Some Observations on the Nature and Importance of Baptism.
SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE NATURE AND
IMPORTANCE OF BAPTISM.
ON the subject of baptism, several observations have been made in the course of the preceding notes; and its great importance to the Christian religion carefully noted. Dr. Lightfoot has spoken well on the subject; and I have reserved his observations for this place, and earnestly recommend them to the notice of every unprejudiced reader. On the mode of administering baptism, there need be no dispute among Christians: both dipping and sprinkling are legitimate forms; and either may he used, as the consciences or religious prejudices of the parties may direct; but the thing itself, and its great reference, are of the utmost importance. Baptism is a standing proof of the Divine authenticity of the Christian religion, and, as Dr. Lightfoot well argues, a seal of the truth of the doctrine of justification by faith, through the blood of the covenant.
“It is no unfit or unprofitable question,” he observes, “whence it came to pass, that there was so great a conflux of men to John the Baptist, and so ready a reception of his baptism.
“I. The reason is, because the manifestation of the Messias was then expected, the weeks of Daniel being now spent to the last four years; and therefore the people were stirred up to prepare for his appearing. “II. Another reason of it was this. The institution of baptism, for an evangelical sacrament, was first in the hand of the Baptist; who, the word of the Lord coming to him, (Luke 3:11,) went forth, backed with the same authority as the chiefest prophets had in time past. But yet the first use of baptism was not exhibited at that time. For baptism, very many centuries back, had been both known and received in most frequent use among the Jews; and for the very same end as it now obtains among Christians, namely, that by it proselytes might be admitted into the Church: and hence it was called twrn tlykc baptism, for proselytism; and was distinct from trn tlykc baptism or washing from uncleanness. See the Babylonian Talmud in Jevamoth.
“All the Jews assert, as it were with one mouth, that all the nation of Israel were brought into the covenant, among other things, by baptism. Israel (saith Maimonides, the great interpreter of the Jewish law) was admitted into the covenant by three things, namely, by circumcision, baptism, and sacrifice. Circumcision was in Egypt, as it is said, None uncircumcised shall eat of the passover. Baptism was in the wilderness, before the giving of the law, as it is said, Thou shalt sanctify them to - day and to - morrow, and let them wash their garments.
“III. They assert that an infinite number of proselytes, in the days of David and Solomon, were admitted by baptism. The Sanhedrin received not proselytes in the days of David and Solomon: not in the days of David, lest they should betake themselves to proselytism out of a FEAR of the kingdom of Israel; not in the days of Solomon, lest they might do the same by reason of the GLORY of the kingdom. And yet abundance of proselytes were made in the days of David and Solomon before private men; and the great Sanhedrin was full of care about this business; for they would not cast them out of the Church, because they were baptized. MAIMONIDES, Issure Biah, c. 13.
“IV. Whensoever any heathen will betake himself and be joined to the covenant of Israel, and place himself under the wings of the Divine Majesty, and take the yoke of the law upon him, voluntary circumcision, baptism, and oblation are required; but if it be a woman, baptism and oblation. Ibid. That was a common axiom, lwkcyw lwmyc r[ rn ˆya No man is a proselyte until he be circumcised and baptized. JEVAMOTH, fol. 46.
“You see baptism inseparably joined to the circumcision of proselytes. There was indeed some little distance of time, for they were not baptized till the pain of circumcision was healed, because water might be injurious to the wound: but certainly baptism ever followed. We acknowledge, indeed, that circumcision was plainly of Divine institution; but by whom baptism, which was inseparable from it, was instituted, is doubtful. And yet, it is worthy of observation, our Saviour rejected circumcision, and retained the appendix, baptism; and when all the Gentiles were now to be introduced into the true religion, he preferred this proselytical introductory (pardon the expression) unto the sacrament of entrance into the Gospel. One might observe the same almost in the eucharist. The lamb in the passover was of Divine institution, and so indeed was the bread: but whence was the wine? But yet, rejecting the lamb, Christ instituted the sacrament in the bread and wine. Secondly, Observing from these things which have been spoken, how very known and frequent the use of baptism was among the Jews, the reason appears very easy, why the Sanhedrin, by their messengers, inquired not of John concerning the reason of baptism, but concerning the authority of the baptizer; not what baptism meant, but whence he had a license so to baptize: John 1:25. Thirdly, Whence also the reason appears, why the New Testament does not prescribe, by some more accurate rule, who the persons are to be baptized. “It appears clear enough, by what has been already said, in what sense this is to be taken in the New Testament, which we sometimes meet with, namely, that the master of the family was baptized with his whole family, Acts 16:15, 33, &c. Nor is it of any strength what some contend for; ‘that it cannot be proved there were infants in those families;’ for the inquiry is not so proper, whether there were infants in those families, as it concluded truly and deservedly that, if there were, they had all been to be baptized. Nor do I believe this people that flocked to John’s baptism were so forgetful of the manner and custom of the nation that they brought not their little children also with them to be baptized.
“I. If you compare the washing of polluted persons prescribed by the law, with the baptism of proselytes, both that and this implies uncleanness, however something different; that implies legal uncleanness, this heathen, but both polluting. But a proselyte was baptized not only into the washing away of that Gentile pollution, nor only thereby to be transplanted into the religion of the Jews; but that, by the most accurate rite of translation that could possibly be, he might so pass into an Israelite that, being married to an Israelite woman, he might produce a free and legitimate seed, and an undefiled offspring. Hence servants that were taken into a family were baptized, and servants also that were to be made free: not so much because they were defiled with heathen uncleanness, as that by that rite larcyk rkr lkl becoming Israelites in all respects, they might be more fit to match with Israelites, and their children be accounted as Israelites. And hence the sons of proselytes, in following generations, were circumcised indeed, but not baptized. They were circumcised, that they might take upon themselves the obligations of the law, but they needed not baptism, because they were already Israelites.
“II. The baptism of proselytes was the bringing over of Gentiles into the Jewish religion; the baptism of John was the bringing over of Jews into another religion: and hence it is the more to be wondered at that the people so readily flocked to him, when he introduced a baptism so different from the known proselytical baptism. The reason of which is to be fetched from hence, that at the coming of the Messias, they thought, not without cause, that the state of things was plainly to be changed; and that from the oracles of the prophets, who with one mouth described the times of the Messias for a new world.
“III. The baptism of proselytes was an obligation to perform the law; that of John was an obligation to repentance: for although proselytical baptism admitted of some ends, and circumcision of others, yet a traditional and erroneous doctrine at that time had joined this to both, that the proselyte covenanted in both, and obliged himself to perform the law; to which that of the apostle relates, Galatians 5:3, I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. But the baptism of John was a baptism of repentance, Mark 1:4, which being undertaken, they who were baptized professed to renounce their own legal righteousness, and, on the contrary, acknowledged themselves to be obliged to repentance and faith in the Messias to come.
“IV. That the baptism of John was by plunging the body, (after the same manner as the washing unclean persons and the baptism of proselytes was,) seems to appear from those things which are related of him; namely, that he baptized in Jordan, that he baptized in Enon, because there was much water there; and that Christ being baptized came up out of the water: to which that seems to be parallel, Acts 8:38, Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, &c. Some complain that this rite is not retained in the Christian Church, as though it something derogated from the truth of baptism, or as though it were to be called an innovation, when the sprinkling of water is used instead of plunging.
“1. That the notion of washing in John’s baptism differs from ours, in that he baptized none who were not brought over from one religion, and that an irreligious one too, into another, and that a true one. But there is no place for this among us, who are born Christians; the condition therefore being varied, the rite is not only lawfully but deservedly varied also. Our baptism argues defilement indeed, and uncleanness; and demonstrates this doctrinally, that we being polluted, have need of washing; but this is to be understood of our natural and sinful stain, to be washed away by the blood of Christ and the grace of God: with which stain indeed they were defiled who were baptized by John. But to denote this washing by a sacramental sign, the sprinkling of water is as sufficient as the dipping into water, when in truth this argues washing and purification, as well as that. “2. Since dipping was a rite used only in the Jewish nation, and proper to it, it were something hard if all nations should be subjected under it; but especially when it is neither necessary to be esteemed of the essence of baptism, and is moreover so harsh and dangerous that, in regard of these things, it scarcely gave place to circumcision. We read that some, leavened with Judaism to the highest degree, yet wished that dipping in purification might he taken away; because it was accompanied with so much severity. In the days of R. Joshua ben Levi, some endeavoured to abolish this dipping, for the sake of the women of Galilee; because, by reason of the cold, they became barren. Surely it is hard to lay this yoke upon all nations which seemed too rough for the Jews themselves, and not to be borne by them, men too much given to such kind of severer rites. And if it be demanded of them who went about to take away that dipping, Would you have no purification at all by water? It is probable that they would have allowed of the sprinkling of water, which is less harsh, and not less agreeable to the thing itself.
“3. The following ages, with good reason, and by Divine precept, administered a baptism differing in a greater matter from the baptism of John; and therefore it was less to differ in a less matter. The application of water was necessarily of the essence of baptism; but the application of it in this or that manner speaks but a circumstance: the adding also of the word was of the nature of a sacrament; but the changing of the word into this or that form, would you not call this a circumstance also? And yet we read the form of baptism so changed that you may observe it to be threefold in the history of the New Testament.
“Farther, in reference to the form of John’s baptism, which thing we have proposed to consider in the second place, it is not at all to be doubted that he baptized in the name of the Messias now ready to come; that they might be the readier to receive the Messias, when he should manifest himself. The apostles, baptizing the Jews, baptized them in the name of Jesus, (because Jesus of Nazareth had now been revealed for the Messias,) and that they did, when it had been before commanded them by Christ, Baptize all nations, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. So you must understand that which is spoken, John 3:23; John 4:2, concerning the disciples of Christ baptizing; namely, that they baptized in the name of Jesus, that thence it might be known that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messias, in the name of whom, suddenly to come, John had baptized. That of St. Peter is plain, Acts 2:38, Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ: and that, Acts 8:16, They were baptized in the name of Jesus.
“But the apostles baptized the Gentiles according to the precept of our Lord, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Matthew 28:19. For since it was very much controverted among the Jews about the true Messias, it was not without cause, yea, nor without necessity, that they baptized in the name of Jesus, that by that seal might be confirmed this most principal truth in the Gospel, and that those that were baptized might profess it - that Jesus of Nazareth was the true Messias. But among the Gentiles the controversy was not concerning the true Messias, but concerning the true God. Among them, therefore, it was needful that baptism should be conferred in the name of the true God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
“We suppose therefore, that men, women, and children came to John’s baptism, according to the manner of the nation in the reception of proselytes; namely, that they standing in Jordan were taught by John that they were baptized into the name of the Messias, who was now immediately to come, and into the profession of the doctrine of the Gospel concerning faith and repentance; that THEY plunged themselves into the river, and so came out. And that which is said of them, that they were baptized by him, confessing their sins, is to be understood according to the tenor of the Baptist’s preaching; not that they did this man by man, or by some particular confession made to John, or by openly declaring some particular sins; but, when the doctrine of John exhorted them to repentance and faith in the Messias, they renounced and disowned the doctrine and opinion of justification by their own works, wherewith they had been beforetime leavened, and acknowledged and confessed themselves sinners.”
It is worthy of remark, that neither priest nor Levite dipped the persons who were baptized: the persons stood in the water; three persons ordinarily stood to instruct them and witness the fact; when the instruction was ended, the person himself who was to be baptized put himself under the water, and then came out. In the case of a woman, the disciples of the wise men turned their backs while she plunged herself and came out of the water; for I suppose the whole Jewish practice will not afford a single instance, where a priest or any other man put the woman under the water when she was baptized. From this we learn, that the act of baptism was performed by the person himself; but the instruction relative to its end, obligation, &c., came from another.
“They baptized also, YOUNG CHILDREN, (for the most part with their parents.) They baptize a little proselyte according to the judgment of the sanhedrin; that is, as the gloss renders it, If he be deprived of his father, and his mother brings him to be made a proselyte, they baptize him (because none becomes a proselyte without circumcision and baptism) according to the judgment, or rite, of the sanhedrin: that is, that three men be present at the baptism, who are now instead of a father to him. And the Gemara, a little after, says, If with a proselyte, his sons and his daughters are made proselytes also, that which is done by their father redounds to their good.
“R. Joseph saith, When they grow into years, they may retract: where the gloss writes thus, This is to be understood of LITTLE CHILDREN, who are made proselytes together with their father. BAB. CHERUB. fol. 11. “A heathen woman, if she is made a proselytess when she is now big with child, the child needs not baptism; for the baptism of his mother serves him for baptism. Otherwise he were to be baptized. JEVAM. fol. 78. “If an Israelite take a Gentile CHILD, or find a Gentile INFANT, and baptize him in the name of a proselyte, behold he is a proselyte. MAIM. in Avadim, c. 8.
“We cannot pass over that which is indeed worthy to be remembered. Any one’s servant is to be circumcised, though he be unwilling; but any one’s son is not to be circumcised, if he be unwilling. R. Hezekiah saith, Behold a man finds an infant cast out, and he baptizeth him in the name of a servant: in the name of a freeman, do you also circumcise him in the name of a freeman. HIEROS. JEVAM. fol. 8.
“Our Lord says to his disciples, Matthew 28:19, Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them, &c. maqhteusate - that is, Make disciples: - bring them in by baptism, that they may be taught. They are very much out who, from these words, cry down infant baptism; and assert that it is necessary for those that are to be baptized to be taught before they are baptized. 1. Observe the words here: maqhteusate, make disciples; and then after, didaskontev, teaching, in Matthew 28:20.
2. Among the Jews, and also with us, and in all nations, those are made disciples that they may be taught. A certain heathen came to the great Hillel and said, Make me a proselyte that thou mayest teach me: BAB. Shab. fol. 34. He was first to be proselyted, and then taught. Thus, first make them disciples (maqhteusate) by baptism; and then, Teach them to observe all things, &c. didaskete autouv threin panta. k. t. l. “baptizontev, baptizing. - There are various ends of baptism:
1. According to the nature of a sacrament, it visibly teaches invisible things; that is, the washing us from all our pollutions by the blood of Christ, and by the cleansing of grace: Ezekiel 36:25.
2. According to the nature of a sacrament, it is a seal of Divine truth. So circumcision is called, Romans 4:11, And he received the sign of circumcision, the SEAL of the righteousness of faith, &c. So the Jews, when they circumcised their children, gave this very title to circumcision. The words used when a child was circumcised, you have in their Talmud. Among other things, he who is to bless the action, says thus: ‘Blessed be he who sanctified him that was beloved from the womb, and set a sign in his flesh, and sealed his children with the sign of the holy covenant, &c. Hieros. Berac. fol. 13. But in what sense are sacraments to be called seals? Not that they seal (or confirm) to the receiver his righteousness; but that they seal the Divine truth of the covenant and promise. Thus the apostle calls circumcision, the seal of the righteousness of faith: that is, it is the seal of this truth and doctrine, that justification is by faith, which justice Abraham had when he was yet uncircumcised. And this is the way whereby sacraments confirm faith; namely, because they doctrinally exhibit the invisible things of the covenant; and like seals, so, by Divine appointment, sign the doctrine and truth of the covenant.
3. According to the nature of a sacrament, it obliges the receivers to the terms of the covenant; for as the covenant itself is of mutual obligation between God and man, so the sacraments, the seals of the covenant, are of like obligation. 4. According to its nature, it is introductory to the visible Church. 5. It is a distinguishing sign between a Christian and no Christian, namely, between those who acknowledge and profess Christ, and Jews, Turks, and Pagans, who do not acknowledge him. maqhteusate panta ta eqnh baptizontev - Disciple all nations, baptizing, &c. When they are under baptism, they are no longer under heathenism; and this sacrament puts a difference between these who are under the discipleship of Christ, and those who are not. And 6. Baptism also brings its privileges along with it; while it opens the way to a partaking of holy things in the Church, and places the baptized within the Church, over which God exercises a more singular providence than over those who are out of the Church.
“And now, from what has been said, let us argue a little farther in behalf of infant baptism.
To the objection, It is not commanded to baptize infants, therefore they are not to be baptized: - I answer, It is not forbidden to baptize infants, therefore they are to be baptized. And the reason is plain: for when paedo - baptism in the Jewish Church was so known, usual, and frequent in the admission of proselytes, that nothing almost was more known, usual, and frequent; there was no need to strengthen it with any precept, when baptism was now passed into an evangelical sacrament. For Christ took baptism into his hands, and into evangelical use, as he found it; this only added, that he might promote it to a worthier end and a larger use. The whole nation knew well enough that little children used to be baptized; there was no need of a precept for that, which had ever by common use prevailed. If a royal proclamation should now issue forth in these words, Let every one resort on the Lord’s day to the public assembly in the church; certainly he would be mad, who in times to come should argue hence, that prayers, sermons, and singing of psalms, were not to be celebrated on the Lord’s day in the public assemblies, because there is no mention of them in the proclamation. For the proclamation provided for the celebration of the Lord’s day in the public assemblies in general; but there was no need to make mention of the particular kinds of the Divine worship to be celebrated there, when they were always and every where well known, and in daily use, before the publishing of the proclamation, and when it was published. The case is the very same in baptism. On the other hand, therefore, there was need of a plain and open prohibition that infants and little children should not be baptized, if our Lord would not have had them baptized. For since it was must common, in all preceding ages, that little children should be baptized, if Christ had been minded to have that custom abolished, he would have openly forbidden it. Therefore his silence, and the silence of the Scripture in this matter, confirms paedo - baptism, and continues it to all ages.
“I. BAPTISM, as a sacrament, is a seal of the covenant. And why, I pray, may not this seal be set on infants? The seal of Divine truth has sometimes been set upon inanimate things, and that by God’s appointment. The bow in the cloud is a seal of the covenant. The law engraven on the altar, Joshua 8, was a seal of the covenant. The blood sprinkled on the twelve pillars, which were set up to represent the twelve tribes, was a seal and bond of the covenant, Exodus 24. And now tell me, Why are not infants capable in like manner of such a sealing? They were capable heretofore of circumcision, and our infants have an equal capacity. The sacrament does not lose this its end, through the indisposition of the receiver: Peter and Paul, apostles, were baptized. Their baptism, according to its nature, sealed to them the truth of God in his promises, concerning the washing away of sins, &c., and they from this doctrinal virtue of the sacrament received confirmation of their faith. So also Judas and Simon Magus, hypocrites, wicked men, were baptized. Did not their baptism, according to the nature of it, seal this doctrine and truth, that there was a washing away of sin? It did not indeed seal the thing itself to them, nor was it at all a sign to them of the washing away of their sins: but baptism does of itself seal this doctrine. You will grant that this axiom is most true: Abraham received the sign of circumcision, the seal of the righteousness of faith. And is not this equally true, Esau, Ahab, Ahaz, received the sign of circumcision, the seal of the righteousness of faith? Is not circumcision the same to all? Did not circumcision, to whomsoever it was administered, sign and seal this truth, that there was a righteousness of faith? The sacrament has a sealing virtue in itself, which does not depend on the disposition of the receiver.
“II. BAPTISM, as a sacrament, is an obligation. But now infants are capable of being obliged. Heirs are sometimes obliged by their parents, though they are not yet born: see Deuteronomy 29:11, 15. For that to which any one is obliged obtains a right to oblige, ex aquitate rei, from the equity of the thing, and not ex captu obligati, from the apprehension of the person obliged. The law is imposed upon all, under this penalty, ‘Cursed be every one that doth not continue in all,’ &c. It is ill arguing from hence, that a man has power to perform the law; but the equity of the thing itself is very well argued hence. Our duty obliges us to do every thing which the law commands, but we cannot [without Divine help] perform the least tittle of it.
“III. An infant is capable of privileges, as well as an old man (and baptism is privilegial.) An infant has been crowned king in his cradle - an infant may be made free, who is born a slave. The Gemarists speak very well in this matter. Rab. Honna says, They baptize an infant proselyte by the command of the bench. Upon what is this grounded? On this, that baptism becomes a privilege to him. And they may endow an absent person with a privilege: or they may bestow a privilege upon one, though he be ignorant of it. - Bab. Chetub. fol. 11. Tell me, then, why an infant is not capable of being brought into the visible Church, and receiving the distinguishing sign between a Christian and a heathen, as well as a grown person?” See Lightfoot’s Horae Hebraicae, in Matthew 3, and 28.
The following observations on the subject are from a highly intelligent and learned friend.
“I presume the substance of the argument respecting infant baptism, pro and con, is fairly epitomized by Doddridge in his Lectures, cliii., 4., 5. Doubtless, much can be said for it on the principles he has laid down; and he has of course given all which had been adduced on the subject. Yet, after all, he himself seems scarcely satisfied. His corollary is remarkable: - ‘Since there is so great an obscurity on the question, and so many considerable things may be advanced on both sides, it is certainly very reasonable that Christians, whose persuasions relating to infant baptism are different, should maintain mutual candour towards each other, and avoid all severe and unkind censures on account of such difference.’ “This was, at all events, good advice; and worthy of the amiable man who gave it. But it would be most desirable that this long - agitated question could be brought to a more certain issue. Constituted as man is, dissonance of mind will ever more or less obstruct coalescence of affection. To investigate truth, therefore, even in its most speculative forms, provided it be done soberly and dispassionately, is at least to subserve the cause of charity.
“In addition to the arguments which Doddridge has enumerated on the side of infant baptism, I would put this question: - If infant baptism had not been in use in those Churches over which Timothy and Titus presided, must there not have existed, by the time at which the epistles to those two pastors were written, a considerable class of persons, neither wholly out of nor yet properly in the Church - a class whose very peculiar and very important circumstances and characters would have demanded distinct recognition? They would have been eminently the spes gregis, and, by necessary consequence, would have needed to be watched over with special superintendence.
When, therefore, amid the recognitions of old men, old women, young women, young men, children, parents, servants, masters, the rich, the friendly, the unfriendly, the heretical, there is not the most shadowy intimation of such a class as deferred baptism necessarily supposes, (that is, of young aspirants, already bound to the Church in affection, and entitled to more tender care than even the actually initiated,) what stronger evidence could we have, that no such class existed? If it had existed, self - evidently it must have been adverted to; it is not adverted to; therefore it did not exist.
“But this is not all. They who must have composed this class, had it existed, are expressly and repeatedly mentioned. But where? In the actual survey of the Church. As the vigilant eye of the apostle of the Gentiles passes along the line of the faithful, both at Ephesus and Colosse, he finds and addresses the infant members of the body. There is no shade of difference indicated. They come in, as complete compeers, with the classes which precede and follow. Included thus in the Church, without the slightest note of distinction, what can be more evident than that they made a part of the Church in the mind of the includer?
“Once more. Let the address of St. Paul to the Ephesian children be especially noted. Children, says he, obey your parents, en Kuriw. How could they obey en Kuriw, if they themselves were not en Kuriw? In every instance, this expression marks incorporation into the Christian body. For example, when St. Paul distinguishes those of the family of Narcissus, who were Christians, his language is touv ontav EN KURIW. In like manner, Onesimus, the reconciled servant of Philemon, was, in consequence of his conversion, to be doubly dear to his master en sarki kai en KuriwÇ en sarki, from having been formerly domesticated with Philemon; en kuriw, as being now his fellow Christian. The equivalent expression, EN CRISTW, occurs in the same sense, in St. Paul’s salutation of Andronicus and Ireneus, (Romans 16:7,) oi kai pro emou gegonasin EN CRISTW, who also were IN CHRIST before me.
“Respecting the age of the persons designated (Ephesians 6:1, &c.) by the term ta tekna, there can be no question; as a subsequent verse distinctly states them to be such children as were subjects of discipline and mental institution - paideia kai nouqesia. But it must not escape attention, how exactly the sequel of the apostle’s address accords with the commencement; the injunction being given as to those in express covenant. ‘Honour thy father and thy mother - for this is the first commandment with promise.’ Had those addressed been out of the Christian pale, this language would have been inapplicable. In that case they would have been aphllotriwmenoi thv politeiav tou israhl therefore not within the range of the Divine commandment; and xenoi twn diaqhkwn thv epaggeliav - consequently not warranted to assume an interest in the promise. As, then, even the pressing of the sacred injunction supposes the persons on whom it is urged to be sumpolitai twn agiwn, fellow citizens with the saints, their acknowledged interest in the promise proves them oikeioi tou qeou, of the household of God. Ephesians 2:12,
19. I cannot therefore but conclude that this single passage, if even it stood alone, ought to set the tedious and troublesome controversy, respecting infant baptism, for ever at rest.
“There is another point relative to this long - agitated question, which also I think the Scripture has anticipated and settled - I mean, IMMERSION. Some think baptism by SPRINKLING a contradiction. St. Paul, however, 1 Corinthians 10:1, 2, did not think so. After telling us, that oi paterev-pantev upo thn nefelhn hsan, kai pantev dia thv qalasshv dihlqon, all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; he adds, with equal reference to the former as to the latter, kai pantev eiv ton mwshn ebaptisanto en th nefelh kai en th qalassh, and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea. The question then is, How were they baptized in the cloud? Not, surely, by immersion, for they were ‘UPO thn nefelhn, UNDER the cloud. It could therefore be only by aspersion; this, and this alone, being the natural action of a cloud. All clouds are condensations of vapour, and that the mysterious cloud here referred to had the natural properties of a common cloud, appears from the specified purpose to which it was applied: ‘He spread a cloud for a covering,’ - ab aestu sive ardore solis, says Pool. St. Paul therefore clearly spoke of ‘being baptized in the cloud,’ with a direct eye to the moisture which it contained. In this view, the thought is strictly just: in any other view it would be unintelligible. It follows, then, that, St. Paul being the judge, to be sprinkled is to be baptized, no less than to be immersed is to be baptized.
“Why should we doubt that this was said by St. Paul, for the express purpose of providing means for terminating, in its proper time, a vexatious dispute? I am persuaded that, when the apostle was taken to the third heaven, he saw, from that elevation, the whole series of the Church’s progress, from his own time until the glorious anakefalaiwsiv, of which he himself speaks, (Ephesians 1:10,) and that, unless we take this extension of view into the account, we cannot fully, perhaps not at all, fathom the depth of his writings.”
ALEXANDER KNOX.
Dublin, Nov., 1812.
It is easy to carry things to extremes on the right hand and on the left. In the controversy, to which there is a very gentle reference in the preceding observations, there has been much asperity on all sides. It is high time this were ended. To say that water baptism is nothing, because a baptism of the Spirit is promised, is not correct. Baptism, howsoever administered, is a most important rite in the Church of Christ. To say that sprinkling or aspersion is no Gospel baptism, is as incorrect as to say immersion is none. Such assertions are as unchristian as they are uncharitable, and should be carefully avoided by all those who wish to promote the great design of the Gospel - glory to God, and peace and good will among men. Lastly, to assert that infant baptism is unscriptural, is as rash and reprehensible as any of the rest. Myriads of conscientious people choose to dedicate their infants to God, by public baptism. They are in the RIGHT! - and, by acting thus, follow the general practice both of the Jewish and Christian Church - a practice from which it is as needless as it is dangerous to depart.
LONDON, Nov. 22, 1812.