Bertha and Her Baptism

N >> Nehemiah Adams >> Bertha and Her Baptism

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13

God was angry with Moses for delaying, if not neglecting, to circumcise
his child. His wife was a Midianite; her associations with the ordinance
were not like those of Moses, and perhaps he had yielded too much to her
known feelings. At least, the child had not been circumcised, and we are
told, "The Lord met him in the inn, and sought to slay him." Some
accident there, or a sudden and alarming illness, made him feel that God
had a controversy with him. Zipporah was not slow to interpret the
providence. If Moses had said with himself, So long as I consecrate my
child to God by prayer, the seal of the covenant cannot be essential,
God taught him his mistake. As soon as the rite had been performed, we
read, "So he let him go." It may be noticed, here, that the unworthy
manner in which Zipporah performed the rite, did not make it invalid.
They who fear that their baptism was not solemnized, in all respects, as
it should have been, may draw instruction and comfort from this
narrative.

There have been instances, within my knowledge, in which one or both of
the parents of a child have yielded to some untoward influences, and
have withheld the child from being baptized. While I cannot, and would
not, interpret certain events connected with this omission, on the part
of some from whom better things might have been expected, nothing has
ever impressed me more than the dealings of God with such parents. I
have been made to think by such coincidences, more than once or twice,
of Moses in the inn. It will not be amiss to say, that those who are
neglecting to bring their children for baptism, within a suitable time,
unless providentially hindered, will do well to examine their feelings
and motives, with that quickened conscience, which the solemn
providences of God toward them may be intended to excite. He is "a
jealous God;" and he keepeth covenant "to a thousand generations."

Chapter Sixth.

TESTIMONY OF THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS

HOUSEHOLD BAPTISMS.--"PAEDOBAPTIST CONCESSIONS."--THOMAS SHEPARD'S VIEWS.
BAPTISM OF HIS CHILD. THE FATHER'S RECORD.--GREAT INFLUENCE OF THE
FAMILY RELATION IN HEATHENISM AND PAGANISM.--THE YOUNG PEOPLE OF
AMERICA.--DISSUASIVE FROM ALTERCATION.--QUESTIONS TO A MINISTER ON HIS
PRACTICE IN BAPTISMS.--LIBERALITY.--PAUL AN EXAMPLE.

Lord, thou hast been our dwelling-place in all generations.--Ps. 90.

The Lamb hath but one bride, the one church of all times.--ANON.

That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power
of God.--THE APOSTLE PAUL.

Schoolmen must war with schoolmen, text with text.
The first's the Chaldee paraphrase; the next
The Septuagint; opinion thwarts opinion;
The Papist holds the first, the last the Arminian;
And then the Councils must be called to advise,
What this of Lateran says, and that of Nice;
The slightly-studied fathers must be prayed,
Although in small acquaintance, into aid;
When, daring venture, oft, too far into 't,
They, Pharaoh like, are drowned, both horse and foot.

FRANCIS QUARLES.

Being determined to possess myself of suitable information on the
subject of baptism as practised by the early Christian fathers, I
called the next evening to see my pastor, when the following
conversation took place:

_Mr. M._ I wish, sir, to know the plain and simple truth about the
evidence from ecclesiastical history with regard to infant baptism. The
internal evidence, confirming the scriptural argument, fully satisfies
me, yet, as a matter of interesting information, I should like to know
how it was regarded in the age next to that of the apostles. You know we
often read, and hear it said, that infant baptism is an error which
crept into the Christian church about the third century. Now, did it
creep in; or did the apostles practise it?

_Dr. D._ If infant baptism crept into the church, and if it be an
unauthorized innovation, one thing seems very strange, that, in this
Protestant age, when we are all so jealous of Romish and all human
inventions in matters of religion, the ablest and soundest men of all
Christian denominations but one, are firmly persuaded of its scriptural
authority, and are increasingly attached to it. In the great
reformations which have arisen from time to time, this practice would
have been swept away, had it been an error. It is more than we can
believe that Protestant denominations should all, with one exception,
adhere to an unscriptural practice, at the present day especially.

_Mr. M._ Well, sir, leaving the scripturalness of the ordinance out of
question, what support does the practice get from church history? How
far back to the times of the apostles can we trace it? Did any practise
it who could have received it from the apostles, or have known those who
did?

_Dr. D._ You must come with me into my study, and we will examine the
authorities.

I will not burden your attention and memory with many citations. Two or
three indisputable witnesses are better than a host. I rely chiefly on
the testimony of ORIGEN for proof that the practice of infant baptism
was derived from the apostles, though I will show you that his testimony
is confirmed by other witnesses.

ORIGEN was born in Alexandria, Egypt, A.D. 185, that is, about
eighty-five years after the death of the apostle John. To make his
nearness to the apostles clear to your mind, consider, that Roger
Williams, for example, established himself at Providence in 1636, say
two hundred and twenty years ago; yet how perfectly informed we are of
his opinions and history. But Origen, born eighty-five years only after
the death of John, knew, of course, the established practices of the
apostles, which had come down through so short a space of time. "His
grandfather, if not his father, must have lived in the apostles' day. It
was not, therefore, necessary for him to go out of his own family, to
learn what was the practice of the apostles. He knew whether he had
himself been baptized, if we may judge from his writings, and he must
have known the views of his father and grandfather on the subject. He
had the reputation of great learning, had travelled extensively, had
lived in Greece, Rome, Cappadocia, and Arabia, though he spent the
principal part of his life in Syria and Palestine."

I would place implicit reliance on the testimony of such a man, under
such circumstances, to any question of history with which he professed
to be familiar, even if I differed from him in matters of opinion. But
such a man would not state, for veritable history, that which the world
knew to be false.

Now, what is Origen's testimony as to the fact, simply, of the
apostolic usage with regard to infant baptism?

In his commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Book v., he says:

"For this cause it was that the church received an order from the
apostles to give baptism even to infants."

In his homily on Lev. 12, he says:

"According to the usage of the church, baptism is given even to infants,
when, if there were nothing in infants that needed forgiveness and
mercy, the grace of baptism would seem to be superfluous."

In his homily on Luke 14, he says:

"Infants are baptized for the forgiveness of sins."

It was the practice, then, in Origen's day, to baptize infants. He tells
the people of his day, to whom he preaches and writes, why it was that
the church had received a command from the apostles to baptize them, not
proving to them the fact of history, but, taking that as well known,
explaining the theological reason for it, as he understood it.

It is now 1857. Eighty-five years ago, the length of time after the
apostles to the birth of this man, brings us back to 1772. There is good
Dr. Sales, who was born in 1770. Suppose that he should say that
steamboats came from England at the time that the Hudson river was
discovered, and that they had plied there ever since?

No man in his right mind (not to say a scholar like Origen), however
singular his opinions, would assert, for veritable history, that which
was as palpably false as such a fiction respecting steamboat navigation
upon the Hudson would be. Yet Origen asserts that the practice of infant
baptism was received directly from the apostles. Everybody could
contradict him if he were in error.

_Mr. M._ But we know that he was in error in saying that forgiveness of
sins was a consequence of baptism.

_Dr. D._ Very well. The erroneous opinions, or practices, of men, with
regard to the shape of the earth, did not prove that there was no earth
in their day. On the contrary, their theories and speculations are
proof, if any were needed, that the earth then existed, surely. A man
who boldly advocates a theory, fears to assert for fact that which all
the world knows to be false.

_Mr. M._ If infant baptism were then practised, and had been received
from the apostles, why should Origen assert it in his books, and in
preaching, since everybody must have known it sufficiently. Does not
this prove that it was not generally believed?

_Dr. D._ Why, my dear sir, am I not every Sabbath telling how that
Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures? People do not need
to be informed of it as a truth of history, but they need to be reminded
of it, and to be exhorted in view of it. So of every doctrine, and
everything connected with religion. We tell the plainest, the most
familiar, truths to our church-members, continually; and the common
repetition of those truths is, rather, a proof of their general
acceptation than otherwise.

_Mr. M._ In a court of justice, such testimony as that of Origen would
certainly be conclusive, in the case of a patent-right, or maritime
discovery. But you said that there were other testimonies of equal
weight.

_Dr. D._ TERTULLIAN was born at Carthage, not far from A.D. 150, that
is, about fifty years after the apostles. He wrote, therefore, within a
hundred years of the apostle John. But he was a man of peculiar views,
extravagant in his opinions, an enthusiast in everything. He proves that
the practice of infant baptism was established, by arguing against the
expediency of baptizing children, and unmarried persons, lest they
should sin after baptism. His argument, with respect to both these
classes of persons, is the same. His language is, "If any understand the
weight of baptismal obligations, they will be more fearful about taking
them than of delay." He argued that baptism should be deferred till
people were in a condition to resist temptation. These are his words:

"Therefore, according to every person's condition, and disposition, and
age, also, the delay of baptism is more profitable, especially as to
little children. For why is it necessary that the sponsors should incur
danger? For they may either fail of their promises by death, or may be
disappointed by a child's proving to be of a wicked disposition. Our
Lord says, indeed, 'Forbid them not to come to me.' Let them come, then,
when they are grown up; let them come when they understand; let them
come when they are taught whither they come; let them become Christians
when they are able to know Christ. Why should their innocent age make
haste to the forgiveness of sins? Men act more cautiously in temporal
concerns. Worldly substance is not committed to those to whom divine
things are entrusted. Let them know how to ask for salvation, that you
may seem to give to him that asketh.

"It is for a reason no less important that unmarried persons, both those
who were never married, and those who have been deprived of their
partners, should, on account of their exposure to temptation, be kept
waiting," &c.

As these extracts prove that the institution of marriage existed in
Tertullian's day, so they prove the existence then of infant baptism.
Nothing can be more conclusive. How pertinent and useful to his object
would it have been, could he have assailed the practice of infant
baptism as a human invention! He would not have failed to use that line
of attack, had it been possible. Now, as certain articles in the
newspapers, in a distant part of the country, remonstrating against the
street-railroads, for example, prove that street-railroads exist there,
so does Tertullian's argument against infant baptism prove that it was
practised within one hundred years after the apostles.

_Mr. M._ Is not this stronger, if anything, than Origen's testimony,
being so much nearer the apostolic age?

_Dr. D._ For that reason it may have more weight; but Origen's
testimony, being direct and positive, is most easily quoted. He was near
enough to the apostolic age for all the purposes of credible testimony.

There is another historical testimony, if you wish to hear of more,
which has great weight.

THE COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE, one hundred and fifty years after the apostles,
and composed of sixty-six pastors, has given us full testimony on the
subject. A country presbyter, by the name of Fidus, had sent two cases
for their adjudication. One was, "Whether an infant might be baptized
before it was eight days old?" Here is the answer:

CYPRIAN, and the rest of the presbyters who were present in the council,
sixty-six in number, to Fidus our brother, Greeting:

"---- As to the case of Infants: whereas you judge that they must not be
baptized within two or three days after they were born, and that the
rule of circumcision is to be observed,--we are all in the Council of a
very different opinion." "This, therefore, was our opinion in the
Council, that we ought not to hinder any person from baptism, and the
grace of God. And this rule, as it holds for all, is, we think, more
especially to be observed in reference to infants, even to those who are
newly born."

This was written, within a hundred and fifty years from the time of the
apostles, by sixty-six ministers of Christ, some of whom, we may
suppose, must have had grace enough to show a martyr-spirit in resisting
so gross an invention as the baptizing of infants would have been, if
apostolic example had restricted baptism to those who were capable of
faith. Did Paul reprove an abuse of the Lord's Supper, among the
Corinthians, and would he not have given an injunction against so Jewish
a superstition as the baptizing of children in place of the antiquated
circumcision would have been, if it were not commanded, had the churches
in his day seemed inclined to practise it?

_Mr. M._ All these things amount to a demonstration, in my view.

_Dr. D._ You would like to hear something from AUGUSTINE, whose
"Confessions" you have read with so much interest.

In his writings, on Genesis, Augustine says, about two hundred and
eighty-eight years after the apostles, "The custom of our mother, the
church, in baptizing infants, must not be disregarded nor accounted
useless, and it must by all means be believed to be (apostolica
traditio) a thing handed down to us by the apostles." "It is most justly
believed to be no other than a thing delivered by apostolic authority;
that it came not by a general council, or by any authority later or less
than that of the apostles." He also speaks of baptizing infants by the
authority of the whole church, which, he says, was undoubtedly delivered
to it by our Lord and his apostles.

Augustine was a man of distinguished piety and learning, whose testimony
is every way worthy of implicit confidence. But, connected with his
history, we have another substantial evidence with regard to the
subject. He conducted a famous controversy against the Pelagians, who
denied original sin. They were confronted with the argument from infant
baptism. "Why," it was said, "are infants baptized, if they need no
change of nature?" It would have been a triumphant answer could they
have shown that it was an unscriptural practice, not countenanced by
Christ or the apostles. But Pelagius said, "Men slander me as though I
denied baptism to infants, whereas I never heard of any one, Catholic or
heretic, who denied baptism to infants." Pelagius and his friend
Celestius, who was with him in the controversy, were born, the one in
Britain, the other in Ireland. They lived for some years in Rome, where
they knew people from all parts of the world. They had also lived in
Carthage, Africa. One finally settled in Jerusalem, and the other
travelled among all the churches in the principal places of Europe and
Asia. But they had never heard of the man, not even a heretic, who had
denied infant baptism.

Here is another interesting proof. Irenaeus, Philastrius, Augustine,
Epiphanius, Theodoret, wrote catalogues of all the sects of Christians
which they had ever heard of; but, while they make mention of some who
denied baptism altogether, and with it, according to Augustine, a great
part of scripture, they mention no denial of infant baptism by any sect
whatever.

_Mr. M._ I suppose, then, that the only way of disposing of this
argument is by rejecting all testimony except that of the New Testament.
Some say they can prove anything from the fathers; so they insist that
the Bible alone must be our guide.

_Dr. D._ They are right in making that the only and sufficient rule of
faith and practice. But how do these good people and the rest of us know
that the books of the Old Testament, as we have them, were the very
books to which Christ and the apostles referred as the word of God? If
infidels refuse to receive the Bible, saying, 'There is no proof that
these are the identical books known to Christ, and quoted by him and the
apostles,' What shall we say? The Bible itself gives us no specific
direction how to prove its genuineness. It is interesting to observe
that we go to uninspired men to prove that we really have the Bible as
Christ and the apostles sanctioned it. We go to Josephus, neither
inspired nor even a Christian; to the Talmud, to Jerome, Origen, Aquila,
and other uninspired men, to find a list of the books which we are to
receive as given by the inspiration of God. And, as to the New
Testament, we go to Eusebius and other uninspired writers, and find that
the Christians of their days regarded these books as of divine
authority. It is on such evidence as this that we rely for the authority
of those sacred writings, which tell us what are the doctrines,
precepts, and rites, of religion. Now, we see from this that uninspired
testimony to divine things has its use. It is neither wise, nor any
proof of intelligence, to refuse a proper place to such testimony. We do
not ask Josephus nor Eusebius how to interpret these books for us, nor
does their erroneous opinion with regard to matters of faith disparage
their testimony as to the existence and authenticity of the sacred
canon. Neither can we properly say, "The early Christian fathers had
wrong notions, some of them, about infant baptism; therefore they cannot
be allowed to testify whether infant baptism was practised." However
heretical they may have been, they could not alter the well-known facts
of history, in the face of enemies and friends.

_Mr. M._ Are you not accustomed to rely much, in your scriptural
argument for infant baptism, on the baptisms of households by the
apostles?

_Dr. D._ I am; and that reminds me of an interesting passage, which I
will read to you from this book:[4]

[Footnote 4: Taylor on Baptism.]

"Have we eight instances of the administration of the Lord's Supper? Not
half the number. Have we eight cases of the change of the Christian
Sabbath from the Jewish? Not, perhaps, one fourth of the number. Yet
those services are vindicated by the practice of the apostles, as
recorded in the New Testament. How, then, can we deny their practice on
the subject of infant baptism, when it is established by a series of
more numerous instances than can possibly be found in support of any
doctrine, principle, or practice, derived from the practice of the
apostles?"

But you will ask him (said Dr. D.), how he proves that there were
infants or young children in the households baptized by the apostles.

This is his answer:

"Is there any other case besides that of baptism, where we would take
families at hazard, and deny the existence of young children in them?

"Take eight families in a street, or eight pews containing families in
a place of worship; they will afford more than one young child."

_Mr. M._ How does he make out eight cases of household baptism by the
apostles?

_Dr. D._ Let us examine his list:

1. Cornelius.

2. Lydia.

3. The jailer at Philippi. "Thus the church at Philippi, just organized
by the apostles, and consisting of but few members, offers two instances
of household baptism."

4. Crispus. "Compare Acts 18: 8, and 1 Cor. 1:14--16, by which it
appears that this Crispus was baptized by Paul separately from his
family, which was not baptized by Paul. Yet Crispus 'believed on the
Lord with all his house.' If his house believed, it was baptized. It
was, then, a baptized household. But if we believe that the family of
Crispus was baptized because we find it registered as believing, then we
must admit the same of all other families which we find marked as
Christians, though they be not expressly marked as baptized." He is not
proving, here, you notice, that there were children in any of these
households; he thinks he proves that elsewhere, by the doctrine of
chances. He is now showing the grounds for supposing that certain
"households" were baptized. He applies his argument respecting Crispus
to

5. Aristobulus's household.

6. Onesiphorus's household.

7. Narcissus's household.

8. Stephanas's household. This household was baptized by Paul separately
from its head, who was not baptized by Paul; this case being just the
reverse of that of Crispus.

"Eight Christian families, and therefore baptized." Now comes the
question of probability as to there being children in those households
not capable of faith.

Begin anywhere, in any congregation, on the Sabbath, and count eight
pews, the proprietors and occupants of which are the heads of families;
and the chance of there being no minor children in them is almost too
small to be appreciated. Should we read, in a secular paper, that a
foreign missionary had baptized eight households in a pagan village, the
general belief would be that it was a missionary of some Paedobaptist
denomination, and that children were baptized in those families.

I must read to you (said Dr. D.) something on the other side of this
argument. I found the following, not long since, in a deservedly popular
and useful Dictionary and Repository, written and signed by a gentleman
of excellent character and standing. He says:

"Infant baptism was probably introduced about the commencement of the
third century, in connection with other corruptions, which even then
began to prepare the way for Popery. A superstitious idea, respecting
the necessity of baptism to salvation, led to the baptism of sick
persons, and, finally, to the baptism of infants. Sponsors, holy water,
anointing with oil, the sign of the cross, and a multitude of similar
ceremonies, equally unauthorized by the Scriptures, were soon
introduced. The church lost her simplicity and purity, her ministers
became ambitious, and the darkness gradually deepened to the long and
dismal night of papal despotism."

"Probably introduced about the commencement of the third century, in
connection with other corruptions." Recall what I read to you from
Origen, born A.D. 185; from Tertullian, who flourished within one
hundred years after the apostles; from Cyprian and the Council of
Carthage; from Augustine and his antagonist, Pelagius, who expressly
said that he had never heard of any one, not even the most impious
heretic, denying baptism to infants.

In contrast with such a passage as the one just read to you, I am
reminded of the host of writers, on our side of the question, who,
almost all of them, make such candid and full concessions, that they
furnish their brethren of the opposite side with many of their arguments
against us. I remember reading a book of "Paedobaptist Concessions,"
containing a formidable array of points yielded by our writers, so that
a common reader might ask, What have you left as the ground of your
belief and practice? But the thought which arose in my mind was,
Notwithstanding all these concessions, they who make them are among the
firmest believers in baptism by sprinkling, and in infant baptism. That
cause must be affluent in proofs, and deeply rooted in the scriptural
convictions of men, which can afford to make such concessions to its
antagonists. These refuse facts, which we afford to others for so large
a part of their foundation, show how broad and sufficient ours must be.

The quotation which I read to you, speaks of Popish tendencies as having
already begun. This is true; and more may be added. In the second
epistle to the Thessalonians, Paul tells us that the mystery of iniquity
was already at work. On the subject of religious days and festivals, the
first Christians very soon began to be superstitious, incorporating
heathen festival days into Christian observances, under the plea of
redeeming and sanctifying them, with some such feelings and reasoning as
that with which people, now, would transfer secular music to
sanctuaries, saying that the enemy ought not to have all the best music.
It is true that this sensuous, and, afterward called, Romish, tendency,
corrupted everything. The pure stream of apostolic doctrine and practice
was like the Moselle, which you saw from the fortress of
Ehrenbreitstein, pursuing its unmingled course distinctly for some
distance in the turbid Rhine, till at last it yields to the general
current. Infant baptism, as we learn from ecclesiastical authorities
with one consent, proceeded from the apostles; yet soon it began to be
practised with many superstitious absurdities; and, moreover,
immersion, making such powerful appeals to the senses, suited the taste
of the age far better than sprinkling, so that not only did it become
the common mode, but the subjects were completely undressed, without any
distinction, to denote the putting off the old man and the putting on of
the new, and the putting away of the filth of the flesh.[5] Public
sentiment finally abolished this practice. After a considerable time
affusion, or sprinkling, returned, and became the prevailing mode,
without any special enactment, or any formal renunciation of the late
mode. The Eastern church, however, retained immersion, while the Greek
and Armenian branches use both immersion and sprinkling for the adult
and child. But the sick and dying were always baptized by sprinkling,
which is sufficient to prove that sprinkling was regarded as equally
valid with immersion. It is natural to say that it was superstitious to
baptize the sick and dying, by sprinkling, if we hold that only
immersion is valid baptism. The sick and dying cannot be immersed; now,
is it superstition for a sick person, giving credible evidence of piety,
to be admitted into the Christian church, and receive the Lord's Supper?
In order to do this properly, the subject must be baptized; hence, we
derive one powerful argument that sprinkling is valid baptism. Our Lord
would never have made the modes of his sacraments so austerely rigid,
that the thousands of sick and feeble persons, ministers in poor health,
climate, seasons of the year, times of persecution and imprisonment, and
all the stress of circumstances to which Christians may be subjected,
should be utterly disregarded, and one inconvenient, and sometimes
dangerous, form, of applying water, be insisted on, inflexibly, as
essential to the introductory Christian rite. If the early Christians
baptized the sick by sprinkling, they of course supposed that it was
valid baptism. If it was valid at all, and in any case, of course it was
Christian baptism, even if other modes were most commonly used.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13