The baptismal controversy; its exceeding sinfulness

Front matter

■ p

.

$Sr sTx.-'l

Contents

PAKT I.

Was there ever any reason for this controversy? — If the necessity of debate does not inhere to the ordinance, the strife began in sin — Will this controversy be settled by controversy ? — If baptism was a theoretic question, we would say to the disputants, be still — If controversy could bring peace, would not peace have come before now? — All the old issues remain — The union movement has added a new issue — And another, the unbaptized have all the joy the baptized have — Restiveness chronic — Baptismal nervousness — Doubtful whether the full benefit of baptism can be enjoyed — The disposing motive must come from the ordinance — It may be right in its formalities and yet not baptism — Many of honest purposes are held in suspense — Stumbling blocks — The ministry has not yet decided what baptism is — Mutual crimination — Party defense — Reproach to Christ — Sinfulness a novelty — Only a conviction of its sinfulness can still the strife — Not essential, will not promote peace — Mutual Christian recognition has not made peace — All parties must have baptism really or constructively — Can only worry one. another— Nothing decisive for aggression or defense — Great names on both sides — Lexicons and the classics appealed to on both sides — These are material for the strife — The chureh must have baptism — She must have the commission to teach and baptize — The controversy holding the union forces in abeyance — This controversy more than any other lies at the bottom of the great schism — Baptism has now a catholic importance — Jesus Christ more deeply involved than the church — Baptism inductive — Jesus gave no explanation — Reason for controversy — Mistake or design — No controversy in the apos-

VI CONTENTS.

Part II

Preliminary — The baptism of John — Has its own history The relation between John and Jesus — Preparer — Prepared for — John first man and last man sent by God to baptize with water — That he might be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I sent to baptize with water — The baptism of Jesus extraordinary — Strangeness — Humiliating act — The grandest display — Introduction of the Son by the Father — John's ministry local and sectional — Inductive — The mode of John's baptism decisive — The time when it ceased — Another baptism — John's baptism distinguished by the noun John — The baptism Christ ordained has no prefix nor affix — The first public act of Jesus was his baptism — his last official act was to command baptism — His last promise to the world, shall be saved — Matthew and Mark the only witnesses on the origin of baptism — Luke the only witness on its application — Luke only a reporter — He reported results — His reports were addressed to an individual — Luke selected the word baptized to report results — The ordinary reported with brevity — The extraordinary in full detail — The Gentiles baptized with the Holy Spirit — How understood by Peter and the believing Jews — a confirmation of Gentile rights — Can never occur again for the same object — Did not supercede baptism — Cornelius the connecting link — Came within the specifications of the prophecy of God — Remission of sins not a promise of Spirit baptism — Nine formal reports of conversions — All these reports of conversions end with the word baptized — What the

CONTENTS. Vll

apostles said and Christ confirmed — The apostles preached and Christ worked — Misapplication of the signs — The love of the marvelous in conversion — Luke's style of reporting conversions abandoned by all parties save one — Corresponding departure in the converting means — Both sin and shame in this controversy. — Pages - 75-181

Part III

Allusions to baptism in the epistles to the churches — Eeminders — Object of baptism not exhausted in conversion — Baptism not regeneration — Baptism not a sign — Baptism sanctifying — Baptism setting apart — Baptism is putting on Christ — Faith in Christ and baptism into, brought Jews and Gentiles into unity — Exhortation to keep the unity— At present the unity to be attained — E. N. Potter, D. D., in E. A.— The unity of Christ's church present not future — A Pauline idea — Rev. James Davis, in E. A. — The Church of God has never been otherwise than one, One Lord, one faith, one baptism — This is a contested point — Perfect oneness not essential to existence — The church a divine institution — Self-restoring energies — Eecuperative energies at work now— Union the great question — Rev. E. F. Cook, of Paris, in E. A. — It is not necessary that I should add * * that a closer relationship should be established between members and their living Head; that men should cease to say I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas — Contradictory views and statements before the E. A. — Sects are not comr&anded to keep the unity of the Spirit — Not one epistle addressed to the church of sects — Brethren, you say men should cease to say I am of Paul, I of Apollos, I of Cephas — You disclaim sectism — The world is looking to you to work out the great problem of unity — Your failure in this would be a great misfortune.— Pages - - 183-260

Part IV

On subjects and modes of baptism — Luke reports all classes save infants- — Parents the natural guardians — Could have no motive without command — If such command had been given it would have been recorded

Vlll CONTENTS.

Could we have the history of pedo-baptist churches without infant baptisms — No mention of an infant church membership relation in the epistles to the churches — The child relation is of frequent mention — The book knows no more of infant baptism than of angel baptism — How came it? — Origin unknown — Pedobaptists say it was from the beginning — This claim examined — Pedo-baptists assume that infant baptism and believers' baptism are one — Examined — Original sin and infant baptism began nearly at the same time — The first claim for apostolic tradition by Origen — The modes of baptism — On this the Scriptures are barren — Pedo-baptist literature fruitful — Two subjects and three modes need much classification — The first law for sprinkling by Pope Stephen, 753 — Immersion or sprinkling declared indifferent 1311 — Sprinkling established in Scotland in 1559 — Found its way into England in the reign of Elizabeth — Not authorized by the established church — Pouring and sprinkling — Eivalry — On subjects and modes the New Testament writers have said nothing — Subjects and modes human inventions — Subjects and modes the cause of the baptismal controversy — The controversy can be settled by changing two plural nouns — By striking out the letter s after subjects and modes — Design — Primary — Secondary — Departures Anabaptists — A public discussion — Anabaptists imprisoned — Put to death — Primary design not church membership — Campbell and Rice's debate on design — Baptism " sign" of remission of sins examined — Should it be thought incredible that Christ should have given such an ordinance fo* such an object — The design of baptism and remission of sins fell together — Must rise together.— Pages - 265-332

Conclusion

Appeal to the unbaptized reader. —Pages - 332-337

THE

Baptismal Controversy;

ITS EXCEEDING SINFULNESS.

Chapter I

Was there ever any reason for this controversy ? If not, it was and is and evermore will be sinful — exceedingly sinful. Like all other controversies) it has two sides. Both sides may be sinful : if one is not, the other must be. If the truth side is justifiable, the error side is unjustifiable, and therefore sinful.

If the necessity of debate is not inherent in the ordinance, then the strife begati in sin and has been perpetuated in sin. Perhaps neither party in the strife would seriously affirm that the real causes of the issues were enclosed within the ordinance itself, as that would be a reflection on the wisdom of the Lawgiver ; but they would mutually criminate eaoh other with being the cause of the strife.

Will this controversy ever be settled by controversy? The stronger probabilities are it will not. If the Adventists will have to wait as long as the baptismal belligerents, I fear they will turn infidels, and say the Lord will never come. From the days 2

W THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY.

of Roger Williams until now, there has been some gain on the side numerically the weakest ; but this gain does not include all that belongs to the institution as now understood and foisted into the debate. On the ground of any reasonable or possible progress, judging the future by the past, how long will it be before the parties will be ready to sign a proclamation of peace?

If baptism was a doctrinal, or merely a theoretic question, we would say to the disputants, be still, lay your hand upon your mouth, as the shortest and most certain road to peace. But baptism, with the consent of the foreseeing Christ, does not belong to that category of questions. The time was when the dogmas of Calvinism and Armenianismwere the all-absorbing issues ; when sovereign grace and free grace, free will and coerced will, limited atonement and general atonement, total' depravity or a partial, incidental depravity, etc. r were the chosen pulpit themes and the burden of almost every Sabbath-day ministration. And the acceptability of the gospel sermon was decided by the logic and clearness with which the preacher maintained his side of the argument and discomfited his opponents. But these are no more living issues. The pulpit knows them no more. But these once much^fretted and angry debater have ceased, and neither special grace nor common grace is now the status of evangelical faith.

These controversies were not settled by controversy. Silence was the opiate that put them to sleep. John Calvin is dead and James Arminius is dead, and their philosophies could not long survive. John had no commission from Jesus Christ to preach sovereign grace, and James had no commission to preach free grace ; and those who had adopted their teachings as being doctrinally or theoretically true may forbear without jeopardizing their ministerial soundness. But baptism was ordained by the ever-living Christ, therefore it will be the subject of an ever -living controversy or an ever- living peace.

If controversy could bring peace, would not peace have come to the church before now ? Would there not at least be some encouraging indications of a better understanding after one thousand years' debate? Would not some of the older points under discussion have been agreed upon and withdrawn ? The opposite to this is the feet. All the old issues remain, and new ones are rising up, and •the area of the strife is continually enlarging.

Some fifty years ago the design of baptism was added to the old issues of subject and mode. This has from its beginning been the most exciting and warmly contested phase in the debate. More recently the union movement has hurled another brand into the fire, namely, that the advocates of believers' immersion are preventing, by their incorrigible obstinaey, that long prayed for and much desired object — the union of Christians. The one party is demanding a more enlarged Christian liberty, and the other is demanding a higher degree of conscientiousness and respect for the authority of •Jesus Christ.

If the union of Christians shall depend on the adjustment of this issue, we fear the Lord will find a divided, sectarian church at his coming. Perhaps <one party will say, Lord, we could not come into unity with these brethren, for they would not accept our baptism. Lord, we did extend Christian fellowship to these brethren, but we could not take them into church fellowship, inasmuch as they were unbaptized. If this will not be humiliating to one or both the parties, it may be to the Lord to learn that an ordinance of his appointment had been the cause of strife and alienation among his own regenerated children.

And still more recently another question for explanation has been sprung upon us : " The unbaptized have all the joy and peace that we, the baptized have ;" as pious and as zealous. How is it to be explained?

With the prejudice of a Nathaniel it might be asked, What good thing cometh from this ? Anything more speculative than this called-for " explanation," and as tending to more unprofitable controversy, could not have been submitted, there being no data by which an authoritative explanation could be given. But this and such like only show the -restiveness there is in the popular religious mind on this baptismal controversy. It has become a settled, chronic, head and heart disease. It has effected the whole body, and every member is effected with a religious baptismal nervousness. It may be safely questioned whether any can, at the present lime, enjoy the full spiritual benefit of the institution. The unbaptized have all partaken, more or less, of a controversial spirit, and with mixed motives they submit to the ordinance. This unhappy and perhaps measurably disqualifying state of the convert is, under present circumstances, unavoidable, and we doubt not in many cases it

Is the source of fruitlessness and short continu* ance, and the cause of the many failures. In order to an acceptable and a soul-blessing submission to the ordinance, the disposing motive must come from the ordinance itself — from the authority of the command and the blessing promised. But with how few can this be the active motive, when we take into the account the controversial literature and preaching. The unbaptized, as a general rule, have taken sides in the strife, and with . partisan bitterness rather than with the prayer of the publican, " God, be merciful to me a sinner," they submit to something called baptism, which may be right in all its formalities, and yet not that baptism Jesus Christ has commanded.

This is one result of our baptismal controversy, and if the purity of the institution does not require it and is not promoted by it, then is this controversy most sinful, and a fearful retribution must follow.

But there are other consequences as legitimate as ■cause and effect. Very many of honest purposes, who would be glad to stand complete in the will of the Lord, are held in painful suspense, not knowing, as they say, whether they should be baptized in this way or that way, for this object or for that object, or for no object. And knowing that baptism is inductive, (for in this all parties agree), they make up their minds to live and die outside of •church relations. Then there are others who were baptized under these bewildering influences, and afterwards doubts arise; and not being able to decide satisfactorily their own well-meant mistake or that of their parents, they are in trouble, not knowing whether they should correct that which they now believe to have been an error. There are many of this class. Some have the moral courage to correct their own, or the blunders of others, bufe not without great embarrassment.

This is not taking up, but casting stumbling blocks in the way. And who is doing all this? and why is it done ? Is there any reason for this? And if there is, where is it, and what is it ?

Then there is another, a large and respectable class, who are at least nominal believers in Jesus Christ, who, when it comes to baptism, say, and have a right to say, thai is a contested point. The ministry has not yet decided what baptism is, nor yet what it is for — its essentiality is yet in dispute among those to whom we must look for spiritual guidance. Let them first settle these questions among themselves, and then we will hear them. Does it not come with an ill grace to propose baptism to such? What minister that has any fine Christian sensibilities, that does not feel embarrassed with the presence of such minds? But this skepticism does not terminate on baptism ; it communicates itself to every other gospel ordinance, and in many cases is the beginning of doubts which lead to confirmed unbelief.

Thoughtful minds out of the church will make this controversy a subject of inquiry. Why thislong- continued and widely diffused disagreement about an ordinance? Why has it been the most fruitful cause of dividing Christians in the past, and the main obstacle in the way of the union of Christians in the present? Is not good will among men the greatest social blessing ? Can that which tends to division and alienation be either right or good ? These and similar questions crowd upon the interested believer and imploringly ask for satisfactory solution. Will it relieve the trouble for one party to criminate the other when equal intelligence and Christian recognition is extended to the other side ? No. This will rather increase than remove the trouble of the inquirer. If this be so, you Christians are then quarreling for the sake of the quarrel, will be a logical conclusion from that predicate. Mutual crimination is the only party defense. It will not do for the party to acknowledge that the sin lies at her own door, nor yet that the New Testament history of the ordinance is so unintelligible that an honest inquirer could not read and understand his duty ; for then he would justly feel absolved from responsibility, and would turn away from the church, her ministry, her baptism, and her Christ.

This has been, both in the past and in the present, the legitimate result of this baptismal controversy. Who will say — who will dare to say — that it is not sinful ? — that it is not a reproach to Jesus Christ, a scandal to his church, and a great cause of offense and stumbling to well disposed sinners.

The affirmation that this controversy is sinful, is, we doubt not, a novelty to many. Perhaps they never onca thought of its relation to him who said, u Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." The masses of ministers and scribes have attached no more sacredness to this than to church polities — than to episcopacy orprel- .acyr, church finances^, or the duties of a class-leader.

In most cases we are left to infer from the flippancy,, irreverence, and unscrupulousness of speech, that the -controversy is most grateful to their love of pugilism^-or to that besetting sin, the love of demagogism. And very many who have entered the arena of this strife are influenced by no higher or holier motives than mere party triumph. When such are the disposing motives of the pulpit or the press, the controversy is exceedingly sinful and most dishonoring to God. Duty and the defense of truth and righteousness may demand that even such should be withstood in debate, but every man must be the keeper of his own conscience, and we cannot withstand the conviction that there is both error and sin in the contest.

We are well warranted in saying again, that this controversy will never be settled by controversy. Nothing but a conviction of its sinfulness, its reproach to Jesus Christ and his church, schismatical tendencies, and hindrance to the conversion of the world, will ever remove this incubus from the cause of Christ. If anything short of this conviction woirid or could restore peace, the following point of agreement would have done so. With one exception all agree that baptism is a non-essential At first view one would say this agreement is the beginning of the end. If this be so^ why should not any administration, whether to a sleeping or a weeping infant, or any adult .believer, with little or much faith, anything the good people might call baptism, be accepted by all parties, if baptism is a non-essential ? Such would be the logical and practical and charitable suggestion of this agreement. For why should a non-essential stand in the way of that great unity, which would give such great power against Romanism and infidelity ? The fact is that this agreement has not even a remote tendency to harmonize either the faith or the practice, for the agreement itself is sinful and subversive of the gospel of Christ. But this agreement is sometimes qualified by the word salvation, i. e., baptism is not essential to salvation. This qualification should only open the door to a greater charity and the unrestricted exercise of a wider liberty as respects the administration of the ordinance. But even this has no uniting influence, no adhesive power, for sin can not cure sin. This qualified statement only declares that baptism is not essential to a specific object — salvation. The parties in the baptismal controversy may still regard baptism to be essential to some other and important end. Let them speak for themselves. " Baptism is essential to church membership.^ In this, too, the parties on the general issue as to what baptism is for, agree most happily, for none of them will receive the unbaptized into church fellowship. But, then, if church membership is essential to salvation, and baptism is essential to church membership, then baptism is, by a circumlocution, essential to salvation. But, then again, if church membership is not essential to salvation, as all admit, why should not the mere questions of subject and mode be matters of easy compromise, and " let every one be fully persuaded in his own mind/' be the end of strife.

There is yet another point of agreement between the contending hosts, namely, that none but regenerated persons, (with some the little folks excepted), are qualified subjects for baptism. Such only as

26 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVEESY.

can give satisfactory evidence to the masters of assemblies, that God for Christ's sake had forgiven their sins. This is a vital agreement, for then there remains but little for baptism. It is only the formal induction into church membership, and that membership not being essential to salvation, the logic of this agreement should go far towards harmonizing the other differences. At least, so it would appear at first view. But neither all these points of agreement, nor yet a mutual Christian recognition can remove the strife.

Is there no sin in all this ? Who can believe that all the parties are free from partisan selfishness, laboring only in all their discussions, their claims, and conflicts, to do the Master's will ? How joyfully we would be conducted to this conclusion if the facts would justify it.

As the issue now stands, there are insurmountable difficulties in the way to peace. The parties are too conscientious to make a sinful compromise, or to rule out the ordinance. They must have baptism really or constructively. If they had less faith and piety they would do the one or the other. Or, if they had more reverence for the supreme authority of Jesus Christ, they would quickly settle the dispute by a candid appeal to that authority. They would turn away from the over-heated controversial authority, as being untrustworthy. They would refer the issues to the inspired historic authority of the New Testament records as the only basis of settlement, and, we doubt not, such an overture would be accepted. To purge out everything controversial is the only way to peace.

All the parties can do controversially is to worry one another. Nothing decisive can come from the fields of strife — nothing for aggression on defense. The old issues are defended by the old arguments, without one ray of new light shining upon our darkness. The immersionist may flatter himself that the philology of the controversy is being settled in his favor. He may cite the names of reformers and scholars, as Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Stewart, and a host of others, both ancient and modern, who have conceded that the word baptize means immerse, but their practice contradicted their concessions. So, on the other side, names may be arrayed against names, that the word baptize has only a generic meaning. There is nothing decisive in these contradictory authorities. They only keep the parties better balanced and aiford material for the strife, and add sin to sin. It must, however, be admitted that there has been some gain in favor of immersion, but that gain has been the result mainly of the Bible argument, and not the result of the scholastic controversial argument. The former addresses itself to the popular mind, while the latter fosters the spirit of controversy.

The long continuance, the earnestness, and spirit with which this controversy has been conducted is evidence of the great importance the parties attach to baptism. They may all unite in belittling the institution. They may say it is but an outward form. They may say it is not essential to salvation. They may sneeringly say water baptism, but their determination ta retain and administer the ordinance, and their zeal to maintain their own subjects and modes, give the lie to all these professions. Such reproaches are always incidental to such misfortune,, but that of intrinsic worth will override the odium of its enemies and the indiscretion of its friends. He that commanded the nations to be taught and to be baptized still lives, and his ordination will also live.

What institution could have stood up under such a pressure as has been brought to bear against baptism? Think of the pompous, foolish ceremonies with which it was encumbered in the darker ages, and the unconscious subjects to which it has been administered, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Its fortune might be compared to that of woman in the Grecian and Roman states. They first degraded her, and then despised her because she w r as mean. But man could not live without woman, and to have woman worthy of his affectionate esteem, man had to give back to woman the rights he had so unjustly taken from her. So with baptism. It has been robbed of its native respectability, and then lightly esteemed. But still the church could not hitherto do without it, neither can she yet do without it. What she has wantonly taken away she will have to give back. When this is done the strife will cease. To see the unholiness of this warfare we must go back, but not very far. In the days of our Puritan fathers, the friends of Jesus made baptism persecute baptism. But in the process of time it has come to pass that the persecutor is stretching forth her hand to the once persecuted, and imploringly begging for a crumb of favor, only praying for equal respect.

What does all this mean to the once despised, to the once cast- out, like Hagar and her son, with even less than a loaf of bread and a cruse of water?

We extend to you a welcome to come back to our Father's house and our Father's table. We extend to your subject and your mode our unqualified Christian regard, and we only ask of you to extend to our subjects and modes the same regards. This is some concession. But if it be true that "honest confession is good for the soul/' a more emphatic confession would not be thought righteous over much. That something should be done that has not yet been done, to more fully purge aw T ay the old, puritanical odium, cannot be doubted. Time alone will scarcely remove the odor from the old cask, without some rinsing.

We said before, the church could not do without baptism : no, she cannot live without it. It is as intimately ■connected with the very existence of the church as is the Lordship of Jesus Chris*. Indeed, the institution rests upon the supreme Lordship of the risen Christ. " All power in heaven and in earth is given unto me. Go ye, therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them," etc.

All the great Protestant bodies who have and are still making their power felt all over the world, by preaching, printing, and publishing the gospel, know that they cannot teach, the gospel of Christ, at home or abroad, without teaching baptism. They all know that when they shall cease to teach and administer the ordinance, they have no authority from Jesus Christ to teach at all. For all know that if baptism was excluded from the great commission by which Christ sent the gospel to all nations, through all time, " even to the end of the world," that the commission has become a mutilated document) & dead lettei^ and all that pertains to baptism from the ascension of Christ in the book of Acts and the Epistles has died with it, and that part of the New Testament that begins with the resurrection and glorification of Christ has become defunct ; therefore, the church must have baptism) which implies in its formula the invocation of the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. When that propagating) aggressive) and proselyting commission shall no longer* be the divine basis of church extension, the church herself must die.