The fundamental error of Christendom

Preface

A PART of the matter in this volume appeared in the Christian Quarterly while I was the editor of that periodical. I have frequently been urged to put this matter into convenient and permanent form so that it might be available for popular use. In endeavoring to do this I found it necessary to add much that is new, and also to revise and re-arrange what had already been written; so that the whole argument, as now presented, may be regarded as practically a fresh and reasonably exhaustive statement of the case. Of course much more might be said on particular points; but fullness in detail has been sacrificed in the interest of brevity, which, in these days of high living and low thinking is of the utmost importance.

It is believed that the argument, in many respects, is somewhat unique, and that it really presents, in a small compass, a satisfactory solution of the baptismal question. This has been the chief aim in every sentence that has been written. The subject discussed is evipreface;

dently not understood by tlie people generally, and even some theologians do not seem to have a clear conception of much that is involved. I have been especially impressed with the uncertainty that reigns within the region of the baptismal controversy since I began work in the Bible College of Missouri^ where I have come in contact with a large number of earnest young men who are seeking more light with respect to the teaching of the Bible on Baptism and other kindred questions. I have been made to feel that some such w^ork as is now given to the public is greatly needed, and, consequently, I have been impelled to the task of making a contribution to a better understanding of the whole subject. It is hoped, therefore, that this volume will be not altogether unfruitful in throwing light upon the dark places, and in bringing order out of confusion.

No attempt has been made to rely upon human authority; nevertheless, a few important testimonies have been introduced, and these from writers, for the most part, not usually quoted in discussions with respect to baptism. The quotations made are chiefly from modern writers, and are all the more valuable

PRBFACB ^

on that account, because they give us the last word that has been said from the Pedobaptist point of view, as nearly all the quotations are from Pedobaptist advocates.

This fact suggests a curious state of things. Is it not remarkable that the advocates of infant sprinkling are compelled to make such admissions as have been quoted in this volume? Surely no cause can hope to stand when its advocates are forced to concede so much that is directly against it.

No apology need be offered for discussing the baptismal question at this time. Baptism has always- been a prominent factor in the Christian religion. It has lost nothing of its primitive importance. Nor is it likely to diminish in importance in the future. I^ike Banquo's ghost, it will not down. Why should it? Is not the command to baptize the nations clearly indicated in the great commission which Christ gave to his apostles? Did not these apostles administer baptism to all their converts during all the days Of the early Church? Do not the letters of the apostles abundantly show that baptism in some way was intimately connected with allegiance to Christ and initiation into the Church? Indeed, it might be asked, is not the

PRBFACB

whole history of Christianity, from its beginning clown to the present time, deeply tinged with the baptismal coloring, no matter from what point of view the qnestion may be considered?

It is not strange, therefore, that the question of baptism should still have an abiding interest for those who reverence the teaching of the Scriptures and the unbroken testimony of the Christian Church since its foundation. It is, however, of the very first importance that baptism should be assigned its proper place, and not perverted to uses for which there is no authority in either reason or revelation. It has been my purpose, therefore, in what follows to seek to find just what the correct position of baptism is; but while doing this, it has been necessary, first of all, to consider the rise and progress of one of the most fatal errors which have ever found their way into the sphere of religious faith. I refer to the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration.

The position which has seemed to me to be the most reasonable is that which lies between the two extremes of Baptismal Regeneration and a baptism which practically amounts to nothing. In stating and defending this view pre:fack

of the matter, the appeal has been made to the Bible and common sense; and while the conclusion reached will probably not please the extremes of any school, it is hoped that reasonable people will be convinced that the position which I have indicated is the only safe one to occupy. Believing, as I do, that the baptismal question must be settled before Christian union is possible, and believing, furthermore, that Christian union must be realized before the conversion of the world can ever be assured, it is easy to understand how deeply concerned I must be with respect to an irenicon on the baptismal question. In the following pages I have endeavored to deal with the question broadly and charitably, but, at the same time, I have not hesitated to call a spade a spade. June /, 1^02, W. T. M.

.r

Contents

PAGE

PRBFACK 3

CHAPTER I. Different Views of Regeneration ... 13

Meaiiing of the term Reg-eneration — An appeal to the Scriptures — Meaning in Matthew and in Titus— Westminster Confession definition — The doctrine of original sin — Hillary and Ambrose — Teaching of lyUtheran symbols — Dr. Hodge's view — Diversity of views as regards Baptismal Regeneration — Roman Catholic view — High Church party — View of Nonconformists — Nineteen-twentieths of Christendom hold to Baptismal Regeneration in some form — Origin of the heres}' — The trinity of evil.

CHAPTER II. Origin of Infant Baptism 29

Mr. Spurgeon's sa5nng — Teaching of Irenseus — Neander's statement — Dr. Newman's account of the origin — Augustine's view — John Wesley in doctrinal tracts — The true origin of infant baptism is to be found in Baptismal Regeneration.

CHAPTER III. Dean Stani^ey on Baptism . . . . . 36

The family idea — A fatal admission — Immersion the almost universal practice till the twentieth century — The civilized world has decided against it — "The general sentiment of Christian liberty" has triumphed— The change from immersion to sprinkling greater than administering the I,ord's Supper with the bread without the wine — Summary of the dean's view — What he says about the practice of infant baptism — Does not claim for it apostolic authority — Founds it in the famil3' relation — Three reasons for its origin — Henry Ward Beecher on infant baptism — Do Protestants honor the Word of God? — The modern theory — A trilemma — Martin I^uther's view.

conte:nts

Chapter IV. Page

It is unscriptural — Views of distinguished Pedobaptists— Dr. Joseph Agar Beet — Dr. Augustus Ncauder — An apostolic tradition in the third century — Did not originate with Christ — Dr. William Cunningham says the general tenor of Scripture language applies to adults — The practice unreasonable — We should not needlessly antagonize the scientific spirit of the age — Prof. Harnack on mysteries and charms — The mystery of the sacraments by Dr.Martensen — Close relation between baptism and lyOrd's Supper — The church of North Africa first brought prominently into notice infant baptism — Infant communion — An irenicon proposed by Dr. Van Oosterzee — Infant baptism unnecessary — Infants do not need it — Parents still fear their children will be lost — Children respect the action of their parents — The practice perpetuated by love of parents for children and love of children for parents — Still rests on the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration.

CHAPTKR V.

Summing Up the; Case 71

Infant Baptism an inheritance — The only thing that can overthrow is Christ's authority — The effects of the practice — Seven evils — Must be surrendered — Tradition must not be allowed to take place of Scripture — A canon of Christianity necessary — The Apostolic Church the original form of Christian life — Reformers did not reform sufficiently — Tradition must be abandoned.

CHAPTER VI. Sackrdotawsm 85

A child of Baptismal Regeneration — A departure of the Church of the second and third centuries not confined to infant baptism — Testimony of Dr. Henry Newman and Principal Fairbairn — How related to Apostolic succession — "Spiritual Kxcisemen" — The remedy — Summary of evils of sacerdotalism — A more excellent way — Church government in primitive church simple — Service, not rule, the characteristic of Christian honor — Christianity's prime solicitude not knowledge, but worship.

CONTENTS CHAPTER VII.

PAGE

The Reaction from Baptismai, Regeneration . 99

John iii. 5 relied upon to teach Baptismal Regeneration — Meaning of the passage — Baptism in Spirit does not exclude baptism in water— The two elements united in the "One baptism" of Paul— INIeaning of the "Kingdom of God"— Three things apparent— Christ baptizes in Holy Spirit; baptism in water administered by John; no such thing as "Spirit baptism," or "water baptism" — I,anguage of Ashdod — Peter at Pentecost in harmony with John iii. 5 — Baptism in Holy Spirit probably belongs to every baptism — Scriptural teaching harmonious.

Chapter VIII

A Reasonabi^e View of Baptism .... Ill

Ritual holds important place in the Divine government — Difficulty of making a perfect revelation — Antiquity of ritual — Abuse no good reason against use — Easily perverted — The old distinction between moral and positive duties cannot be maintained — God does not command what is not right in itself — The old notion fosters a false notion of baptism — Baptism not simply a test of faith — Reasonable and appropriate — Therefore not contrary to reason — This view will help to overthrow infant baptism — Making too little of baptism — Extremes beget extremes — Baptism saves in some sense — Safety in the middle course.

CHAPTER IX. How TO S01.VE THE Question 130

Three ways in which to solve the question — Baptism as a covenant, as a decision, or as simply a command to be obeyed — The way to Christian union — No need for hair-splitting — Summing up the case — Seven evil consequences resulting from indifferentism — Danger of being misunderstood — Making too little of baptism as dangerous as making too much of it — The right view makes Baptismal Regeneration impossible.

CHAPTER X. Modern Testimonies Concerning the Importance OF Baptism 138

Many theologians who reject Baptismal Regeneration connect

CONTENTS

PAGE

baptism with salvation — Alexander Campbell's position — Baptism without faith is of no value — Dr. Beet's view — New Testament cases considered — Rev. F. W. Robertson's testimony — Baptism somethinja^ to rest upon — The marriage ceremony — The coronation of a sovereign — Authoritativeness is the all in all of baptism.

CHAPTER XI.. What Saith thk vScripturks? 149

Scriptures say much about baptism — In some sense a saving ordinance — Did Paul baptize? — Were the Gentile Christians baptized? — Arguments in the case — The apostles went out in twos.

CHAPTER XII. Thrke Important Facts 158

I.Peter iii. 21, examined critically, exegetically and practicallj' — The Scriptural significance of baptism — Baptism a transitional act — Who are children of God? — What is meant by Fatherhood — vSonship is ethical and cannot, therefore, be universal — John i. 11, 12 — We do not become what we already are — Man is the creature of God — Must not confine our investigation to the family idea, our new state set forth under various figures — Baptism is in the name of Jesus — The name the power — The phrase, "Remission of sins," considered — Acts ii. 38 and Acts X. 43 harmonized — "Upon the name" emphasizes the name rather than the baptism — Baptism the ke3-stone — Joined to twelve other things — Does not stand for simply one thing — The popular mistake — Salvation ascribed to several things — Divine and human side — Scriptures harmonized — Must not rest too — f^h in definition — I^oyalty to Christ the main matter.

THE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM.

Chapter I. Different Views Of Regeneration

As the proposition to be proved in this volume is that Baptismal Regeneration is the Fundamental Error of Christendom, it is important at the beginning of the discussion to inquire: What is the meaning of the term Regeneratio7i? Correct definition is the sword which often cuts the Gordian knot of theology. Our controversies are not infrequently little more than logomachies. We quarrel about words, and generally for the reason that we attach different meanings to them. Consequently, in order to unity with respect to almost anything, the first great need of our time is to agree as to the meaning of the terms which we use. This is especially true of theological terms. In these days we hear much said against the distracting influence of theology, and there is certainly good ground for what we hear. Doubtless there is considerable reason for the growing tendency to regard scholastic speculations as of

THE FUNDAMENTAIy ERROR OK CHRISTENDOM

no particular value in the affairs of life. But, after all, it is more than probable that the greatest evil of theology comes from a failure of the schools to agree upon a terminology which every one may understand. At present theological terms are used with so much difference in their meaning that it is next to impossible to thread our way through the labyrinths of definition to anything like a common understanding, in which all Christians may practically agree.

Let us appeal to the Scriptures for help with respect to a clear definition of Regeneration. It is interesting to note the fact that this word occurs only twice in the New Testament. First in Matt. 19:28: "Ye who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

The second occurrerice is in Tit. 3:5: "According to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost."

Now, it is probable that in both of these instances the reference is to a new state or kingdom; for what Matthew calls the "Regeneration," lyuke calls a "Kingdom" (Luke 28:30). The idea seems to be that Jesus is looking forward to the establishment of his kingdom when the apostles will become his administrators on ' earth, and whatsoever they bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever they loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

This public administration of Christ's kingdom began on the day of Pentecost, at which time the law of admission into the kingdom was clearly announced, and at the same time about three thousand souls were added to the company of believers.

The meaning in Titus is not necessarily different from what it is in Matthew. If we substitute the word "Kingdom" for "Regeneration," we shall then have "the washing of the Kingdom"; and as this phrase implies that the "washing" is something which belongs to the Kingdom, we may reasonably infer that when the phrase is stripped of all metaphor it simply means the Baptism of the new Institution, or the Kingdom which was set up on the day of Pentecost.

. This, doubtless, is the truly scriptural meaning of the Or^ok. palijtgejtesia. There is, however, another term which has been thought to be equivalent to palingenesia. That term is anagennasas^ from aiiagennao^ "to beget or bring forth again. Regenerate," etc. However, it is by no means certain that anagennasas

THE FUNDAMENTAIv ERROR 01^' CHRISTENDOM

is equivalent \.o palingejiesia ; and the confounding of these two words may partially account for the confusion which has prevailed in theological controversy with respect to the whole subject of Regeneration. In any case, it is evident that the confusion has been widespread, and even at present there is no well defined, acceptable view as to the real meaning of Regeneration. However, it is probable that the definition of the Westminster Confession of Faith is the one which is most generally accepted by theologians, although it is not certain that what the Confession says is clearly understood by any one. Undoubtedly the popular use of Regeneration implies the implantation of a new nature; a change by which holy affections and purposes are substituted for the opposite motives in the heart; and it is in this sense that the term will be used in what follows, although it is probable that this does not express the true scriptural idea. Nevertheless, as we are dealing with a popular error, we must accept the popular interpretation of terms.

However, as an illustration of the confusion which has been produced by the want of a uniform, clearly defined terminology, it is only necessary to call attention to the bitter controversies which have been waged with respect to the doctrine of Regeneration. It is not my purpose at present to even attempt to consider the numerous phases of the discussions concerning the meaning of this term. A volume might be written upon this single word, and even then the subject would not be exhausted. Indeed, it is not at all improbable that the true scriptural meaning of the word has not been clearly set forth in any of the theological works which are usually accepted as standards. Still, it will answer the present purpose, if the reader can be made to clearly understand the difference between what is popularly called the evangelical doctrine of Regeneration and what has been known in Church history as Baptismal Regeneration. In its proper place we may have something to say as regards a reconstruction of terminology on this whole question.

THE DOCTRINE OK ORIGINAL SIN.

Early in the history of the Christian Church the doctrine of Original Sin came prominently into view. The influence of this doctrine was soon felt upon the controversy in reference to Baptismal Regeneration. However, the doctrine as it is now understood did not find very general acceptance until the third century^ when such writers as Tertullian, Cyprian and others soon reduced it to a distinct formula. In reference to Original Sin, St. Cyprian says:

2 17

THK FUNDAMENTAI, i^RROR OF CHRISTENDOM

**The infant has committed no sin. He has only contracted the contagion of death from his progenitor, and hence remission of sin is more easy in his case, because it is not his own, but another's sin, that is remitted to him."

Hillary and Ambrose, the two most distinguished I^atin theologians of the fourth century, emphasize the doctrine of a sinful as distinguished from a corrupt nature still more distinctly than either TertuUian or Cyprian did.

The following quotations from Ambrose will indicate his general view of Original Sin and of the Adamic connection: ^'Adam existed (fuit), and we all existed in him; Adam perished, and all perished in him." *'We all sinned in the first man, and by the succession of nature the succession of guilt (culpse) was transferred from one to all." *' Before we are born we are stained with contagion, and before we see the light we receive the injury of the original transgression." " *In whom all sinned.' Thus it is evident that all sinned in Adam, as if in a mass; for having corrupted by sin those whom he begat, all are born under sin. Wherefore we all are sinners from him (ex eo), because we are all from him."

In these statements we have the germ of the Augustinian Anthropology, which became dominant about the beginning of the fifth century;

while this anthropology was afterwards restated and enforced by the remarkable logical powers of John Calvin, whose views have distinctly marked and influenced almost every feature of Protestantism in all its various forms.

The lyUtheran symbols very generally include conversion in the doctrine of Regeneration, while the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger Catechism emphasize the fact that regeneration is wholly a divine act. Dr. Hodge is perhaps the ablest exponent of this special view of regeneration. In his Systeinatic Theology he says: *' Regeneration is an act of God. It is not simply referred to him as its Giver, and, in that sense, its Author, as he is the Giver of faith and of repentance. It is not aii act which, by argument and persuasion, or by moral power, he induces the sinner to perform. But it is an act of which he is the Agent. It is God who regenerates. The soul is regenerated. In this sense the soul is passive in regeneration, which (subjectively considered) is a change wrought in us, and not an act performed by us." But Dr. Hodge goes still further than this. He says that *' Regeneration is not only an act of God, but also an act of his almighty power. Raising Lazarus from the dead was an act of omnipotence. Nothing intervened between the volition and the effect.

the: fundam]];ntaiv error of Christendom

The act of quickening was the act of God. In that matter L<azarus was passive. But in all the acts of restored vitality he was active and free. According to the evangelical system, it is in this sense that regeneration is the act of God's almighty power." This is practically a re-statement of Augustinianism, or its modern representative, Calvinism; but it constitutes the warp and woof of what is to-day, for the most part, the acknowledged teaching of evangelicals concerning regeneration.

BAPTISM AI, REGENERATION.

As regards the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, there is a wide diversity of view.s. Kven Church of England writers differ very greatly as to what is meant by the doctrine. It is well known that the High Church, or Ritualistic wing of the Establishment, holds practically the view of the Church of Rome* in its leading characteristics. Many, therefore, accept the definition of regeneration as given by the Council of Trent; and that Council declared that "baptism takes away not only guilt, but everything of the nature of sin, and communicates a new life." Indeed, that Council declared baptism to be "the sacrament of faith, without which no one could be justified," or regenerated. Hence, the doctrine of the

Roman Catholic Cliiircli is that regeneration inchides (i) the removal of the guilt of sin; (2) the cleansing away of inherent moral corruption; (3) the infusion of new habits of grace, and (4) adoption, or recognition of the renewed as sons of God. Now when we remember that the Council of Trent taught that this regeneration is effected by baptism, it is easy to see to what dangerous extremes the doctrine of baptism has been pressed, and consequently how very earnest our protest should be against that wing of the Established Church which so persistently contends for what is practically nothing better than Roman Catholicism. Nevertheless, the High Church Party, or the Tractarian, as they are called, have almost out- Heroded Herod in their plea for * 'sacramental grace," and especially for Baptismal Regeneration. That this is not over-stating the case, the following extracts from J. H. Newman's Lectures on Jitstification abundantly prove: **The sacraments," he says, *'are the immediate, faith is the secondary, subordinate, or representative instrument of justification." * 'Faith, being the appointed representative of baptism, derives its authority and virtue from that w^hich it represents. It is justifying because of baptism; it is the faith of the baptized,

of the regenerate; that is, of the justified. Justhe; fundame:ntaIv krror of Christendom

tifying faith does not jDrecede justification; but justification precedes faith, and makes it justifying. And here lies the cardinal mistake of the views on the subject which are now esteemed evangelical. They make faith the sole instrument, not after baptism, but before, whereas baptism is the primary instrument, and makes faith to be what it is, and otherwise is not."

This extract expresses with clearness the view generally held by that portion of the Church of England known as the High Church Party. Dr. Newman wrote this several years before he joined the Roman Catholic Church. The essential idea of this Popish and Tractarian doctrine of the sacraments is, in the language of Dr. Cunningham, ''that God has established an invariable connection between external ordinances and the communication of himself — the possession by men of spiritual blessing, pardon and holiness; with this further notion, which naturally results from it, that he has endowed these outward ordinances v/ith some sort of power or capacity of conveying or conferring the blessing with which they are respectively connected. It is a necessary result of this principle, that the want of the outward ordinance — not the neglect or contempt of it, but the mere want of it, from whatever cause arising — deprives men of the spiritual blessings which it is said to confer.'*

Dr. Hook, Vicar of Leeds, England, in his Church Dictionary ^ distinguishes between conversion and regeneration; but, after all, he teaches simply a modified form of the Roman Catholic doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. Other Churchmen hold that regeneration expresses an external change of relation, and not an internal change of the state of the soul, in its relation to God. Regeneration, in this outward sense, is declared to be by baptism, while the inner change is wrought by the Holy Spirit. There are also, as is well known, not a few Churchmen who hold to what has been stated to be the evangelical view.

Associated with these may be reckoned most of the Nonconformist bodies. It is true that some of these, being Arminians in their theology, differ somewhat from Dr. Hodge and others who are Calvinists. At the same time a large majority of Dissenters utterly reject the doctrine of the Church of Rome that baptism has the effect of ''imprinting a character upon the soul that is supernatural and spiritual"; and that, furthermore, it ''carries along with it such a divine virtue that by the very receiving of it the virtue is conveyed to the souls of them

to whom it is applied." In other words, Non- 23 conformists, for the most part, utterly reject the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, as that doctrine is popularly known in Church history. But this protest is feeble compared with the widespread influence of the error under consideration. A large majority of Christendom unquestionably hold to some form of Baptismal Regeneration. We have already seen that it is a cardinal doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. It is also equally fundamental in the Greek Church, while the Established Protestant Churches of Continental Europe may generally be ranked in this respect with the Latins and the Greeks. And when we add to these a majority of the Anglican Church, with scattering Nonconformists to be found in all their communions, it will at once be seen that not less than nineteen- twentieths of the whole of Christendom are to-day teaching and practicing the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. This is surely an appalling fact; and it is a fact, too, which must be earnestly reckoned with in any honest consideration of the elements which enter into the religious progress of the world.

THE ORIGIN OF THE HERESY.

And yet it is not very difficult to see how this heresy had its origin. Whoever has read carefully the New Testament, with the view of studying the relation between baptism and the sinner, will scarcely have failed to notice how intimate this relation is. In such passages as the following there can be no mistake about the connection between baptism and the remission of sins: "He that belie veth and is baptized shall be saved," i. e.^ pardoned; "Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit;" "Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the I^ord;" "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us," etc., etc. We could extend the list of similar passages very much further, but we have quoted sufficient to show how easily, in the first place, the Patristic writers, and, in the second place, even the writers of modern times, evolved the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. By losing sight of the proper antecedents of baptism, viz,^ faith and repentance, and by fixing attention mainly upon the ordinance which marked the consummation of the sinner's return to God, it was not a difficult thing to reach the conclusion that baptism itself, ex opere operato^ effected a change of heart, or a change from the love of sin to the love of holiness; or, in other words, produced what is now regarded by evangelicals as Regenthe; fundambntaIv error of Christendom

eration; and, furthermore, it can scarcely be doubted that there is ample reason for regarding what was evolved in this great transformation as a most pernicious evil.

THE TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.

It is well known that at a very early period in the history of Christianity, Baptism and Regeneration were used as equivalent terms. Baptism was also called i7idulgentia^ or indulgence, or absolution. By some writers it was called sahis^ salvation, because it was. alleged to be *^the means not only of obtaining remission of sins, but of bringing men by the grace and blood of Christ to the glory of the kingdom of heaven." And, finally, it was called a **sacrament," the *'seal of the Lord," *'the royal mark of character," the ''character of the Lord." In all of which names and phrases there is a distinct recognition of a Divine connection between baptism and the remission of sins. It would be easy enough to give numerous quotations from the most distinguished writers of all ages of the Church in support of the statements here made, but as these statements are not likely to be disputed by any one whose judgment is worth considering, it is not deemed necessary to burden these pages with such quotations. Suffice it to say that, from Barnabas down to the Council of Nice, and from Nice to Augsburg, nearly all the Christian writers agree in describing a most intimate relationship between baptism and remission of sins. Indeed, it is quite true, as Hagenbach has said, that "from the earliest times great importance was attached to the doctrine of Baptism, because of its supposed relation to the forgiveness of vsins." We have already seen that this notion was founded upon certain Scripture texts, and that by carrying the notion too far the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration was evolved. And in view of the widespread and baneful influence of that doctrine, we are quite justified in calling it the Fundamental Error of Christendom.