ITS DERIVATIVES, AS USED TO DESIGNATE THE CHRISTIAN ORDINANCE OF BAPTISM.

Our Baptist brethren maintain strenuously that the primary classical meaning of the word /3cmiti£w (baptizo,) is to immerse or dip, and that this meaning of the word and its derivatives, used to designate the ordinance of baptism, must control the mode of its administration. On this ground, principally, they contend that immersion, and nothing else is baptism.* I say,

* The proportion of the Christian world, who practice immersion or submersion, is very small. Of the sixty or seventy millions of Protestants of all denominations in the world, probably not a fiftieth part have been baptized in this way. Dr. Kurtz, of the Lutheran Church, says, " probably not one-sixtieth part practice submersion." All the rest administer baptism by aspersion or sprinkling.

T mention this fact rather as a matter of information,

MEANING OF BAPTIZO. 21

on this ground principally, because, though many other topics of argument are put forth in their writings, I think it will be made apparent, in

than as an argument ; and since our Baptist brethren sometimes claim the practice of the Greek church in favor of then mode of baptism, it may be proper here to remark, that the Greek church maintain that trine immersion — plunging three times — is absolutely necessary. After these immersions, they sprinkle the subject with w r ater. They cannot be claimed, therefore, as the exclusive supporters of either mode, while the Roman Catholic church, whose example is quite as worthy of imitation, practice only sprinkling, so far as water is used. But these are both idolatrous churches, whose practices have no authority with us.

I may add, that even among Protestants, who practice immersion, the "Tunkers" — Dippers, usually called Dunkards — insist on an entire triple immersion, by a forward motion of the body, while Alexander Campbell, the leader of the Campbellites, a somewhat numerous sect in our Western States, judges this mode to be nugatory, inasmuch as it does not, in his opinion, resemble the burial of Christ. "We must dip," he says, " only once, and the motion must be backwards" But while these conflicting opinions exist among the advocates of immersion, there is no dispute among those who practice sprinkling, as to the precise mode of its performance. — See Kurtz on Baptism, p. 158, fyc.

the course of our discussion, that they are of little weight in comparison with this. This is regarded as the main point by our Baptist brethren themselves. It is, indeed, the only ground, on which I can conceive that a candid scholar w T ould be willing to take the exclusive position assumed by the " close communion Baptists."

But the argument, on this ground, in favor of immersion, derives all its strength from a mistaken assumption that it is in point, when, in fact it has little or nothing to do with the subject. Learned men, on the Baptist side of this controversy, may have thus been led, by their familiarity with the Greek classics, to take up a false issue to which they have applied their philology, in a manner very satisfactory to themselves,- while prejudiced men have felt it incumbent on them so to interpret the scripture expressions relating to baptism, as to make them conform to the imperious demands of this philological argument. But this argument, as I have said — and will now proceed to show — has little or nothing to do with the subject.

The question in dispute can never be settled by proving the meaning of the word /3oMrri£aj,

MEANING OF BAPTIZO. 23

(baptizo) in ancient heathen Greek, though it is easy to show, and has been abundantly proved by our best philologists, that the argument is not wholly with the Baptists, even on that score. The word means to tinge, to dye, to smear, &c, as well as to immerse. The Editor of Calmet's Dictionary quotes some eighty examples, taken in part from the ancient fathers and classical writers, but mostly from the Bible, in every one of which the word in question implies less than submersion, and in most of them, no more than sprinkling, moistening, pouring, or staining. But I leave that argument as wholly irrelevant to the precise point of difference between us and our Baptist brethren.

The true question is: what was, and is, the meaning of the word baptizo, as used in the New r Testament, to designate the religious ordinance of baptism? Suppose we admit — as we do not — all that the Baptists claim, as to the meaning of baptizo, or (3oL<irn(f pog (baptism) in heathen Greek. If it meant there immersion, and nothing else, still that could not govern its meaning as used by Christ and his apostles to designate an action which was utterly unknown to the Greeks of all preceding ages.

Let it be remembered that the Greek language had never been used to express any of the ideas of revealed religion, until the Jews w T ere conquered by the Greeks some three hundred years before Christ* Until after that time the idea of a religious ordinance, or ceremony, called baptism, had never entered the mind of a Greek. The Greek language was as destitute of any such ide£, as was the language of the Sandwich Islanders before they were instructed by our missionaries. All the ideas of the language, relating to religion, were heathen ideas. Hence the whole system of the gospel was " to the Greeks foolishness." ( 1 Cor. 1 : 23.) But the Jews, who had before this spoken the Hebrew language, and had the Old Testament scriptures in the Hebrew — which was understood by no other nation — being now in subjection to the Greeks, found it necessary to learn the Greek

# The Jews submitted to the dominion of the Greeks under Alexander the Great, who died in the year 323 before Christ. After this the intercourse ol the Jews with the Greeks was necessarily intimate,

MEANING OF BAPTIZO. 25

language. And before the birth of the Saviour, they translated their own scriptures into Greek.* But in expressing the truths of revealed religion in their new language, they were obliged to give to many of its words a new meaning.

The w r ord flrvsu/xa (pneuma, spirit) for instance,, in the most ancient Greek, meant wind, or breath, and nothing further. But in adapting this word to express the ideas of revealed religion, the sacred writers use it to signify spirit, as the spirit of man, and the Spirit of God. %

# The translation here referred to is that known as the Septuagint, which Josephus and others say, was made under the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, who died 247 years before Christ ; and it is generally admitted that that translation existed before our Saviour's time, and is quoted by him. It is conceded also that the Greek language was generally spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, though the Hebrew was also in use among all the Jews. (See Hug's art on " The Greek Language in Palestine' 1 Bib. Repos. 1831, p. 530, fyc.) The Latin language was also now spoken in Palestine ; for before this time — 146 years B. C. — the Romans had conquered both the Greeks and Hebrews. Hence the superscription on the cross of Christ was written " in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew," 1 that all the people might understand it.-— (Luke 23 : 38* )

The word ayysXog (angelos, angel,') in heather Greek, signified simply a messenger, a person by whom news is conveyed ; and the idea of a spiritual messenger from God, called angelos, was unknown to the Greek language. But the sacred writers appropriate this word almost exclusively to the expression of this idea. It means, in the Bible, what it did not mean in ancient Greek, a spiritual messenger and servant of God.

The Baptists, then, if they would be consistent w T ith themselves, in claiming a literal translation of baptizo, according to its heathen or secular meaning, must do the same in respect to the words pneuma and angelos. But if they do this, they must read the passage, John 3:5, " Except a man be born of water and of the wind, [the Spirit] he can not enter into the kingdom of God;' 5 and, John 3:6, " That which is born of the wind is wind !" And they must make the sacred waiter declare, Acts 23 : 8, that the Saducees say, " there is no resurrection, neither messenger nor wind!" The same absurdity would occur from the carrying out of this principle in respect to many other Greek words, used

NAMES AND THINGS. 27

in the New Testament, to express the peculiar ideas of revealed religion.*

So Christ and his apostles, who were of Jewish lineage, and were familiar with all religious ideas, as expressed in the Hebrew language of their own scriptures, when they applied the word baptizo to express a religious ordinance, gave to the word a new shade of meaning, conformed to the thing which it was now intended to express. But the idea of this thing had never entered the mind of a heathen Greek, and until now had

# Let it be observed, we do not affirm that the New Testament writers always use the words above referred to in their religious sense. When they speak of ordinary things in the Greek language, they give to its words the meanings which they had in common use, before they were appropriated to the expression of religious ideas. So our Saviour, in the same conversation in which he used pneuma to signify spirit, made use of the same word in its primitive sense (John 3 : 8,) " The wind" (pneuma) " bloweth where it listeth." The word baptizo is also often used in Scripture in its primitive sense. The principle which we assert is, that it always has a peculiar meaning unknown to the ancient Greeks, when used to express the rite of baptism.

been unknown to the Greek language. It is preposterous, therefore, to determine the precise mode of this ordinance from the primary or previous meaning of the Greek word used to express it. The meaning of an old word, when it is used as the name of a new tiling, must conform to the thing, and not the thing to the name.

" No principle is more universally admitted by all sound philologists, than that to establish the original and primitive meaning of a word, is not at all decisive in respect to its subsequent usage. It often aids only as giving a clue, by which to trace the progress of the imagination, or the association of ideas in leading the mind from meaning to meaning, on some ground of relative similitude, or connexion of cause and effect. So the verb, to spnng, denotes an act, and gives rise to a noun denoting an act. A perception of similitude transfers the word to the issuing of water from a fountain, to the motion of a watchspring, and to the springing of plants in the spring of the year. Yet who does not feel, that to be able to trace such a process of thought, is far from proving that, when a man in one case says, I made a spring over the ditch, in another,

THE LATTER GREEK. 29

I broke the spring of my watch, in another, I drank from a spring, and in another, I prefer spring to winter, he means in each case the same thing by the word spring ? And who, in using these words, always resorts to the original idea of the verb?" (Pres. Beecher in Bib. Repos. 1841.)

"It is true," says Campbell (Prelim. Dis. I., Part 2,) " that as the New Testament is written in Greek, it must be of consequence that we be able to enter critically into the ordinary import of the words of that tongue." " But from what has been observed, it is evident, that though in several cases this knowledge may be eminently useful, it will not suffice ; nay, in many cases, it will be of little or no significancy." " Classical use, both in Greek and in Latin, is not only, in this study, sometimes unavailable, but may often mislead. The sacred use and the classical are often very different."

In the Biblical Repository, for April, 1841 3 Professor Robinson says, " The language of the New Testament is the latter Greek, as spoken by foreigners of the Hebrew stock, and applied by them to subjects on which it had never been sw<-

'ployed by native Greeks. After the disuse of the ancient Hebrew in Palestine, and the irruption of Western conquerors, the Jews adopted the Greek language from necessity; partly as a conquered people, and partly from intercourse of life and commerce, in colonies, in cities, founded like Alexandria, and others, which were peopled with throngs of Jews." " When to this we add, that they spoke in Greek on the things of the true God, and the relations of mankind to Jehovah and to a Saviour — subjects to which no native Greek had ever applied his beautiful language, it will be obvious that an appeal merely to classic Greek and its philology will not suffice for the interpreter of the New Testament. The Jewish-Greek must be studied almost as an independent dialect, $r."

And the Rev. Dr. E. Hall, of Connecticut, to whose able work on baptism, I acknowledge myself especially indebted for the suggestion of the main argument of this treatise — remarks as follows: " The sole intent of all this discussion about the classic use and the New Testament use, is to show that the word baptize in the New Testament may have left its primary classic sig-

THE GREEK PLOW. 31

nification, and have received a generic, sacred use, equivalent to washing or purifying, ivithout the least reference to the mode in which that " washing of water " is performed. Whether this be the fact or not, is to be learned not from the Greek classics, but from the New Testament itself. As to this matter of fact, Mark and Luke and Paul are better witnesses concerning what they themselves understood by the word baptize, than Xenophon, Aristotle, or than even that Hebrew of Hebrews, the Jewish Josephus, when he is using the word in the sense of the Greek classics, with no reference to its use as applied to a religious ordinance." He, therefore, who undertakes to prove the nature or mode of Christian baptism from the previous meaning of the name, now used to designate it, argues inconclusively.

The word arotron, (aporpov,) for instance, in ancient Greek, signifies a plow. But the plow used by the Greeks, and designated by this name, was a straight stick of timber, some six or eight feet long, sharpened at one end, with a clevis at a suitable distance from the sharpened point, by which it was draw 7 n, while it was steered by a

32 MODE OF BAPTKM.

man at the other end of the stick. The plow used in Greece, at the present day, I am told, is of this description. It is known in the history of mechanics, as the old Roman plow.

Now suppose the Greeks should invade and conquer us, as they did the Jews of Palestine, and should make it necessary for us, as it was for them, to learn the Greek language, and to call our implements of agriculture, and other things, by Greek names. And suppose, in our new language, we should call our plow arotron. Does not every one perceive, that the word arotron, thus applied, has a new meaning, conformed to the thing which it is now used to designate? Does it still mean, with us, a straight stick, because that was its primary meaning in classical Greek? We know it does not. We look at the plow in daily use among ourselves, with its colter, and share, and handles, and other admirable contrivances, and when we call it arotron, we mean just what this thing, the modern plow, really is. Thus the w T ord, in our use of it to express an existing thing, loses its primitive meaning. It no longer means, with us, a straight stick, but a veritable Yankee plow.

THE GREEK PLOW. 33

It needs no great learning to see the point of this statement. It is open to the common sense of plain men, for whom I have designed it. I wish the reader to be done with the embarrassment he inay have felt from much of the classical learning, which has been displayed on the primitive meaning of /3a*rj£w (baptize*) and /3atfrw (bapto,) which is a still more primitive word, and of course, still further removed, if possible, from the religious idea expressed by baptizo, in the New Testament. All this learning is misapplied. It serves only to darken counsel by words without knowledge, because it has really no bearing whatever on the subject of Christian baptism* Arotron as used by us, in the case which I have supposed, would mean the plow in common use among ourselves, and how absurd

* This, I am aware is a strong expression. I do not mean to affirm that there was no reason for the selection ofbaptizo to denote Christian baptism, rather than any other Greek word. There is an analogy between its primitive meaning and its religious meaning ; and that was a good reason for its selection. But since it has been appropriated to this specific use, we are to learn its new meaning, not from that analogy, but from the thing which it now signifies.

would it appear to tKe common sense of the generations that shall come after us, if someone should rise up a hundred years hence, and undertake to prove, with a great parade of learning, that the plow called by us arotron, was certainly a straight stick, and nothing else, because that is the meaning of the word arotron^ in all the Greek classics! And this I think the reader will see is a fair illustration of the fallacy of the argument derived from the ancient classical meaning of baptizo, to prove that immersion is certainly the only baptism. The argument is wide of the point at issue, and is of no practical importance, because it has no bearing upon the question in dispute.

The foregoing illustration also suggests the only way in which we may hope to come to the truth on this subject. It is to consider historically the thing, which our Saviour requires, in his command to his disciples under the name of baptism. The scriptural meaning of this word, when applied to the religious ordinance in question, is what we wish to understand. We do not ask, therefore, what bapto and baptizo meant, in their secular use, before they were applied to

MEANING OF BAPTIZO. 35

express a religious idea of any sort. Nor do we ask what a heathen Greek — before he had ever seen the thing here called baptism — w T ould have imagined the Saviour to mean by this word ? Nor, again, do we ask what is the meaning of this word, w r hen used in a merely secular sense, with no reference to the religious rite of baptism, even in the New Testament? Neither of these inquiries reaches the point in debate. The true question relates wholly to the meaning of the wond as used by the Saviour himself, and as understood by his disciples in reference to Christian baptism and analogous rites; and this can be ascertained only from the history of the things, the religious observances, to which it is applied in the sacred writings. This history was familiar to Christ and his apostles. It was contained in their own scriptures, and was a part of their daily experience. It must, therefore, have furnished the elements of the meaning which they attached to the word baptizo, when they used it to designate a religious ordinance which they both commanded and observed.