|
|
|
Collections
Database |
REVIEW of L.W. BATES, D. D., on "WATER BAPTISM," by R.H. BONHAM.
NASHVILLE, TENN.: GOSPEL ADVOCATE PUBLISHING CO. 1891.
NOTE: PAGES 17-32 ARE MISSING FROM THIS DOCUMENT (BINDING ERROR)
INTRODUCTION.
If all of the professed followers of the Lord Jesus Christ would learn to speak the same thing, to speak as the oracles of God speak, to be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment, there would be no necessity for publishing works of this kind. But so long as error is taught and published it will be believed, and, as we are exhorted to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered unto the saints, it becomes our imperative duty to do all in our power to counteract its evil influence. It is often charged against us that we say too much about baptism; but, if our opponents will agree to say more about it, and say it scripturally, we can well afford to say less. If any other command of God should be as bitterly opposed as baptism has been written and preached against, we would be just as active, earnest, and zealous in defending it as we are in defending baptism. We make no more of baptism than Christ and the apostles made of it. It was necessary for Christ to be baptized in order to fulfill all righteousness. (Matt. iii: 13-17). He taught Nicodemus that a man could not enter into the kingdom of God without it. (John iii: 3-5). He commanded the apostles to disciple and baptize the nations. (Matt. xxviii: 19), Peter told the Jews to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. (Acts ii: 36-38). Ananias told Saul to arise and be baptized and wash away his sins. (Acts xxii: 16). And Paul says that we are baptized into Christ. (Rom. vi: 3; Gal. iii: 27). Baptism is a command of God, and as such it should be obeyed. 4 INTRODUCTION It may be said that enough has already been written upon this subject. This is a mistake. Ceasing to write and publish the truth will never stop the publication of error. Christian baptism is yet with many an undecided question. Even the most learned, pious, and zealous are dull of hearing and slow to understand this subject; hence the great necessity of the continual agitation of this question and the giving of " line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little," until all are led to see its full import and significance. So long as men entertain unscriptural views of this question, or seek to corrupt this divine ordinance and pervert its true design and significance, it will be necessary not only to correct the error, but to write and publish the truth concerning it. That similar things may have been said, and well said, by others, neither the writer of this Introduction nor the author of this Review would pretend to deny; but for the peculiar combinations of ideas, novel modes of thought, and new methods of treating this subject, I claim for the author perfect originality. Considering the amount of space occupied, I do not hesitate to say that this tract is not only the most complete refutation of the error of sprinkling and pouring, but the plainest and most comprehensive presentation of the subject of baptism that I have ever read. I have been intimately acquainted with Bro. Bonham for a number of years, and was associated with him for quite a while in church and school work; hence I think I know the man and feel that I am fully prepared to speak of his ability and qualifications. He is scholarly, logical, and critical; and, above all, he is a Christian gentleman. He would not intentionally misconstrue an opponent's argument, nor would he use any unfair means to gain an advantage over him. All who read this tract will be convinced of the INTRODUCTION. 5 truthfulness of this statement. There are but few, if any, men among us that could have done better and more thorough work than has Bro. Bonham, in this Review. Years ago, when he was quite a young man, a prominent Texas preacher remarked to me that, as a writer, he has few superiors. His extreme modesty has prevented him from coming prominently before the brotherhood. But he is gradually overcoming this, and I entertain the hope that if spared, he will yet give the world some of his best thoughts in a more permanent form. In introducing this little work to the public, I wish to give it my hearty commendation and unqualified endorsement, and to express the hope that it may be the means of leading many to accept the truth as it is in Jesus. D. A. LEAK. Nacogdoches, Texas, April 15, 1891. PREFACE. Several years ago " Rev." L. W. Bates, D. D., of the Methodist Protestant Church came out in a small tract on " Water Baptism." We have endeavored, in the spirit of kindness and in the love of truth, to review him. Reviews of this kind are numerous, and some may think that this one is uncalled for. It may be that all the arguments and fallacies presented by Dr. Bates have been answered and exposed many times and more effectually than in this Review; but there is a great demand for such reviews in which the illogical positions of writers are pointed out and true positions offered instead. Others have written more extensively and learnedly, and for a thorough investigation of this much controverted subject we would refer the reader to them; but the many have neither the time nor the means to give the subject a thorough investigation, and it is more to assist these that this Review is offered to the public. Our only apology for this effort is to lead some honest minded ones out of the darkness of error into the light of truth. We ask those of our readers who may take the other side of the question at issue to give this Review an honest, candid perusal. May Heaven's richest blessings rest upon us all. R. H. BONHAM.
REVIEW OF "WATER BAPTISM." CHAPTER I. STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION. " Rev." L. W. Bates, D. D., a distinguished writer and preacher of the Methodist Protestant Church, and a graduate in the school of Theology, has given to the public, in a little tract of twenty-seven pages, some views on the subject of baptism, entertained by himself and others of his class. We propose to follow him, enlarging only where it is necessary to get the full meaning of the subject under consideration. The Doctor does not deal in " elaborate criticisms upon the original and classical meaning of words, and their varied translations; " but confines himself, for the most parts, to the discussion of the mode, or action, of baptism and its relation to water. It is not strange that he denies his readers the benefit of these criticism. They do not support his cause. Indeed, we think that it is nothing but right, in order to arrive at a logical, and, at the same time, a scriptural solution of this much controverted subject, to notice some of the "criticisms upon the original and classical meaning of words, and their varied translations." But these, most probably, would not justify the gentleman's conclusion. The good Doctor makes, at the outset, this simple request of his readers: " In the present discussion of Water-Baptism the reader is requested to remember that, The burden of proof is always-on the affirmative." Very true, and we (7) 8 REVIEW OF WATER BAPTISM. would request our readers to remember it also. It is advice quite as good for the distinguished Doctor himself as for his readers; and had he remembered it, we are inclined to think that his little tract would have been somewhat less; for he has affirmed some things for which not a shadow of proof does he offer, neither can he do it. Let us now hear the Doctor. He says: " The advocates of immersion tell us that, ' Baptism is as really and entirely a positive institution as any that were given to the chosen tribes, and we cannot with safety infer either the mode or the subject of it, from anything short of a precept or a precedent, recorded in Scripture, and relating to that very Ordinance.' Booth, Vol. I. p. 277. And they claim that they have both precept and example on their side. Ib. Vol. IL p. 415. They assert that immersion is the only mode of baptism, and it is incumbent upon them to prove it by either positive precept or unmistakable Scriptural example; and as they refuse us all inferential argument, they cannot be allowed to have recourse to it themselves; but if they fail to furnish either Scriptural precept or example in proof of their position, they loose their case." p. 5. It is true that we can not with safety infer the " mode " or the subject of baptism. God's institutions are positive, and when we have anything to do with them we should bear in mind that we deal with facts, and not with inferences. Positive institutions are set forth by positive commands, and no one, doubtless will deny that baptism occupies such a position in the Christian economy. All the words in our language are used to express ideas, or to modify them in some way. There is an idea expressed by the word baptize. As it is an active verb, the idea of the performing of some action is contained in it. That this action is immersion, a very large and respectable portion of the religious world is confident. Then the proper statement of the question is; Christian baptism is immersion in water by the authority of REVIEW OF WATER BAPTISM. 9 Jesus (Christ, into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is what the advocates of immersion accept and what they affirm. Will the advocates of pouring and sprinkling deny this proposition ? We think not. We affirm nothing with regard to sprinkling and pouring as " modes " of baptism. It is unjust and illogical to make one affirm a negative. We deny that sprinkling and pouring are baptism. Dr. Bates affirms they are; then the burden of proof devolves upon him. Here is the real issue; properly speaking, immersion is not in question; sprinkling and pouring are. " They assert that immersion is the only mode of baptism." Assertions prove nothing. We might " assert that immersion is the only mode of Baptism," were we without substantial proof of it; but when we offer the proof there is no assertion about it. Dr. Bates may assert that sprinkling and pouring are modes of baptism, and it is incumbent upon him " to prove it by either positive precept or unmistakable Scriptural example; " and in the absence of such proof it can be nothing more than an assertion,—a groundless assumption. We claim that the Bible sets forth the action which is performed in baptism intelligibly; consequently we have no need of inferential proof. As an effort to darken counsel with words and thus cover up the truth, we call attention to the following: "Immersionists claim that the word baptism always means to dip, plunge or immerse, and therefore, the command to baptize is emphatically a command to dip, plunge or immerse. While I do not admit that the classical meaning of baptism is always to dip, plunge or immerse, it may be well to remark that the Scriptural sense of words is not always restricted to their literal signification at the time they were adopted, but in many cases, they have a sacred meaning peculiar to the doctrine inculcated or the duty enjoined. pp. 5, 6. 10 REVIEW OF WATER BAPTISM. If this extract means anything at all it surely is that there are two meanings to words; the one sacred or scriptural, the other literal or profane! It is not denied, even by Dr. Bates, that the literal meaning of baptism is immersion. As immersion is the literal, sprinkling or pouring, according to the good Doctor, we suppose, is the " sacred meaning (?) peculiar to the doctrine inculcated or the duty enjoined! ! " But is it necessarily true that words " have a sacred meaning peculiar to the doctrine inculcated or the duty enjoined," distinct and different from their ordinary use ? The idea is absurd! Were this the case, we would need a sacred or Scriptural lexicon in order to understand the meaning of the Bible. To show the absurdity of Dr. Bates"' sacred meaning," we give a quotation from Adolph Harnack, of Giessen, in reference to this subject. He says, " Baptizing undoubtedly signifies immersion. No proof can be found that it signifies anything else in the New Testament, and in the most ancient Christian literature. The suggestion regarding a ' sacred sense' is out of the question. There is no passage in the New Testament which suggests the supposition that any New Testament author attached to the word baptize in any other sense than immersion." This is conclusive. Since the Bible contains God's revealed will, surely its meaning is not hidden in unintelligible words. If anything is revealed, it is clearly and definitely made known. Dr. Bates, it seems, would confound the minds of his readers on this point. Words may, and sometimes, according to their use, do have two meanings, but these are not essentially different; the one is literal, the other figurative, instead of the Doctor's " sacred meaning peculiar to the doctrine inculcated." The figurative meaning of a word is a figure in which is seen the likeness of the literal. Dr. Bates REVIEW OF WATER BAPTISM. 11 attempts to explain what he means by the " sacred meaning" of words, in the use of the words supper, cat, drink, flesh and blood; and then asks, with an air of triumph: " If the words supper, eat, drink, flesh, and blood, are not always restricted to their full, literal original meaning when used in the Holy Scriptures, may not the word baptize also sometimes have a liberal Scriptural meaning ? " We do not deny that it has a scriptural meaning, but we cannot conceive how that meaning can be made so " liberal " or be so enlarged, as to include three actions which are all performed in different ways. If this were true, by what course of reasoning could we ascertain which one was performed in any of the cases upon record ? The laws of language would fail us; and untold and insurmountable difficulties would rise up and check the biblical student in his search for scriptural knowledge. It is not this scriptural meaning that we object to; it is the unscriptural meaning that Doctors of Divinity have been trying to force upon the word to which objection is made. CHAPTER II. THE MEANING OF THE TERM A difficulty with the general reader is that the word in question is not translated, but we have the anglicized form of the Greek word baptizo. No customs or councils of men, political or ecclesiastical, have the power to change the meaning of this word, as used by Jesus when he committed the preaching of the gospel to his apostles. What it meant then it must mean to-day. Since it is a Greek word, in order to understand its full import, we must know what the Greeks understood by it. To this end, we give the views of a few scholars and critics, on this subject, who, by no means, can be charged with prejudice in favor of immersion. Mr. Donnegan, a ripe and distinguished scholar, defines the word, thus: " Baptizo--To immerse repeatedly into a liquid, to submerge, to sink thoroughly, to saturate. Met., to drench with wine, to dip in a vessel and draw." The word is defined in Engle's Greenfield's Novum Testamentum, as follows: "Baptizo--To immerse, immerge, submerge, sink; in N. T. to wash, perform ablution, cleanse; met., to overwhelm one with anything, to bestow liberally, imbue largely; pass., to be immersed in, or overwhelmed with miseries, oppressed with calamities." Charles-Anthon, who was for a long time professor of classical literature in Columbia College, New York, and also the editor of many classical text-books, when addressed by Dr. Parmly in regard to the meaning of this word, said: (12) REVIEW OF WATER BAPTISM. 13
" The primary meaning of the word is to dip, or immerse and its secondary meanings, if it ever have any, all refer in some way or other to the same leading idea. Sprinkling &c., are entirely out of the question." William Smith, LL.. D., in Bible Dictionary, says on this subject: "'Baptism' properly and literally means immersion. * * * * The language of the New Testament and of the primitive fathers sufficiently points to immersion as the common mode of baptism." Mr. Grove defines the word thus: " Baptizo--To dip, immerse, immerge, plunge; to wash, cleanse, purify; to baptize; to depress, humble, overwhelm." Dr. Philip Schaff, Professor of Sacred Literature in Union Theological Seminary, New York. and Chairman of the American Committee on Revision, says: " On strictly exegetical and historical grounds, baptism must be immersion Without prejudice, no other interpretation would ever have been given to Bible baptism. It is the most natural interpretation, and such we must always give. Immersion is natural and historical; sprinkling is artificial and an expedient for convenience' sake. All the symbolism in the text (Rom. vi: 3, 4.) and everywhere in the Bible, demands the going under water and coming up out of it to newness of life. Sprinkling has no suggestion of burial to sin and resurrection to holiness. In order to its original meaning and its vital relation to redemption through Jesus Christ, baptism must be immersion. Why do you wish to get rid of it ? Eminent theologians have wasted their learning attempting to defend sprinkling. Imposition is not exposition. All the early defenders of Christianity taught that nothing but immersion was baptism, and all the Greek or oriental churches continue to immerse to this day." The late Dean Stanley, a clergyman of no mean reputa- 14 REVIEW OF WATER BAPTISM. tion, of the Church of England, says on this subject: "For the first thirteen centuries the almost universal practice of baptism was that of which we read in the New Testament, and which is the very meaning of the word ' baptize' that those who were baptized were plunged, submerged, immersed into the water. That practice is still, as we have seen, continued in Eastern churches. In the Western church it still lingers amongst Roman Catholics in the solitary instance of the cathedral of Milan, amongst Protestants in the austere sect of the Baptists. It lasted long into the middle Ages. Even the Icelanders, who at first shrank from the water of their freezing lakes, were reconciled when they found that they could use the water of the Geysers. And the cold climate of Russia has not been found an obstacle to its continuance throughout the vast Empire. Even in the Church of England it is still observed in theory. Elizabeth and Edward the Sixth were both immersed. The rubric in the Public Baptism for Infants enjoins that, unless for special cases, they are to be dipped, not sprinkled. But in practice it gave way since the beginning of the sixteenth century. With the few exceptions just mentioned, the whole Western churches have now substituted for the ancient bath the ceremony of sprinkling a few drops of water on the face. The reason of the change is obvious. The practice of immersion, apostolic and primitive as it was, was peculiarly suitable to the Southern and Eastern countries for which it was designed, and peculiarly unsuitable to the tastes, the convenience, and the feelings of the countries of the North and West. Not by any decree of Council or Parliament, but by the general sentiment of Christian liberty, this great change was effected." We cannot forbear giving the reader the benefit of the following quotation from a work that has a world-wide REVIEW OF WATER BAPTISM. 15 reputation in the sphere of religious literature. "It is needless to add that baptism was (unless in exceptional cases) administered by immersion, the convert being plunged beneath the surface of the water to represent his death to the life of sin, and then raised from this momentary burial to represent his resurrection to the life of righteousness It must be a subject of regret that the general discontinuance of this original form of baptism (though perhaps necessary in our northern climates) has rendered obscure to popular apprehension some very important passages of Scripture."--Conybeare & Howson's Life and Epistles of St. Paul. Chap. xiii. No one will deny the literary claims of these men who have been introduced here; and since they say nothing indicative of sprinkling or pouring, and even Dr. Anthon says that they are entirely out of the question, while Dr. Schaff says, that " on strictly exegetical and historical grounds, baptism must be immersion," in order to include sprinkling and pouring within the meaning of the term under consideration, we must repudiate the claims of these gentlemen to scholarship. This we can not do. These quotations are in harmony with the Bible, and the scholarship of the world; and they set forth the action performed in baptism satisfactorily to the advocates of immersion We could have introduced many others, but these are sufficient. CHAPTER III ASSUMPTION NOT ARGUMENT The Doctor knows that he has a foe intrenched behind the bulwarks of logic and classic literature as well as the Bible, yet he is very bold, and tries to drive the immersionist from his stronghold. DR. BATES' ATTACK. " The immersionist says that the word baptize always means immerse; but if we can furnish one sentence in which it does not mean immerse, then he fails to prove his position. Jo he said, ' I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.' Matt. iii: 11; Mark i: 7, 8; Luke iii: 16. " Let us now substitute the assumed meaning for the word itself thus: I indeed dip, plunge, immerse you with water, but he shall dip, plunge, immerse you with the Holy Ghost and with fire. This passage evidently refers to the day Pen plunged Acts i: 5 and ii: 16. Were they dipped, plunge , immersed with the Holy Ghost and with fire? They were immersed in the sound, for that filled the house, and they were surrounded by it; but the cloven tongues like as of fire sat upon them, they were not dipped, plunged, nor immersed in them, and they were filled with the Holy Ghost, but were not dipped ,plunged, nor immersed in the Holy Ghost. Acts ii: 1-4. If the fiery tongues sat on their heads and the Holy Ghost filled their souls, in that case, to baptize with fire and the Holy Ghost does not mean to dip, plunge nor immerse with fire and the Holy Ghost, and consequently, the word baptism does not always mean to dip or plunge or immerse; the immersionist is clearly driven from his position." p. 7. (16) NOTE: PAGES 17-32 MISSING DUE TO A BINDING ERROR REVIEW OF WATER BAPTISM 33 sprinkling shall of immersion; and then wants us to acknowledge the correctness of his course of reasoning Shades of Aristotle and Bacon!! His proof of sprinkling depends upon a chain, each link of which is an assumption! If it is true that immersion is baptism, it is likewise true that baptism is immersion. No scholar who values his reputation as such will deny that immersion is baptism; and since these words convey the same idea, it was not necessary that the record should " hint at the manner of her baptism," or give some "intimation that she was baptized in the river." This is more than a hint. If Dr. Bates overlooks the meaning of the word we fear that no hint could be given which is so strong as to make him understand it As Philippi was an important city of Macedonia, and this one of' the Grecian states, surely these women understood the import of the word baptizo, and it was useless for Paul to knock them down with a hint! The river Jordan, says the learned gentleman, offered John the only facilities for baptizing his converts. Probably he forgot Aenon. If John sprinkled or poured water upon his converts, there were many other places that offered as good facilities as these did; but if he immersed them, he showed his good judgment and sound sense in going to places which offered such facilities. As this river at Philippi is only mentioned to give an idea of the locality of the house of prayer," we suppose that the Jordan is only mentioned to give an idea of the locality of the place where John preached! ! Since it is true that immersion is baptism, our proposition stands proved, and it is not for us to prove that something else was not done. It is the work of Dr. Bates, and those who think as he does, to show unmistakably that something besides immersion was done; and 34 REVIEW OF WATER BAPTISM immersionists agree to see it fairly done. So far he has made a miserable failure, and therefore he should cease calling upon them to retract. II. THE JAILER Concerning the baptism of the jailer and his household, Dr. Bates says: "The baptism of the jailer, recorded in the same chapter, Acts xvi: 33, 34: furnishes no more evidence of immersion than does that of Lydia. The text says simply, the ‘he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes, and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.’ The baptism, evidently, took place either in the prison or in the house of the keeper; the probabilities are in favor of the jail. There is nothing said about a pool or tank, nor that he went to the river which was close by the city, but simply that he was baptized; nor is it likely that he had any such accommodations, nor that he would venture to the river with his prisoners. The question is, do the circumstances as related admit of baptism by sprinkling or pouring? If they do, this is the seventh failure to prove that the mode must have been immersion, and failing in seven cases, the immersionist should retract." Pp. 14, 15. Dr. Bates fails to show that "the circumstances as related admit of baptism by sprinkling or pouring;" and as he has failed it is the seventh time that he has made an unsuccessful attempt to convict the immersionist of error. The learned gentleman is very certain that the "baptism took place either in the prison or in the house of the keeper; the probabilities are in favor of the jail." His probabilities are without much foundation. We fear that the Doctor did not read the context carefully. It will give us a better idea of the real circumstances. "And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises to God; and the prisoners heard them; and suddenly there was a great REVIEW OF WATER BAPTISM. 35 earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shakes; and immediately all the doors opened, and every man's bands were loosed. And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword and would have killed himself, sup- that the prisoners had been fled. But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, "Do thyself no harm; for we are all here. Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, anti brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved ? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house." Acts xvi: 25-32. They were not in the jail, for the jailer had brought them out, v. 30; nor did the baptism occur in the jailer's house, for after he was baptized he brought them into his house, v. 34. He took them, evidently, to some place where there was water sufficient with which to wash their stripes--lacerated bodies, and in which to be baptized. This would require e more than a pitcher or a cup of water. The jailer had great confidence in Paul and Silas, since they had shown that they were not anxious to escape, and had even prevented him from killing himself'; hence we can not doubt his willingness to go with them to the river, or anywhere to obey the Lord. Dr. Bates' probabilities are very improbable, to say the least of them. This is another case in which the baptism occurred in a different place from that where the preaching was done; anti so it could have been with the Gentiles, the three thousand, and Lydia. When we take into consideration that the action to be performed in baptism could not be done where there were no facilities, we are forced to the conclusion that when this ordinance was attended to a place 36 REVIEW OF WATER BAPTISM. where the facilities abounded was sought. That Lydia and her household, and the jailer and his family were baptized, is not questioned; and since we have proved good authority that the action performed in baptism is an immersion and not a sprinkling or a pouring, it follows that these persons were immersed and not sprinkled or poured. (VII.) OTHER CASES. The baptism of the Corinthians--Acts xviii: 8, of the twelve at Ephesus--Acts xix: 5, of Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas--1 Cor. i: 14-17 next engage the Doctor's attention; but he makes no argument in favor of his pet theory, or against immersion, simply stating that there is no evidence of immersion and those who advocate it fail in all these cases. In summing up these several cases of conversion, it is needless to offer anything further in reply. Sufficient has been said to show that the arguments in favor of sprinkling and pouring are entirely without foundation. CHAPTER V. DR. BATES’ OPINION OF THE IMMERSIONIST. Dr. Bates has been making some earnest efforts to convict the immersionist of error, and to induce him to retract and quit agitating the minds of people on the subject of baptism. Realizing his failure in these attempts, he adds: " What shall we say of a man who positively asserts that immersion is the only mode of Water Baptism and cannot prove that the word always means immerse, and cannot prove that to be the mode by one single example in all the New Testament ? I He can only argue from inference, just as we do, but unless he can show that all the circumstances in at least some one case are positively in favor of immersion, he loses his cause. If our inferences are as probable and reasonable as his are, he fails, but we do not., p. 16. Dr. Bates seems to have an abhorrence of a " man who positively asserts that immersion is the only mode of Water Baptism; " and wants to know what we shall say of him Well, what shall we say of Mr. Donnegan, Mr. Greenfield Mr. Grove, Dr. Wm. Smith, Dean Stanley, Prof. Charles Anthon, and Dr. Philip Schaff? If we respect the learning and wisdom of such men as these, we must acknowledge that a man who so affirms is correct--that his proposition is proved by the united testimony of the scholarship of the world. " He can only argue from inference, just as we do," says the good Doctor. He admits his lack of proof and simply infers that sprinkling or pouring is baptism, and he tries to make us prove immersion by inference (37) 38 REVIEW OF WATER BAPTISM. only. Sprinkling is proved by inference only. Immersion is proved by inference only. Here are two very different actions both proved to be baptism by recourse to the same kind of argument! ! Verily, that which proves too much does prove nothing. Something is at fault. What is it? One of the two positions can not be sustained. Baptism IS a positive institution, and when we have to deal with positive institutions, we should bear in mind that we deal with facts and not with inferences. This being true, Dr. Bates has utterly failed; for he has not given us one single fact by which baptism can be made to include sprinkling and pouring, and the reason evidently is that he can not do it; for a man possessing so much shrewdness as he does would not stand upon inferences and probabilities if he had anything better to offer. But it is not true, as we have abundantly shown that we " can only argue from inference" in favor of immersion. CHAPTER VI. SOME QUESTIONS ANSWERED. QUESTION No. 1. " But the immersionist enquires 'were not the Israelites baptized unto Moses in the cloud end in the sea?' I Cor. x. 2 But were they immersed? Could not the cloud which hung over them to protect them from the burning sunbeams, and furnish a moisture to cool the other wise heated atmosphere, Psa. cv: 39, sprinkle them with its aqueous drops? and could not the sea sprinkle them with its spray ? The Psalmist says, 'The clouds poured out water, Psa. lxxvii: i 7. This Psalm evidently refers to the passage through the Red Sea, and we may infer from it that there was lightning, thunder rain and an earthquake during that passage. To be immersed one must be surrounded with water." pp. 16, ] 7. One may be immersed in debt, and still not be surrounded by water; he may be immersed in business, or in difficulties, and yet not be surrounded by water. It depends upon the element in which a person is immersed whether he is surrounded by water. By a figure of speech we use these terms. We have shown that baptism has a figurative meaning, and this (1 Cor. x: 2,) is one of the places where it is so used. Of course we would not say that the Israelites were immersed in water during the passage through the Red Sea; but they were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea. The sea formed a wall on their right and on their left, while the cloud was above them. They were thus completely obscured from the sight of the Egyptians. They were inclosed, or enveloped, in (39) 40 REVIEW OF WATER BAPTISM. the cloud and in the sea, and this constituted their baptism. Does this figure represent sprinkling or pouring ? or is it not rather a very apt representation of immersion ? The Israelites were under and in the elements in which they were baptized. When a person is immersed in water he is under and in the element in which he is baptized. We wonder if this is the case when Dr. Bates sprinkles a person ! The under and the in make this case too plain to he mistaken, and from this passage we get a very clear understanding of Paul's idea of baptism. The Doctor asks, " Could not the cloud which hung over them to protect them from the burning sunbeams, and furnish a moisture to cool the otherwise heated atmosphere, sprinkle them with its aqueous drops?" It is not a question as to whether this could not have been done, but was it done ? We are not certain that there were any " aqueous drops" in that cloud, and would advise the Doctor not to be too positive about it. The reason the Lord gave that cloud to the Israelites is set forth in Acts. xiii: 2l: " And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light: to go by day and by night." Nothing here about its " aqueous drops," nor " a moisture to cool the otherwise heated atmosphere," and we suppose Moses knew a little more about it than Dr. Bates knows, although he is a D. D. Again, he asks, "Could not the sea sprinkle them with its spray?" There is a difficulty in the Doctor's way just here. Water in order to stand upright as a heap must be frozen, and ice has no spray. Moses says, " And with a blast of thy nostrils the waters were gathered together, the floods stood upright as a heap, and the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea." Ex.. xv: 8. REVIEW OF WATER BAPTISM 41 The Doctor quotes the Psalmist, " The clouds poured out water," in proof of his position. Before we can admit that this has reference to the case under discussion he must prove two things: (1.) That the cloud spoken of in Ex. xiii: 21, was a rain cloud; and (2.) That Psa. lxxvii 17 undoubtedly refers to this cloud. It makes no difference what we may infer about the lightning, thunder, rain, and earthquake at the time; the record has nothing to say about them. It IS simply guess-work with him. Besides, the cloud in which the Israelites were baptized, and the one by which they were led, being the same, was one cloud, but the Psalmist speaks of " clouds" in the plural. We like very much to see consistency even in a Methodist Doctor of Divinity; how much more in Moses, David, and Paul. QUESTION NO. 2. "But says the immersionist, ' Did not John baptize by immersion ?' That is the question: did he ? He that asserts he did must prove it . . . . . John baptized in Jordan for the same reason that Philip baptized the eunuch at the water on the public road. He was a field preacher and collected multitudes to hear him, and it was needful that he should station himself in the neighborhood of an abundant supply of water for the accommodation of that multitude. He had the same reason for selecting Aenon near Salim; when he left the banks of the Jordan, because there was much water, many waters there; John iii: 23. Whether he dipped or sprinkled them he would certainly take them down to the water, and perhaps into it; and wherever he called the multitude together, it was needful that they should have an abundant supply of water and that too without annoying householders. The fact that he selected localities where there was much water, does not prove that he baptized by immersion, for the multitude needed much water for themselves and their animals, and culinary purposes. The fact that he took his candidates into the water, does not 42 . REVIEW OF WATER BAPTISM. prove that he immersed them, for he would have done that to sprinkle or pour." pp. 17, 18. It is true that John baptized in Jordan for the same reason that Philip the eunuch in the water on the road. But what was that reason ? Has Dr. Bates, in the extract above, faithfully set it forth ? We dare say he has not. Philip baptized the eunuch in the water on the highway, because abundant facilities were there; John baptized in Jordan and AEnon for the same reason. How does Dr. Bates know that " it was needful that he should station himself in the neighborhood of an abundant supply of water for the accommodation of that multitude ? " Guessing again! The record says nothing about the accommodation of the people. The uninhabited wilderness was a poor place to accommodate people. Jerusalem, doubtless, offered better facilities in that line than did the wilderness of Judea. Unquestionably, a greater number of people attended the Jewish feasts at Jerusalem than listened to the preaching of John. If he were simply seeking the comfort and accommodation of the multitude, why did he not go to Jerusalem? We are satisfied Dr. Bates could not prove that there was a beast of burden on the ground, or that there was any cooking attended to. He, it seems, would endeavor to make his readers think that John the Baptist was conducting a regular Methodist campmeeting And in order that the good house holders might not be annoyed the banks of the Jordan in the wilderness were selected! But the Doctor cannot avoid the conclusion that John led his converts into the water when he baptized them; but he qualifies this by saying " this does not prove that he immersed them." Well, does it prove that he sprinkled or poured on them ? Not in the least. Still the learned gen- REVIEW OF WATER BAPTISM. 43 tleman is of the opinion that he would have done this even had he sprinkled or poured; and he tells of having seen seven persons go into a stream and kneel down, and the minister clip up a handful of water and pour it on their heads. Was this action necessary? If so it must be necessary in all cases, and there must be an intelligent reason for it. In all the world of thought no good reason can be given. It is nonsense. Had John sprinkled or poured he would not necessarily have taken his converts into the water; but he could not have immersed them without doing this. If sprinkling or pouring is baptism, is there any necessity of having much water at hand when this ordinance is administered ? If so, in what does the necessity consist ? In this advanced age, Methodist preachers in sprinkling use a very little quantity of water. There is a scriptural reason given for John's baptizing in AEnon and that reason is that " there was much water there." In immersion we can see the necessity of much water, in sprinkling or pouring we cannot; in this it can be dispensed with, in that it cannot. QUESTION NO. 3. "Again we are asked 'was not Christ immersed?` I ask in return, was he? Who can prove it? True He went up straightway out of the water, and so He would have done if He had been sprinkled or poured. I would remind the reader , too that Christ's baptism was not Christian baptism." p. 18. This investigation is about the action of baptism, and the baptism to which Christ submitted and Christian baptism are the same so far as the action is concerned. We have shown from good authority that baptism is immersion; hence, we answer Dr. Bates' question in the affirmative. It is not necessarily true that if Christ had been sprinkled or 44 REVIEW OF WATER BAPTISM. poured he would have gone up straightway out of the water. It depends upon something else. If John was forced by necessary circumstances to take him into the water in order to sprinkle or pour water upon him, it is true; but these necessary circumstances have never been shown. We dare not charge the harbinger of Jesus Christ with any such foolish or unnecessary act. CHAPTER VII. AN APPEAL TO THE TRADITIONS OF ROME. In support of his pet theory, Dr. Bates next gives a description of some very beautiful PICTURES, of Roman origin, concerning which he says: " In the catacombs of Rome, used by the Christians as a refuge from the fierce persecutions that raged ever and anon during the first three centuries of the Christian era. are to be found numerous symbols and illustrations of the doctrine and usages of the early church. In one of these subterraneous excavations is a fresco painting representing our Lord as standing waist deep in Jordan, while John, standing on a rock, is baptizing Him by pouring water on His head. I n another crypt Jesus stands in the river and John stands upon the shore pouring water upon his head. This is attributed to the second century. In those catacombs there are several baptismal scenes but none represent immersion; there are several baptismal founts, but none of them large enough for immersion." p. 20. Page 19 is devoted exclusively to an engraving, called, "The Baptism of our Lord." This is the first cut described above. On page 22 we are treated to the other. Dr. Bates, having exhausted all his assumptions, inferences, and probabilities in favor of sprinkling and pouring to no purpose, turns to the outstretched arms of his treacherous grandmother--Rome--and proves his position by her traditions and pictures! He makes a miserable failure with the Bible, but he succeeds admirably with his pictures, borrowed from Mystery Babylon! It is simply preposterous! ! (45) 46 REVIEW OF WATER BAPTISM In these catacombs " are to be found numerous symbols and illustrations of the doctrine and usages of the early church," says Dr. Bates; but Paul claims our attention here. He says, " All Scripture given by inspiration of God is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Tim. iii: 16, 17. In this which is very profitable for doctrine, and instruction in righteousness, sprinkling and pouring see omitted. Shall we, then, receive that which is highly improbable, and which has nothing but the traditions of Rome to support it, in preference to the words of inspiration ? Heaven forbid that we should offer such sacrilege to the God who m we worship. Such traditions stand side by side with " old wives' fables," and the child of God is warned against them. Whatever practice is engaged in by men, though angels should be partakers in it, if it does not conform to the teachings of the word of God, it is not of sufficient authority to demand its being taught as the religion of Jesus Christ. " But though we or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preach unto you, let him be accursed." Gab. i: 8. We should be very slow in teaching and practicing things which the apostles did not teach nor practice. Did they teach and practice sprinkling and pouring as baptism? Where is it so stated ? It remains for those who so affirm to show it. We do not want guesses, inferences, or probabilities; nothing but plain and positive proof will satisfy us. CHAPTER VIII. DR. BATES ON ROM. Vl: 3, 4. " We are told that in Rom. vi: 3, 4, and Col. ii: 12, the apostle evidently sets forth the mode of baptism by the word buried, 'Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ v. were baptized into his death ? Therefore, we are e buried with him by baptism into treat],; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.' It is claimed that in this passage the mode of baptism is likened to the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, and therefore must be immersion; but immersion does not resemble the manner of Christ's death for He was not drowned, but crucified; nor was His body let down into the grave as we bury our dead, but it was carried into the cavity of a rock which was above ground, and the bearers possibly walked into the sepulcher with His body, as you wale into your house, and deposited it there. In the catacombs of Rome, above referred to, there are several representations of Christ raising Lazarus from the dead, in which the floor of the sepulcher is reached by a flight of seven or eight steps. Nor does the apostle refer to emerging from the water as a figure of Christ's resurrection, but to our ' walking in newness of life.' By reading the context you will see that Paul is speaking of dying unto sin, and refers to the time of baptism because in his day baptism immediately followed conversion; and by baptism, if evangelically received they died unto sin, crucified and buried the old man out of sight v. 6. This passage tells what baptism does, not what its mode is; its uses, essence, and not its manner." pp. 20-22. This, to say the least, is wonderful! All that the Doctor says concerning the burial of Jesus is not relevant to the case. It matters not how the catacombs and Romish (47) 48 REVIEW OF WATER BAPTISM. traditions represent Lazarus as buried. But what has this to do with this question ? We know what the word buried means, and surely Dr. Bates will not deny that the body of Jesus was buried in the earth, in order to make it appear that baptism is not a burial. Jesus says, " For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Matt. xii: 40. Christ was buried, and baptism in some way resembles that burial. The Doctor labors to show that Rom. vi; 3, 4, does not have reference to the action of baptism. He thinks it tells what baptism does; its use, essence, rather than its manner; that Paul referred to baptism, because in his day it immediately followed conversion; that those receiving it evangelically thereby died unto sin; and that they crucified and buried the old man out of sight. He can not escape that buried by baptism. Will his system of theology allow him to decide thus? Then we have a Methodist Doctor of Divinity teaching that baptism occupies a most important place in the plan of salvation. The conclusion cannot be avoided. To escape one truth he unwittingly avows another, and overturns one of his erroneous theories, —that baptism is not essential to salvation ! He makes it very essential. Well, we are glad to see the Doctor advancing. But for his position the passage with its contexts tells too well what baptism is also. We now propose to show from this passage and its contexts that the action of baptism is plainly represented by a burial; and when we shall have done this it will be evident to all that the baptism of Saul of Tarsus, and of the converts to Christianity during the apostolic age was immersion " Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death ? There REVIEW OF WATER BAPTISM 49 fore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Rom. vi: 3, 4. We do not claim that baptism is, in every respect, like the death of Christ; but there is an appropriate likeness, or resemblance, between baptism and his burial and resurrection. But while it is true that Christ was crucified, and not drowned, it does not follow that there is no connection between death and baptism; not physical death, but, in the sense in which the apostle uses the term, death to sin. As this ordinance so forcibly brings to our minds the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, we also in a very clear and striking manner; in baptism may be said to typify our own death and burial, as well as our resurrection to the eternal joys of heaven. This is not true in the case of sprinkling and pouring. The apostle, in this connection, is discussing the proposition, " Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound ;" and he anticipates the question, " Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound ? " by asking another. " How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" See Rom. v: 20, and vi: 1, 2. These Romans were dead to sin. In being baptized into Christ, they were buried with him by baptism into this death. This death into which they were brought by baptism was a state or condition of death to sin, and this was accomplished by that grace--the gospel--of which he is speaking. " Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto Sill, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord." v. l 1. In order to salvation, Jesus must be followed to Calvary, to the grave, and to his triumphal resurrection. One must become dead to sin,—the old man must be crucified (not drowned) with him, that the body of sin may be destroyed. 50 REVIEW OF WATER BAPTISM. " I am crucified with Christ." Gal. ii: 20. " And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts." Gal. v: 24. " But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and 1 unto the world." Gal. vi: 14. Christ died--was crucified; in his death he was buried, and being revived by the power of God, he arose victorious over all the opposing powers of darkness, and now lives forever unto God. The gospel is God's plan for saving people. Paul defines it, in its leading facts, to be the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. 1 Cor. xv: 1-4. The Corinthians received this gospel, stood in it; and were saved by it if they kept in memory the things it imposed. Here, then, obedience to the gospel is required, as well as faith in Jesus, in order to salvation. As Christ died to the external, physical world, so must we become dead to sin. One may ask how this is done. It is consummated only in a thorough reformation from a former course of life which was evil;—the result of repentance, induced by strong faith in Jesus as the Christ. The belief of the gospel--faith in Jesus Christ with all the heart— will destroy the love of sin, while sincere repentance will remove the practice of it, thus making the person obeying the gospel dead to sin. As Christ after his death was buried, so we after becoming dead to sin must be buried. We are baptized into Christ, and so are baptized into his death, in which state sin has no more dominion over us. We are not only baptized into his death, but we are buried with him, and this burial is by baptism. As Christ was raised up from the dead and now lives unto God, so we, having been buried with him by baptism, must also rise with him to walk in a new life--alive unto God. There is a striking analogy between a burial and an immersion, and since REVIEW OF WATER BAPTISM. 51 this burial is performed by baptism, the analogy between a baptism and a burial is no less striking. The same is true with regard to an emerging from water and a resurrection. In this connection we wish to notice Col. ii: 12, as a parallel passage. " Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." The Collosians were buried with Christ, and they also were risen with him. When was this done? Paul says that it was done in their baptism. This should settle the question with every honest and fair-minded reasoner. As a context, we call attention to Rom. vi: 17. " But God be thanked, that Ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart, that form of doctrine which was delivered you." What was the doctrine delivered these Romans ? It was the gospel. Then since the gospel is the doctrine, it has a form which can be obeyed. What is this form ? Since Paul defines the gospel in its facts to be the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, these must be the form. The requirements of the gospel in order to put one into Christ are faith, repentance, and baptism,—sincere obedience to his commands. How, then, did these Romans obey this form of doctrine ? In the first place Christ died, and in that he died, he died unto sin once. v. 10. They obeyed this part of the form in becoming dead to sin,— they ceased to do evil and learned to do well. They heard the gospel, believed the testimony God has given concerning his Son, and their faith in Christ as the Sen of God produced a change in their lives corresponding to repentance. Next, Christ, in his death, was buried. They were buried with Christ by baptism into death, and thus obeyed the second item in the form. How were they buried "By baptism." Rom. vi: 4. When were they buried ? 52 REVIEW OF WATER BAPTISM. When they were baptized—"in baptism." Col. ii: 12. We cannot escape the conclusion, dodge the issue as much as we may. Again, Christ was raised from the dead by the power of God. They, in their baptism, were raised with Christ to a life of purity and holiness. Christ arose triumphant over all his enemies, and so the Christian convert arises from his baptismal grave triumphant over sin. Thus we see how the Romans obeyed the form of doctrine which was delivered them. No one can obey the form of Christ's burial by having water sprinkled or poured upon him. He was not buried by sprinkling or pouring. We might as well talk about burying by sprinkling or pouring, as about baptizing by sprinkling or pouring. In these there is nothing resembling Christ's burial, nothing resembling his resurrection; but in immersion there is. As Christ emerged from the grave, so we emerge from the baptismal grave to engage in the grand and glorious work of Christianity. Some theologians will adopt almost any position to save a pet theory. Dr. Bates would have us believe that the old man after being crucified is buried out of sight. The old man is, indeed, crucified—put off; but the new man—Christ—is put on in baptism (Gal. iii: 27,)—we are completely absorbed, as it were, in him. Whatever was buried, was buried with Christ; and as Christ was raised up from the dead, so that which was buried with him should walk in newness of life. These erroneous positions are taken to escape a conclusion which Wesley, MacKnight, Doddridge, and others were too honest to deny. Hear what Wesley, the founder of Methodism, says concerning Rom. vi: 3, 4: 'We are buried with Him,' etc. Alluding here to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion." We here array John Wesley against L. W. Bates, D, P., REVIEW OF WATER BAPTISM. 53 and surely the authorty of the father should silence the son. On this passage, MacKnight says: " In baptism, the rite of initiation into the Christian church, the baptized person is buried under the water, as one put to death with Christ on account of sin, in order that he may be strongly impressed with a sense of the malignity of sin, and excited to hate it as the greatest of evils, v. 3. Moreover, in the same rite, the baptized person being raised up out of the water, after being washed, he is thereby taught that he shall be raised from the dead with Christ, by the power of the Father, to live with him forever in heaven, provided he is prepared for that life by true holiness, v. 4, 5. Farther, by their baptism, believers are laid under the strongest obligations to holiness, because it represents their old man, their old corrupt nature, as crucified with Christ, to teach them that their body which sin claimed as its property, being put to death, was no longer to serve sin as its slave. " The pious and learned Doddridge says: " Buried with him in baptism. It seems the part of candor to confess, that here is an allusion to the manner of baptizing by immersion." We have given these authorities to show the light in which this subject was viewed by them. Besides these, let us notice again the testimony of that eminent scholar and critic, Dr. Philip Schaff. " All the symbolism in the text (Rom. vi: 3, 4,) and everywhere in the Bible, demands the going under water and coming up out of it to newness of life. Sprinkling has no suggestion of burial to sin and resurrection to holiness. In order to its original meaning, and its vital relation to redemption through Jesus Christ, baptism must be immersion." 54 REVIEW OF WATER BAPTISM. As this passage shows with unmistakable clearness that baptism is a burial, and as immersion is a burial, it follows with the certainty of a mathematical demonstration that those who were buried by baptism were immersed. Then since Paul in his language to the Romans includes himself in the words we and us, we can say definitely that in his baptism he was buried--immersed. We are not left to guess at any " probabilities," or to infer anything from " hints" not given. We have his own plain declaration, and we prefer to believe his statement of tile case to anything Dr. Bates may think about it. The same is true of those Dr. whom this language is addressed. Then all the converts to the Christian faith during the apostolic age, having been baptized into Jesus Christ, were buried with him by baptism; consequently they were immersed. CHAPTER IX. INFANT BAPTISM. Notwithstanding Dr. Bates' tract is devoted to the "discussion of Water Baptism," he works himself up to such a degree of earnestness and confidence that he digresses from his original purpose and devotes a little space to the interests of infant baptism. Let us hear what he has to say about this custom. "While we should not underrate any ordinance of the church, we should be careful not to exaggerate the importance of things that are indifferent. Our Baptist brethren are betrayed into several errors by their narrowness. In one instance they have ruled the children out of the Christian church, because immersion is too violent a mode for the baptism of infants. "The reason they assign is that baptism must be received by faith, and as infants cannot believe, therefore they are not proper subjects for baptism. They forget that circumcision was also an ordinance of faith. Circumcision was not simply a national institution. ''The nation was instituted under Moses, but the church was instituted under Abraham by circumcision. God said to Abraham, ‘I will establish my covenant between Me and thee, and thy seed after thee.' Gen. xvii 7; and under the gospel, Peter said, ‘Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; for the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off.’ Acts ii: 38-39; and Paul says, Rom. iv: 11, "Abraham received the sign of circumcision a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised; that he might be the father of all them that believe.’ If the faith of the Hebrew father answered for the circumcision—dedication—of his child, why not the faith of the Christian father answer for the baptism—dedication of his child? . . . . When Paul says, 1 Cor. vii: 14: ‘The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the un- (55) 56 REVIEW OF WATER BAPTISM, believing wife is sanctified by the husband, else were your c children unclean, but now are they ho]y.' What can he mean but that if either the father or the mother be a believer the c child is entitled to membership in the church ? Why otherwise would he make such a distinction between the children of believers and unbelievers ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " The infants of Bethlehem were the first martyrs for Christ; and Jesus said of little children, 'Of such is the kingdom of God.’ " It is a remarkable fact that immersionists are the only Christians believing in Water Baptism, who exclude their children from the church of Christ, and refuse to consecrate them by that ordinance to Him who said, 'Of such is the kingdom of God’ "There must be some reason for this. Is it because there is no explicit command to baptize children? .... Is it not because their mode of administering tile ordinance excludes children? Do they not prefer to reject their children rather than yield their favorite mode ? " The New Testament records the baptism of the families of Stephanas, Cornelius, Lydia and the Jailer. Were there no little children in any of these families? Who dare assume in so grave a connection that there were not ? '' pp. 24-26. In the present discussion of infant baptism, we wish it to be distinctly understood that Dr. Bates, with those who practice infant baptism, is on the affirmative, and that "the burden of proof is always on the affirmative." We do not want inferences, probabilities or guess-work. Nothing short of a positive precept or unmistakable scriptural example will do, but one such will satisfy us. In the preceding extract the good Doctor has not given us anything conclusive on the subject. He has his channel to run in, and we only call in vain for something more substantial than his inferences. Does the gentleman think that immersionists in refusing to have their children baptized underrate any ordinance of the church of Christ ? Then we ask him to show definitely when and where it was ordained. On the other hand, he should be very careful how he exaggerates the importance of such an indifferent matter as infant baptism; so indifferent is it, that the Bible says nothing whatever about it. He informs us that his " Baptist brethren are betrayed REVIEW OF WATER BAPTISM. 57 into several errors by their narrowness; " and as one of the errors he tells us that " they have ruled the children out of the Christian church, because immersion is too violent a mode for the baptism of infants; " while in the next sentence, he gives the reason they assign: " that baptism must be received by faith, and as infants cannot believe, therefore they are not proper subjects for baptism." Dr. Bates either doubts the reason assigned by his " Baptist brethren," or he misrepresents them. If it is that baptism must be received by faith, then it is not because immersion is too violent. But is it true that they have ruled the children out of the Christian church? No; from the simple fact that they could not rule out that which was never put in. It is much more difficult to prove anything than to assume it. The affirmative wants some proof along here. Leading Paedobaptists themselves admit that the Bible does not authorize the baptism of infants. To this effect we introduce a few. " On the subject of infant baptism I have said nothing. The present occasion did not call for it; and I have no wish or intention to enter into the controversy respecting it. I have only to say, that I believe in both the propriety and expediency of the rite thus administered, and therefore accede to it ex animo. Commands, or plain and certain examples, in the New Testament relative to it, I do not find. Nor, with my views of it do I need them."—Moses Stuart. " There is no express precept or rule given in the New Testament for the baptism of infants." Bishop Burnet. "Among all the persons that are recorded as baptized by the apostles there is no express mention of any infant. There is no express mention of any children baptized by them."—Wall. " It can not be proved by the sacred Scriptures that infant baptism was instituted by Christ, or began by the first Christians after the apostles."—Luther. These quotations show conclusively that infant baptism is not of divine authority. Dr. Bates informs us that the church was instituted under Abraham by circumcision. Does he mean the church 58 REVIEW OF WATER BAPTISM. that Christ loved and gave himself for ? Then Jesus was sadly mistaken when he said, " Upon this rock I will build my church," Matt. xvi: 18; for it had been in existence nearly 2,000 years! And then there were the prophets who looked down through coming ages and foretold the glories and beauties of the church. Poor, deluded, mistaken prophets! They were in the church, and enjoyed all its privileges, and did not know it! ! See Isa. ii: 1-3; Micah iv: 1, 2; Dan. ii: 44. The term children in Acts ii: 39, does not mean helpless infants. It means offspring, descendants, though they be fully grown, or at least mature enough to accept the "call." The Doctor quotes Rom. iv: 11, in support of infant baptism. How any man can make this have reference to infant baptism, we are unable to perceive. It is not a question of baptism but of circumcision. Not a single passage in the Bible can be given to show that baptism was instituted in the place of circumcision. Paedobaptists, being pressed at this point, have assumed it, but they can not prove it. Circumcision was not the same to the children of Abraham that it was to him. To Abraham it was both a sign and a seal—a mark in the flesh and a seal of the righteousness of that faith which he had before he was circumcised. To the Jew it sealed nothing,—it was simply a sign showing that he was a descendant of Abraham. If there is a connection between circumcision and baptism, will Dr. Bates tell us of what baptism in the case of infants is a sign, and also what it seals to them? Christians are sealed with the Holy Spirit. Eph. i: 13. "If the faith of the Hebrew father answered for the circumcision of his child, why not the faith of the Christian father answer for the baptism of his child?" Before asking this question, Dr. Bates should have shown that the faith of the Hebrew father answered for the circumcision of his child, in the same way that he claims the faith of a Christian father answers for the baptism of his child. Circumcision had no connection with faith only in so far as it concerned Abraham. Baptism and faith are very closely connected. If the faith of the Hebrew father is the same to the circumcision of his child as the faith of the Christian REVIEW OF WATER BAPTISM. 59 father is to the baptism of his child, why was baptism ever given as a command to the Jews, all of whom had been circumcised? Indeed, why do Methodist preachers baptize (or rather sprinkle) female infants ? In regard to 1 Cor. vii: 14, Dr. Bates asks, " What can he (Paul) mean but that if either the father or the mother be a believer, the child is entitled to membership in the church. Why otherwise would he make such a distinction between the children of believers and unbelievers?" Paul is treating of the duties and relations of the marriage state, and not of infant church-membership! We should remember that that which proves too much proves nothing. If this language brings children into the church, it also brings the unbelieving husband or wife in, since the unbelieving party is sanctified by the one that believes. The matrimonial state is a holy one, and its relations are not to be dissolved if the husband or the wife should become a Christian and the other should not. It is in consequence of the sacredness of the matrimonial bond that the unbelieving party is sanctified by the one that believes; and since this relationship is lawful and proper, their children were not the offspring of an adulterous cohabitation, but they were legitimate and therefore holy. This passage proves the contrary to what the Doctor thinks it does. Had infant baptism been practiced in the early church, all infants whose parents were Christians would have been baptized, therefore Paul could not have said, " Else were your children unclean." It is plain from this passage that infant church-membership was unknown to that age of the church. " Of such is the kingdom of God." True, but it has no reference to infant baptism, whatever. If it is true that " of such is the kingdom of God," what is the use of baptizing the children? They were carried to Jesus that he might bless them, not sprinkle water on them or baptize them either. Baptizing the children will not confer any more of the heavenly benedictions upon them. Concerning the household baptisms, Dr. Bates asks, " Were there no little children in any of these families? 60 REVIEW OF BAPTISM. Who dare assume in so grave a connection that there were not? ' Is there any proof that there were ? Dr. Bates should give it, and not berate people for denying it without proof. There are many families in which there are no little children. Will the circumstances recorded concerning these families justify us in saying that no infants belonged to them ? Let us see. Can infants " addict themselves to the ministry of the saints ? " No; but the house of Stephanas did this. 1 Cor. xvi: 15. Can infants believe, speak with tongues, and magnify God? The household of Cornelius did these things. Acts x: 46, xv: 7. There is not the slightest evidence that there was an infant in Lydia's household; if so, it was old enough to be comforted by Paul and Silas. The jailer rejoiced, believing in God with all his house. Infants cannot believe. We know that infants can not do the things ascribed to these households. Then who dare assume in so grave a connection that there were infants in them? Let them prove it. We would suggest to Dr. Bates that he omitted one very important text, which proves his position as well as anything he has offered. It is Num. xxii: 21. Dr. Bates has not advanced one argument in favor of infant baptism, and the simple reason is that he cannot. On this subject the Bible is as silent as the grave. It receives support only from the doctrines and commandments of men. It is fraught with much evil. It binds and fetters the consciences of people and prevents many from obeying the Lord by their own voluntary acts. Still Methodist D. D's. must berate those who have thrown off the shackles of Romanism, and say that " they prefer to reject their children rather than yield their favorite mode." Immersionists love their children equally as well as Paedobaptists love theirs; but what advantage has the child of a Paedobaptist over the child of an immersionist? Simply none. We ask Paedobaptists to show any good in infant baptism. Is it a good work? Then the Scriptures will furnish the man of God authority for it. Since the Bible is silent upon it, it must be one of the devices of those who have departed from the faith. CHAPTER X. CONCLUSION. "Finally, immersionists cannot prove that the scriptural use of the word baptism always means immersion; nor can they prove by any New Testament example, that immersion was the mode practiced by the apostles. As they reject all inference and probability, and require of us positive precept and precedent, so we require of them explicit precept and precedent, and deny them all inferential reasonings." p. 27. We have now come to the " finally " of the Doctor's little tract, and it is characterized by the same kind of swagger that is maintained throughout. He has made a great effort to "convict the immersionist of error," but so completely has he failed that it is now evident that he is the one who is guilty of error. We have noticed his argnments, and have shown his reasoning to be incorrect. We have given the meaning of the word baptizo, the Greek for baptize, and no principle of language is violated in giving the meaning given in the lexicons to this word. The lexicons and the Bible harmonize. The differences are between Dr. Bates on one side, and the Bible and the lexicons on the other. We do not ask the privilege of sustaining our proposition by the use of inferential reasoning. Nor are we willing to receive his inferences and probabilities unless they have more of the appearance of plausibility. They are too darkly colored. Dr. Bates has much to say of the mode of baptism. This, with us, is a matter of little moment. It matters not whether the subject be baptized backward, forward, or sidewise, just so he is baptized from proper motives. The Bible has nothing to say about the mode of baptism. Affusionists maintain that sprinkling, pouring, and immersion are modes of baptism. If this is so, then what is baptism itself? We would like to have Dr. Bates give us a scriptural answer to this question—one unmixed with his imag- (61) 62 REVIEW OF WATER BAPTISM. inary end improbable probabilities. How can we understand what Jesus wanted his disciples to do unless words have a fixed and definite meaning? If it were so vague and indefinite, we doubt whether his disciples—unlearned fishermen—could have understood him, and how difficult would it be for us of this age ? The religion of the New Testament has enough common sense in it to make it simple, and it does not require priests and Doctors of Divinity to interpret it. The truth is much nearer the surface than a great many learned men seem to think it is. The way of holiness is so plain that " the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein." Isa. xxxv:: 8. The religion of Jesus is sensible, but what sense is there in saying that a word setting forth an important feature of this religion may mean this, that, or something else? This is sheer nonsense. But it is not absolutely necessary for us to go to the lexicons to learn the meaning of the word baptize as used in the New Testament. Suppose a student, unfettered and untrammeled by prejudice, is studying the Bible to learn his duty with respect to this matter. He reads that John baptized in the river of Jordan, and in AEnon because there was much water there; that Jesus when he was baptized went up straightway ont of the water; that Jesus in the gospel requires believers to be baptized; that Peter on the day of Pentecost commanded believers to repent and be baptized; that the Samaritans were baptized, that in baptizing the eunuch, Philip and the eunuch both went down into the water, and, after the baptism, came up out of it; and reading to the close of Acts he learns that every convert to Christianity was baptized. He has learned that in order to baptism, water, much water, going down into and coming up out of the water, were required. Without recourse to the definite meaning of the word, he has found nothing so far to show him what was done. But he takes up the letter to the Romans,, and reads to the 6th chapter where Paul says, "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism.' He now learns that baptism is a burial—an immersion; hence it is perfectly clear to him why John baptized in the river Jordan and in AEnon; why Jesus came REVIEW OF WATER BAPTISM. 63 up out of the water after his baptism; and why Philip and the eunuch both went down into the water and came up out of it. If these accounts were in any other book than the Bible would there be any doubting, quibbling, or caviling as to what was done ? We trow not. We wish to illustrate this subject a little further. It is a much easier matter to change from a difficult and inconvenient custom to one that is easy and convenient custom to one more difficult and inconvenient. Sprinkling and pouring are much more easy and convenient than immersion is. Had sprinkling and pouring been the custom among the first Christians, it would have been almost a matter of impossibility to supplant that custom with the more difficult and inconvenient one of immersion; but immersion being the custom, at times difficult and inconvenient it was almost natural for those not truly loyal to the Master to seek something of their own invention accompanied with less inconvenience; hence sprinkling and pouring were introduced. " Things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each other " is a logical and mathematical axiom. If A is B. and C is B, it necessarily follows that A is C. On the supposition that sprinkling, pouring, and immersion are all baptism, we have the following absurd syllogism: (1.) Sprinkling is baptism; Immersion is baptism; Therefore Sprinkling is immersion. (2.) Pouring is baptism; Immersion is baptism; Therefore pouring is immersion. There is not a sane man outside of the lunatic asylum that will accept these conclusions. Suppose a man owes you twenty dollars, and he presents three bills, any one of which you may select in the payment of the debt. Bill No. 1, is pronounced good at some of the banks, but at others it is said to be counterfeit,—there is some doubt about its genuineness; bill No. 2, is also pronounced good at some banks, while at others it is said to be counterfeit too,—some doubt about the genuineness of this bill; but bill No. 3, is pronounced good by all the banks,—no doubt about its genuineness. As a business man, which bill would you accept for the payment of 64 REVIEW OF WATER BAPTISM. the debt? You would take that one about which there is no doubt. Sprinkling (bill No. 1,) and pouring (bill No. 2,) are said to be baptism by some, but denied by others; immersion (bill No. 3,) is pronounced genuine by all. All religious bodies practicing baptism admit the validity of immersion. Properly speaking, immersion is not called in question, sprinkling and pouring are. Then, kind reader, in conclusion, which is the better and wiser course to pursue: to hear and obey what the Bible says on this subject, or to listen to the groundless inferences and probabilities of such Doctors of Divinity as Dr. Bates? The word of God is superior to the views of theologians. If you will obey its teachings with all the powers of the heart, it will be well with you in the end; but if you reject these things your soul must pay the penalty in an awful eternity. " Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." Rev. xxii: 14.
|
|
