he interest which so learned and excellent a Presbyterian as Uncle Jones had exhibited in the study of Baptism, together with affection for her lovely daughter, had so far removed Mrs. Ernest’s objections to this investigation, that she had resolved herself to be present, and take some quiet part in the conversation, upon the introduction of sprinkling. Uncle Jones she knew was a sincere and pious man. He was also a man of good sense, sound judgment, and of very extensive information. And (more than all to her) he was a Ruling Elder in the Presbyterian Church. If, therefore, Uncle Jones had ventured to doubt about his baptism, she began to think her daughter could not have committed any very deadly sin in doubting about hers. And, as Uncle Jones had spoken very highly of the logical acumen and historical information of Mr. Courtney, she could not see why she should not treat him with such courtesy as was due to an intelligent gentleman, even though he was a poor Baptist schoolmaster. As for his prejudices, which had led him to speak so disrespectfully of the Doctors of Divinity and eminent ministers of “our church”—he had probably received them in his childhood, for she had no doubt he had been reared among the ignorant and bigoted Baptists, who never knew any better, and from whom nothing better could be expected.
When Mr. Courtney came in, therefore, she was the first to welcome him, and express her pleasure that he [160]had come so early. She exerted herself to entertain him till Theodosia came in, and then went to prepare a nice dish which had just come into her mind for supper. It was not long till the Professor came also; but not a word was said about the object of their meeting till after the table was removed—when Mr. Courtney introduced it by saying:
“If I did not misunderstand you, Professor Jones, you expressed some doubt last evening whether immersion was not first introduced as baptism by the Mad Men of Munster during the Reformation of Luther; and whether the Baptists of the United States did not receive baptism from Roger Williams, who was himself not properly baptized, and therefore could not legally baptize others.”
“This is my impression, sir. I do not know exactly how I received it—perhaps I got something of it from reading D’Aubigne’s History of the Reformation— perhaps I received it by hearing something of the kind from the pulpit. I am certain that I have seen or heard it somewhere, and that I thought at the time I had good authority for believing it—otherwise, I should not have given it a place in my memory.”
“I have,” replied Mr. Courtney, “seen and heard such statements many times from various sources. They are often recorded in Presbyterian and Methodist newspapers. They form a part of every controversy on the subject of baptism; and you may hear them almost as often as you hear a sermon or listen to a discussion on this subject. It was consequently very easy for you to receive and retain such impressions.”
“And yet I suppose you will assure me that I am altogether mistaken, and have been grossly deceived.”
“No, Professor Jones, I will not assure you. I do not like that mode of discussion. I will prove to you: [161](if you will receive the testimony of the most reliable historians, or that of the most eminent of your own writers on this subject); I will prove to you beyond all possibility of doubt that those who make such statements are either most grossly ignorant or most perversely false.”
“I hope, Mr. Courtney, you don’t mean to say that our ministers preach falsehood, or that our religious editors make statements that are not true?” said Mrs. Ernest, who already felt her blood begin to boil.
“No, no, sister,” said Uncle Jones, who knew her mood. “Mr. Courtney only means to say that our ministers and editors are mistaken, and that he can prove that they have made statements without having first carefully examined all the evidence.”
“Pardon me, madam,” said Mr. Courtney, “I did not intend to use any language which would give offence to any one present, and most especially to you. I was myself for many years a Presbyterian. I know the ministers of that order too well to doubt that, as a body, they are in knowledge and piety equal to any in the world. There are among them many who are now my warmest personal friends—men whom I love as Christian brethren—men whom I admire as great and valiant soldiers of the cross—men who love Jesus, and are devoting their lives to his work, and are doing great good in the world. And yet there are among them men who, upon this subject, rashly venture to make assertions which most clearly and directly contradict all historical testimony, and which, if there is any truth in history, must be admitted to be false.”
“How can that be possible?” asked Theodosia. “How can a good man dare to say what is not strictly true?”
“I do not doubt, Miss Ernest, that most of them really believe what they assert. They are themselves [162]deceived. They have been trained and educated in error. They have trusted to the assertions of others, who had an interest in deceiving them. They get impressions, just as your uncle did, from books, or papers, or lectures, or sermons, in which such statements are made. They take it for granted they are true—and so repeat them to others—and extend and perpetuate the falsehood, which would at once be evident, if they would go behind these statements and examine the historical records for themselves.
“It is, in part, for this reason, that I do not ask you to take my word for any fact to which I may request your attention. Nor will I ask you to receive the testimony of any Baptist historian; you shall have the record to read for yourselves, and that record made in every instance by an opposer of our poor and despised denomination. I will prove to you, first, that the Baptists in Europe did not originate at the time of the Reformation, but had existed from the very foundation of Christianity; and then I will show you that the Baptists in the United States do not owe their origin to Roger Williams, any more than they do to Lord Baltimore or Cotton Mather; and that the validity of their ordinance stands on much safer ground, in point of regular succession from the Apostles, than that of any of the Pedobaptist sects.”
“That is right, Mr. Courtney,” said Uncle Jones; “let us have one thing at a time. Bring up your witnesses.”
“Well, I have them ready. But first, let us understand distinctly the point on which we are at issue. You understand that the Baptist denomination sprang up as a new thing about the time of the Lutheran Reformation, and owes its origin to those who were then called ‘Anabaptists, or the Mad Men of Munster?’”
[163]“Yes; that was my impression.”
“Very well. Now I will show you that this is so far from being true, that there has been, from the very earliest ages of Christianity up to the present time, a body of professing Christians who have always held, as we do now, that baptism is not valid unless it be preceded by instruction and faith in Christ; and, consequently, that the baptism of infants is no baptism at all.
“I grant that this body of Christian people has not always been called Baptists; but as they possessed the distinguishing characteristics of the Baptists, it cannot be denied that they were Baptists.”
“No,” said Uncle Jones, “if they were professing Christians, and gave evidence of the new birth, baptized only by immersion, and refused to baptize infants, or recognize such baptism as valid, they were doubtless Baptists, by whatever name they chanced to be called.”
“Then we are ready to proceed with the case. The first witness I will call is the celebrated ecclesiastical historian, John Lawrence Mosheim, Chancellor of the University of Gottingen. He was, of course, no Baptist, or he could not have held such a position. His history was originally written in Latin, but has been translated into English by Dr. McLaine, of England, and Dr. Murdock, in America. This learned and reliable historian says: ‘The sacrament of baptism was administered, in this (the first) century, without the public assemblies, in places appointed and prepared for that purpose, and was performed by an immersion of the whole body in the baptismal font.’
“Of the second century, he says: ‘The persons that were to be baptized, after they had repeated the creed, confessed and renounced their sins, and particularly the devil and his pompous allurements, were immersed under water, and received into Christ’s kingdom.’ No sprinkling, [164]and no infants, you see, thus far. They were such as could profess their faith, and they were ‘immersed under the water.’ McLaine’s Mosheim, vol. p. 46–69.
“As a witness of somewhat similar character, I will now introduce the Pedobaptist Neander, whose ‘Church History’ and his ‘Planting and Training of the Christian Church,’ have given his name a world-wide celebrity.
“This eminent and reliable historian, in a letter to Mr. Judd, says, expressly, ‘The practice of immersion was beyond doubt prevalent in the whole church. The only exception was made with the sick—hence called baptisma clinicorum.’
“And in ‘Planting and Training of the Christian Church,’ he says: ‘The unusual form of submersion at baptism practiced by the Jews, was transferred to the Gentile Christians. Indeed, this form was most suitable to signify that which Christ intended to render an object of contemplation by such a symbol, viz.: the immersion of the whole man in the spirit of a new life.’
“So also says Coleman, another noted Pedobaptist author, the friend and exponent of Neander, who is regarded as high authority by the opponents of the Baptists, and who takes frequent occasion to express his aversion to their faith and practice—yet a regard for the obvious truth compels him to say, page 372, ‘Ancient Christianity Exemplified.’ ‘The term baptism is derived from the Greek word Bapto, from which term is formed Baptizo, with its derivatives Baptismos and Baptisma—baptism. The primary signification of the original is to dip, to plunge, immerse. The obvious import of the noun is immersion.’
“Yet, in another place, he affects to regard immersion as a departure from the apostolic usage:
[165]“‘We cannot resist the conclusion,’ he says, ‘that this mode of baptism was the first departure from the teaching and example of the Apostles on this subject.’ ‘If it was a departure from their teachings, it was the earliest—for baptism by immersion, unquestionably, was very early the common mode of baptism.’
“Again, page 396, he says: ‘In the Primitive Church, immediately subsequent to the age of the Apostles, this [immersion] was undeniably the common mode of baptism. (The utmost that can be said of sprinkling in that early period is, that it was in case of necessity permitted as an exception to a general rule). This fact is so well established that it were needless to adduce authorities in proof of it.… It is a great mistake to suppose that baptism by immersion was discontinued when infant baptism became generally prevalent. The practice of immersion continued even to the thirteenth or fourteenth century. Indeed it has never been formally abandoned, but is still the mode of administering infant baptism in the Greek Church, and in several of the Eastern Churches.’
“Here, also, is another Pedobaptist historian, Dr. Philip Schaff, Professor in a Pedobaptist Theological Seminary at Mercersburg, Pennsylvania. In his ‘History of the Apostolic Church,’ page 568, he says: ‘Immersion, and not sprinkling, was unquestionably the original normal form [of baptism]. This is shown by the very meaning of the Greek words Baptizo, Baptisma, and Baptismos—used to designate the rite. Then again, by the analogy of the baptism of John, which was performed in the Jordan [“en”], Matt. iii. 6, compare with 16; also, eis ton Jordanan [into the Jordan], Mark i. 9; furthermore, by the New Testament comparisons of baptism with the passage through the Red Sea, 1 Cor x. 2; with the flood, 1 Peter ii. 21; [166]with a bath, Eph. v. 36; Titus iii 5; with a burial and resurrection, Rom. vi. 4; Col. ii. 12; and, finally, by the general usage of Ecclesiastical antiquity, which was always immersion, as it is to this day in the Oriental, and also in the Græco Russian Churches, pouring and sprinkling being substituted only in cases of urgent necessity, such as sickness and approaching death.’”
“Are you sure, Mr. Courtney, that these learned historians were not Baptists?”
“Most certainly I am. Their church connections are as well known almost as their histories. But even if they had been Baptists, I do not see how that would invalidate their testimony. I hope you do not think that Baptists cannot tell the truth as well as other people?”
“Oh, no, Mr. Courtney, forgive me—1 did not mean that; but it seems to me so very strange that good men can say such things in their writings, and yet act as though they did not believe a single word of what they say. But perhaps the first historians of the church, from whom these men have borrowed their statements, were Baptists.”
“Yes, Miss Ernest, the first historians and earliest writers on the customs and practices of the Apostolic Churches were Baptists. And it is to them we are really indebted for all our knowledge of the earliest ages. Matthew, and Mark, and Luke, and John, were Baptists—or else they might never have told us about those baptisms in the river. Baptists tell about such things now. Paul was a Baptist, or he would never have compared baptism to a burial and resurrection. Peter was a Baptist, or he would never have compared it to the flood. All those New Testament saints were Baptists, as we have seen in our examination of the meaning of the word baptize. The very word made [167]them Baptists. They could not be any thing else; and, after their day, the Fathers (as they are called), that is, the earliest writers among the Christians, whose works have come down to us, were all Baptists. It was near three hundred years before there were any professed Christians who were not Baptists.”
“On what authority do you venture such an assertion?” asked Uncle Jones.
“I might say,” replied the schoolmaster, “that I make it on the authority of your own most eminent and most reliable historians. I have it over the signatures of Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Dutch Reformed, and Presbyterian writers, who, while they have been in full connection with those very establishments, all of which have (when they could) been the most virulent and cruel persecutors of the Baptists, and some of which are even now subjecting our brethren in Europe to fines and imprisonment, and confiscation of property, because they will not conform to the corrupt and corrupting superstitions which have been substituted by Popish authority for the ordinances of Christ—have nevertheless openly, plainly, and repeatedly declared, as historians, that the apostolic churches were, in their membership, ordinances, organization, and government, just such as the Baptist churches are now. I say, I might give this authority; but I will refer you to the same source from which they, as historians, derived their information. I say the Christian Fathers, for the first three centuries, were Baptists, because these Fathers say so themselves.
“Justin Martyr, who is counted among the earliest of the Fathers, writing to the Emperor, and giving him an account of the churches in his day, about one hundred and fifty years after Christ, says: ‘I shall now lay before you the manner of dedicating ourselves to God [168]through Christ upon our conversion; for, should I omit this, I might not seem to deal sincerely in this account of our religion. As many as are persuaded and believe that those things which are taught by us are true, and do promise to live according to them, are directed, first, to pray, and ask God, with fasting, the forgiveness of their sins. And we also pray and fast together with them. Then we bring them to a place where there is water, and they are regenerated in the same way that we are regenerated, for they are washed in the name of the Father,’ etc.
“Tertullian, who lived somewhat later, says: ‘When we are ready to enter into the water (and even before), we make our protestations before the minister and in the church, that we renounce the devil and all his pomps and vanities—afterward, we are plunged in the water.’
“And again, ‘Those who are desirous to dip themselves holily in this water, must prepare themselves for it by fasting, by watchings, by prayer, and by sincere repentance for sin.’
“But it is needless to multiply authorities. It is the united testimony of all the Fathers who speak of the subject at all, that baptism was in these early ages performed only by immersion, except of necessity in the near prospect of death. And those who, under such circumstances, received pouring as a substitute, were never said to have been baptized, but to have been poured upon as a substitute for baptism.
“How any man, who has any character to lose, can in the face of all this testimony venture the assertion that sprinkling was practiced in the early churches, and that immersion is a modern invention introduced by the Mad Men of Munster, is more than I can comprehend,” said Mr. Courtney. “Merle D’Aubigne, the Historian of the Reformation, the very man to whom the Munster [169]Men are indebted for most of their present notoriety —D’Aubigne does not venture any such assertion. On one point, he says, ‘It seems necessary to guard against misapprehension. Some persons imagine that the Anabaptists of the time of the Reformation, and the Baptists of our day, are the same. But they are as different as possible.… It is but justice to observe that the Baptists of Holland, England, and the United States (says Fessenden, as quoted by D’Aubigne), are essentially distinct from those seditious and fanatical individuals above-mentioned, as they profess an equal aversion to the principles of the rebellion of the one, and the enthusiasm of the other.’—Pref. to Hist. of Ref, p. 10. But I find I am summing up on the case before I have introduced all the evidence. I have referred to historians; I wish now to call your attention to the testimony of several of the most eminent and learned theological authors—writing, not as historians, but as theological disputants.
“I will first introduce Professor Moses Stuart, Who was a citizen of our own country, and an eminent professor in one of your own theological seminaries.
“Here is his book. It was written in answer to the question addressed to him by missionaries in a foreign land, inquiring in what way they should translate the Greek words which in our version read baptize and baptism. It was evidently written with great care, and not without much previous study of the subject.
“After referring to a number of eminent and reliable historians in regard to the practice of the early church, he thus concludes: ‘But enough—it is a thing made out,’ says Augusti, viz.:—the ancient practice of immersion. So, indeed, all the writers who have thoroughly investigated this subject conclude.
“‘I know of no one usage of ancient times,’ continues [170]Mr. Stuart, ‘which seems to be more clearly and more certainly made out. I cannot see how it is possible for any candid man who examines the subject to deny this.’
“‘In what manner then,’ he asks (p. 362), ‘did the churches of Christ from a very early period (to say the least), understand the word baptizo in the New Testament? Plainly they construed it as meaning immersion.’
“‘We are left in no doubt,’ he says again, ‘about the generally received usage of the Christian church down to a period several centuries after the apostolic age.’
“Can any testimony be more explicit, or more satisfactory than this?
“But even Dr. Miller himself, the great champion of Presbyterianism, on this subject declares, ‘That it is not denied that for the first few centuries after Christ, the most common mode of administering baptism was by immersion.’”
“Oh, that is enough, Mr. Courtney,” said the young lady. “After such declarations by the most eminent historians, and our own theological professors, I am sure neither Uncle Jones nor any one else can entertain a shadow of a doubt. We will admit that the practice of the first church was immersion. I was satisfied of that from the Scripture itself, since this was the meaning of the word, and consequently it was immersion that Christ commanded. What I desire to know is, how the change was brought about, and sprinkling introduced.”
“All in good time, Miss Ernest, we will come to that presently. Have a little patience. These theological discussions are very tricky affairs. I want to set this point so far beyond all doubt or disputation that no one will dare again to intimate that the Baptists originated in the time of Martin Luther.
[171]“Here is what Martin Luther says about it himself. No Protestant will doubt that he is a competent witness. ‘The word baptize is a Greek word. It may be rendered immersion, as when we plunge something in water that it may be entirely covered with water—and though that custom is now abolished among the generality (for even children are not entirely immersed, but only have a little water poured on them), nevertheless they ought to be completely immersed, and immediately drawn out, for the etymology of the word requires it.’
“Here also is what John Calvin, the very father and founder of the Presbyterian denomination, says: ‘From these words (John iii. 23), it may be inferred that baptism was administered by John and Christ by plunging the whole body under the water. Here we perceive how baptism was administered among the ancients, for they immersed the whole body in water.’
“Here is also Dr. Whitby, a very learned and eminent divine of the Church of England: ‘Immersion,’ says he, ‘was religiously observed by all Christians for thirteen centuries, and was approved by the Church of England. And,’ he continues, ‘since the change of it into sprinkling was made without any allowance from the author of the institution, or any license from any Council of the Church [of England], being that which the Romanist still urgeth to justify his refusal of the cup to the laity: it were to be wished that this custom [immersion] might be again of general use.’
“This musty looking old volume is ‘The History of the Bible, by Thomas Stackhouse, Vicar of Beenham, in England,’ a celebrated Episcopal clergyman. He says: ‘We nowhere read in Scripture of any one’s being baptized but by immersion—and several authors have proved; from the acts of councils and ancient [172]rituals, that this manner of immersion continued as much as possible to be used for thirteen hundred years after Christ.’
“The celebrated Prelate, Bishop Taylor, of the English Church, Vice- Chancellor of the University of Dublin, says in his famous work called ‘Ductor Dubitantium:’ ‘The custom of the Ancient Churches was not sprinkling, but immersion, in pursuance of the meaning of the word baptize in the commandment, and the example of our blessed Saviour.’
“Here also is what that earnest-hearted man, Richard Baxter (the author of the ‘Call to the Unconverted’ and the ‘Saints’ Rest’), says: ‘It is commonly confessed by us to the Anabaptists, as our commentators declare, that in the Apostles’ times the baptized were dipped over head in water.’”
“Oh, please, Mr. Courtney, don’t read us any more such testimony. Any one who would not be convinced by what you have given us, would not believe if you should give us ten times more. Do you pray go on, and show how, and where, and by what authority Christ’s ordinance was changed.”
“No, no, Mr. Courtney—I want to hear all the proof you have. Never mind Theodosia—girls always are impatient,” said the mother. “I wish Mr. Johnson was here, so we could know what he thinks about these statements, though as for that, I suppose brother Jones knows nearly as much about it as a preacher.”
“Excuse me, Miss Theodosia—I will not detain you much longer on this point; I have only a few other witnesses whose testimony I will urge at this time, though there is scarcely a historian of the early days of Christianity, who does not furnish us with proof. Not many years since, the King of Holland appointed two very learned and able men, one a Professor of Theology [173]in the University of Groningen, and the other Chaplain to the King, to examine into the origin and history of the Dutch Baptists. They wrote out the result of their investigations and published the work at Breda, in 1819. In this volume, prepared by these two learned members of the Dutch Reformed Church, Dr. Ypeig and Dr. J. J. Durmont, the authors, after tracing up the history of the Baptists, make use of the following remarkable language:
“‘We have now seen that the Baptists, who were formerly called Anabaptists, and, in later times, Mennonites, were the original Waldenses, and who have long, in the history of the Church, received the honor of that origin. on this account, the Baptists may be considered as the only Christian community which has stood since the days of the apostles, and as a Christian society which has preserved pure the doctrine of the gospel through all ages. The perfectly correct external and internal economy of the Baptist denomination tends to confirm the truth, disputed by the Romish Church, that the Reformation brought about in the sixteenth century was in the highest degree necessary, and at the same time goes to refute the erroneous notion of the Catholics that their communion is the most ancient.’
“Such was the impression which this truthful document made upon the Court, that the Government of Holland offered to the Baptist Churches the support of the State, which was politely but firmly declined, as inconsistent with their principles.
“The celebrated Bishop Bossuet says: ‘We are able to make it appear by the acts of councils and by ancient rituals, that for more than thirteen hundred years, baptism was administered by immersion throughout the whole church as far as possible.’” [174]“Now, if you have any further doubt, I will bring up these very acts of councils, and authentic copies of these same ancient rituals. They are still on record, and it is not difficult to avail ourselves of their explicit testimony.”
“Oh, no, Mr. Courtney: these historians and preachers, and bishops, were none of them Baptists. We all know that, and if the facts had not compelled them, they would, of course, never have made assertions so injurious to their own cause, and so directly opposed to their own practice. If they say that baptism was done by immersion for thirteen hundred years, of course it must have been so. If Mosheim and Neander, Bossuet and Taylor, Coleman and Whitby, Stackhouse and Baxter, all sprinklers themselves and all opposed the Baptists, make such statements, and even Drs. Miller and Stuart, our own most eminent writers on the subject, admit their truth, why need we spend any more time?”
“But what then becomes of your uncle’s opinion, that the Baptists originated about the year 1530, with the Mad Men of Munster?”
“Oh, I have given up that opinion (which indeed was not more than an impression) some half an hour ago. The testimony is irresistible. Immersion was most unquestionably the practice of the early churches; but I am now, like Theodosia, exceedingly anxious to know how it came to be universally displaced, and sprinkling universally adopted in its place.”
“You are mistaken, Professor Jones, if you imagine that this change is by any means a universal one. It was made by the authority of the Pope, and is confined to the Roman Catholic Church and its descendants. The Eastern churches—comprising a vast number of professing Christians—have never adopted sprinkling, but [175]continue to practice immersion to the present day; and as Professor Stuart truly states, call the Western churches ‘sprinkled Christians,’ by way of derision. If you have any doubt of this, I will prove it to you by the testimony of your own writers of most unquestionable authority.”
“Oh, no, Mr. Courtney, I do not doubt it. You have convinced me so often, that I am now willing to take your word for any thing you please to assert.”
“I thank you, Professor; but still I do not like to deal in assertions. In regard to this point, however, the proof will come in by the way—together with that on the time and manner of the change.”
“Do, then, Mr. Courtney, go on With that,” said the young lady “You don’t know how provoking it is to be kept so long in suspense.”
“Well, here is the testimony. I will leave the story to be told by some of the most celebrated members of the sprinkling churches. You will, of course, not doubt their truthfulness. Here is the Edinburgh Encyclopædia, edited by the learned and celebrated Sir David Brewster. Let us read what he says on the subject. In the Article on Baptism:
“‘The first law for sprinkling was obtained in the following manner: Pope Stephen II., being driven from Rome by Astolphus, King of Lombards, in 753, fled to Pepin, who a short time before had usurped the crown of France. While he remained there, the Monks of Cressy, in Brittany, consulted him whether, in case of necessity, baptism performed by pouring water on the head of the infant would be lawful. Stephen replied that it would. But though the truth of this fact should be allowed, which, however, some Catholics deny, yet pouring or sprinkling was admitted only in cases of necessity. It was not till the year 1311, that the Legislature, [176]in a council held at Ravenna, declared immersion or sprinkling to be indifferent. In this country (Scotland), however, sprinkling was never practiced in ordinary cases, till after the Reformation; and in England, even in the reign of Edward VI., immersion was commonly observed. But during the persecution of Mary, many persons, most of whom were Scotchmen, fled from England to Geneva, and there greedily imbibed the opinions of that church. In 1556, a book was published at that place containing the form of prayers and ministration of sacraments, approved by the famous and godly learned man, John Calvin, in which the administrator is enjoined to take water in his hand and lay it on the child’s forehead. These Scottish exiles, who had renounced the authority of the Pope, implicitly acknowledged the authority of Calvin; and returning to their own country with John Knox at their head, in 1559, established sprinkling in Scotland. From Scotland, this practice made its way into England in the reign of Elizabeth, but was not authorized by the established church.’”
“Do let me look at that book a moment,” said the Professor. “It is very strange that I should have been told, as I am sure I have been by some of the learned clergy of our church, that sprinkling was what was practiced from the earliest ages, and that immersion was attempted to be introduced in its place by the Anabaptists of Germany about the year 1530—when in fact immersion had been always the practice, and it was sprinkling that was substituted by John Calvin, the founder of our church. Can it be possible that Doctors of Divinity will impose such falsehoods on their people in order to sustain the practice of the church? I cannot understand it.”
“Perhaps you want more testimony before you can [177]believe it,” said Mr. Courtney; “and here is ample confirmatory proof in the plain and explicit declarations of the famous Dr. Wall.”
“Please tell me,” said Theodosia, “who was Dr. Wall? I have often heard of him, and I know that he wrote one or more books on baptism, but whether on our side or yours, I have never been informed.”
“Dr. Wall,” said Mr. Courtney, “was a minister of the Episcopal, or English Church, and after the publication of his work, the satisfaction it gave was so great, that in a general convocation of the Episcopal clergy, held February 9th, 1706, it was ordered ‘that the thanks of this house be given to Mr. Wall, Vicar of Shoreham, in Kent, for the learned and excellent book he has lately written concerning infant baptism.’”
“Then he must have written against the Baptists, if his work was approved by the clergy of the Episcopal Church.”
“Of course he did, and his book is considered to this day the ablest defence of infant baptism with has ever been written.”
“Well, what does he say about the introduction of sprinkling? Does he agree with the Encyclopædia, which you have read? Where is the passage which speaks of it? Please read it for us.”
“‘France seems to have been the first country in the world where baptism by affusion was used, ordinarily, to persons in health, and in the public way of administering it. It being allowed to weak children (in the reign of Queen Elizabeth) to be baptized by aspersion, many fond ladies and gentlemen first, and then, by degrees, the common people, would obtain the favor of the priest to have their children pass for weak children, too tender to endure dipping in the water. As for sprinkling, properly so called, it was at 1645 just then beginning, [178]and used by very few. It must have begun in the disorderly times after forty-one. They (the Assembly of Divines in Westminster) re-formed the font into a basin. This learned Assembly could not remember that fonts to baptize in had been always used by the primitive Christians long before the beginning of Popery, and ever since churches were built; but that sprinkling, for the purpose of baptizing, was really introduced (in France first, and then in other Popish countries) in times of Popery, and that, accordingly, all those countries in which the usurped power of the Pope is, or has formerly been owned, have left off dipping of children in the fonts; but that all other countries in the world which had never regarded his authority, do still use it; and that basins (to sprinkle out of) except in cases of necessity, were never used by Papists, or any other Christians whosoever, till by themselves.’— Hist. of Infant Baptism, part 2d, chap. 9.
“This,” said Mr. Courtney, “is Dr. Wall’s account of the first introduction of sprinkling; and you see that it confirms the truth of what I told you, that it was introduced by Popery, and is confined to the countries where Popery prevails, or has prevailed. The Protestant sects borrowed it from the Catholics. Now look at page 403 of this other volume, by the same author, and read the passage I have marked.
“‘The way that is ordinarily used, we cannot deny to have been a novelty, brought into this Church (the English) by those that had learned it at Germany, or at Geneva. And they, not contented to follow the example of pouring a quantity of water (which had there been introduced instead of immersion), but improved it (if I may so abuse that word) from pouring to sprinkling, that it might have as little resemblance to the ancient [179]way of baptizing as possible.’—Def. of Hist. of Infant Baptism, p. 403.
“If you consult the Edinburgh Encyclopædia the British Encyclopædia, and the Encyclopædia Americana, article Baptism, you will find a complete history of the whole subject, the truthfulness of which you will feel no disposition to question. You will there learn that in England the Westminster Assembly of Divines had a warm discussion whether immersion or sprinkling should be adopted. But by the earnest efforts of Dr. Lightfoot, who had great interest in the Assembly, sprinkling was adopted by a majority of one. The vote stood— twenty-four for immersion, and twenty-five for sprinkling. This was 1643 years after Christ. The next year an Act of Parliament was passed, requiring the parents of all children born in the realm to have them sprinkled; and in 1648, some four years afterward, an Ecclesiastical Council, held at Cambridge, Massachusetts, adopted sprinkling in the place of immersion; and, in May of the same year, the Legislature of that State passed a law making it a penal offence for any one to say that infant sprinkling was not good and valid baptism.”
“That is surely sufficient,” said Uncle Jones, “to satisfy any candid mind, but yet I can hardly believe it, for very astonishment.”
“What is there so surprising,” replied Mr. Courtney, “in the fact that men should change Christ’s ordinances? They did the same thing before our Saviour’s time; and he had more than once occasion to reprove them, because they taught ‘for ordinances the commandments of men,’ and ‘made the Word of God of none effect through their traditions.’”
“It is not,” replied the Professor, “so much the fact which fills me with astonishment, as the care which is evidently taken by ministers of religion in our church [180]to conceal the fact, and make on our minds the impression that sprinkling, instead of being merely allowed by the Pope, was actually commanded by Jesus Christ, and was commonly practiced by the church till the Baptists undertook to introduce immersion. But, if I do not forget, some of our writers have contended that there was sufficient testimony in the writings of the early Fathers to show that sprinkling was really employed at a very early day. Is it not possible that Sir David Brewster, and Dr. Wall, and Professor Stuart, and all those other great names, including Martin Luther and John Calvin themselves, may have been mistaken, and that sprinkling was, after all, the practice of the early church? Did not Cyprian, one of the ancient Fathers, expressly declare that sprinkling was practiced in his day, and was considered valid baptism? I am sure I have received such an impression from some source.”
“You probably received it from some Doctor of Divinity—they are accustomed to make such impressions, but Cyprian says no such thing. The case to which you allude presents the very first instance on record in the whole range of ecclesiastical history in which it was thought possible to substitute any other act for the act of immersion. The facts have been preserved by Eusebius, one of the Fathers, and the historian of the early churches.
“It appears that a certain man, named Novatian, was taken sick, and was apparently nigh unto death. In this condition he became, as many others have done, greatly alarmed about his condition; and, professing faith in Christ, desired to be baptized. But he was too weak to be taken out of bed and put into the water. The water was, therefore, poured around him in his bed. He afterward recovered, and devoting himself to the ministry, applied for priestly orders, and the question [181]arose, whether one thus ‘poured upon’ in his bed could be accounted a Christian? Now, it is evident, if pouring or sprinkling had been a common mode of administering the ordinance, this question would never have been asked.
“Cyprian was written to upon this subject, and he replied, giving it as his opinion that the grace usually conferred in baptism, might be received by such pouring. In other words, that, though this was not baptism, for it is not called baptism, perichism (‘perichutheis’), from peri, around, and cheo, to pour—yet he considered it a valid substitute for baptism. This was some time in the third century after Christ. That such substitution was not common, and had received no general sanction from the church, is evident from the well known fact that the Monks of Cressy, in 754, wrote to the Pope, Stephen II., inquiring, ‘If it be lawful in case of necessity, occasioned by sickness, to baptize an infant by pouring water on its head from a cup, or the hands?’ To which the Pope replied: ‘Such a baptism, performed in such a case of necessity, shall be accounted valid.’ ‘This,’ says Basnage, ‘is accounted the first law against immersion.’ The Pontiff, however, did not dispense with immersion except in case of extreme necessity. This law, therefore, did not change the mode of dipping in the public baptisms; and it was not till five hundred and fifty-seven years, that the legislature, in a council at Ravenna, in 1311, declared immersion and pouring indifferent.”
“Pardon me, Mr. Courtney, if I seem querulous; but did not Origen, another of the Fathers, speak of baptism as a pouring, when relating the history of the flooding of the wood, and the sacrifice by the prophet Elisha in his contest with the prophets of Baal? Does he not call this wetting a baptism?”
[182]“He does indeed, Professor. He calls it a baptism in the same way that the writer of the book of Daniel calls the wetting of Nebuchadnezzar a baptism. He was baptized in the dews of heaven. The word in the Hebrew is tabal, which no one ever doubted signified to dip or to immerse. He was dipped in the dews of heaven—a most beautiful, though hyperbolical, figure of speech, expressing the idea that he was as wet as though he had been dipped. The allusion in both cases is to the wetting, not to the act by which the wetting was occasioned.”
“I am glad,” said Uncle Jones, “that you mentioned that passage in Daniel, for I confess it has been a stumbling-stone to me; yet you set aside all my other Scriptural difficulties so easily, that I was almost ashamed to mention it. I was going to tell you that baptize must signify something besides immersion, because it was impossible that the deposed monarch could be actually immersed in dew.”
“If you had told me so, I would have proved to you,” said Mr. Courtney, “that dip does not mean to dip, or to submerge, because Milton, a standard English writer, represents one as saying that he is dipped all over in the perspiration of his own body:
“‘A cold shuddering dew dips me all over.’
“If Daniel had been translated as he should have been, ‘His body was dipped in the dews of heaven,’ everybody would have recognized the force and beauty of the figure, as we do in Milton. It would have been like that expression which represents the good land of Canaan as ‘flowing’ with milk and honey; or, like that which represents God as pouring out blessings till there should not be room to receive them. Such hyperbolical figures are extremely beautiful, and are common in all languages.
[183]“Nebuchadnezzar is said to be dipped in dew, and Origen says the wood and the sacrifice were immersed in water, to express the completeness of the soaking or drenching which they received.”
“Yes,” said Theodosia, “Edwin made use of the word ducking last evening in the same way. You recollect, Mr. Courtney, the lad who pulled the bucket of water over on his head in school yesterday, so much to the amusement of all the boys. Well, Edwin, in relating the circumstances, said that the little fellow got a good ‘ducking.’ By which he meant of course, that he was as wet as though he had dived in the water like a duck. It would have been equally proper to have said that he got a good ‘dipping,’ and yet neither ducking or dipping means to pour upon—they are diving and plunging still.”
“Well, well, Theodosia,” said the mother, “that is what I should call stepping from the sublime to the ridiculous. Please go on, Mr. Courtney, and don’t mind her nonsense.”
“Indeed, Mrs. Ernest, I feel obliged to your daughter for so appropriate an illustration of the great principle of interpretation which must guide us in deciding upon the meaning of such passages. She has shown us that not only in Scriptural usage, and in the poets, but even in common talk among the very children, one mode of wetting is sometimes figuratively employed to designate another mode; and that a person or thing that is as thoroughly wet as though it had been dipped, may be appropriately and beautifully said to be dipped.
“But now to return to the subject of our conversation. I have proved to you, by the united testimony of Mosheim, Neander, and Moses Stuart—of Luther, and Calvin, and Whitby, and Taylor, and Baxter—by Drs. Ypeig and Durmont, Coleman and Bossuet, to whose [184]testimony I might have added that of many others of the highest authority, both among the ancients and the moderns, that immersion was the practice of the early churches, and continued to be the only practice, except in cases of supposed necessity, for more than three hundred years. I have showed you further, how ‘pouring’ was first practiced irregularly, and without authority from the Bible, or the Pope, in some rare cases of extreme sickness, till the Monks of Cressy obtained the sanction of the Pope (not of Christ) for its use in these extreme cases of sickness, more than seven hundred years after Christ, and how immersion and pouring were at length declared to be indifferent by the Pope and his Council (not by the Scriptures) at Ravenna, in 1311.
“I have showed you also how John Calvin and the Westminster Assembly of Divines were the means of bringing sprinkling into the English and Presbyterian Churches of Scotland and England—whence it came over to America with the Colonists.
“I have showed you also that as this change was made by the Pope and the Papal Church, so it is confined to those countries which are, or have been, under Roman Catholic rule, and that the Eastern Churches, which never acknowledged the dominion of the Pope, have continued to practice immersion even to the present day. I have showed you all this, not by the testimony of Baptist witnesses, but by that of members of sprinkling churches—by Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Presbyterians; and these not men of doubtful character, and unknown to fame, but of world-wide celebrity, both in regard to their religious and their intellectual character. He who, after this, will not believe that immersion was the baptism of the early churches, would [185]not believe though Paul himself should return from the dead to testify.”
“But, Mr. Courtney,” said Mrs. Ernest, “what if it was? Must we be immersed, because the old Fathers were immersed? I thought you Baptists were opposed to old traditions.”
“We are opposed, Mrs. Ernest,” said he, very solemnly. “We are opposed to the substitution of the traditions of men for the teachings of the Word of God. We have ascertained from the Word itself that it was immersion which was commanded by Jesus Christ. It was thus the early Christians understood it. It was this which, for many hundred years, they practiced; but at length the man-made ordinance of sprinkling and pouring was introduced by the authority of the Pope and his councils. You have adopted this—your church almost universally practices it—you have no other authority for it, as I have proved by your own writers, but that of the Pope. Is it not true, therefore, that you are in your church ‘teaching for doctrines the commandments of men?’
“I did not refer to the usage of the early churches as the authority for immersion. If I could not find it in the Bible, I would not receive it, though it had been practiced from the time of Noah. Tradition is no authority in matters of religion. I may use it to confirm the teaching of the actual commandment, but where there is no express precept or example recorded in God’s Word, I owe no obedience in matters of religion.”
“But why, then, did you go into this long investigation of the practice of the church?”
“I did it, madam, for the satisfaction of Professor Jones and your daughter, who seemed to have a sort of silent conviction that the simple fact that sprinkling [186]was so generally practiced, was in some way or other sufficient evidence that it must have been commanded in the Scriptures. I, therefore, traced immersion back to Jesus Christ, and showed where he commanded it. I have now traced pouring back to Pope Stephen II. and showed where he allowed it in cases of necessity, and to the Popish council at Ravenna, and showed where they allowed it in other cases; and I have traced sprinkling, properly so-called, back to John Calvin, and showed where he commanded it in his Book of Prayers and Sacraments, published at Geneva. I have, therefore, founded immersion on the rock of God’s Word, and at the same time convinced you all; I trust, that pouring and sprinkling rest only on the sand of human invention—not having even a credible tradition to rest upon.”
Uncle Jones listened with some uneasiness to this long speech. He felt its force, and recognized its truthfulness, but he was doubtful of the effect it might have upon his sister. In fact, he was afraid of an explosion.
Affection for her daughter had, however, been working wonders in the mother’s mind within the last two days. She found that Theodosia would examine, and she desired that she would do it quickly. She found she was likely to be convinced, and she began to excuse her by considering the weight and invincibility of the arguments. Now, she saw that she was convinced, and every additional reason for such conviction was a comfort to her maternal pride, as it was new proof that her daughter was not such a simpleton as to believe without the most convincing evidence.
She had not the most distant idea of being convinced herself. She did not hear or weigh the testimony for herself—she heard and thought only for Theodosia—and [187]since her daughter would become a Baptist, she was gratified that it was nothing less than the most unanswerable arguments that compelled her to do so.
So far, therefore, from looking angry, she seemed rather pleased with this conclusion of the schoolmaster’s arguments; and she herself suggested that he should enter upon the other branch of it, by reminding him that he had promised to show that the American Baptists did not originate with Roger Williams any more than the European Baptists did with the Mad Men of Munster.
“That is one of the easiest things in the world to do,” replied Mr. Courtney. “Even granting that Roger Williams established the first Baptist Church which was ever known in this country, yet it would not follow that all the Baptists, or any of the Baptist Churches received their baptism from him; for there have been, every year since his day, more or less regularly immersed Baptists, and regularly ordained Baptist ministers coming to this country; and even though he had founded the church at Providence, and that in an irregular manner, before any other Baptist Church was founded—that would not invalidate the regularity of any other of the thousands and thousands of Baptist Churches, unless it could be made to appear that they were all colonies from that. I need not, therefore, spend any time upon this point. Of all the thousands of Baptist Churches in America, there are none whose pastors and members have had any manner of dependence on the church founded by Roger Williams. They have many of them received baptism from the Dutch Baptists, of whom Drs. Ypeig and Durmont testify that they belong to a body of Christians who can trace their origin down to the very times of the Apostles. Many [188]of them received it from the Welsh Baptists, who can trace their descent back to the sixth or seventh century. Many of them received it from the English Baptists, who have been the victims of proscription and persecution from a very early day. But none of them received baptism from Roger Williams, or the church said to have been established by him at Providence. The truth is, the society established by Roger Williams, Holliman, and others, soon died out. It never planted any other church. It cannot be proved that any Baptist who received baptism in that body and by their authority, was ever concerned in baptizing any founder of other churches.”
“I have often heard of Roger Williams,” said Theodosia, “as the founder of the Baptists in this country. Please tell me what was his relation to them.”
“Roger Williams adopted at one time Baptist sentiments, at least, in some particulars,” replied Mr. Courtney. “He desired to be immersed. There was no Baptist minister at hand. He consequently immersed one of his followers, who, in turn, immersed him, and then he considered himself competent to immerse others. The little company, thus irregularly baptized, called itself a Baptist church; but, in about four months, Roger Williams himself changed his opinions and withdrew from the society. The so-called church soon died out, and the present Baptist Church of Providence was founded on an independent basis, separate and distinct from that. It seems probable, however, from recent historical researches, that the oldest Baptist Church in the United States, is that at Newport, in Rhode Island, founded by John Clark, against the regularity of whose baptism there has, so far as I know, been nothing alleged. Though, as to that, even if this, [189]and all the other churches of Rhode Island, had been, and were still, irregular up to the present time, it would not affect the standing of the great body of the churches in the United States, since very few of them derived their baptism directly or indirectly from Rhode Island—and not single one of them from Roger Williams.”