A SERMON
ON
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM,
WITH MANY QUOTATIONS FROM PEDOBAPTIST AUTHORS.
TO WHICH ARE ADDED A LETTER TO THE CHURCH
IN PLYMOUTH, MASS. AND AN ADDRESS ON
THE MODE OF BAPTIZING.
BY
ADONIRAM JUDSON, Jr. A. M.
FIFTH AMERICAN EDITION
REVISED AND ENLARGED BY THE AUTHOR
BOSTON:
GOULD, KENDALL & LINCOLN
59 WASHINGTON STREET
1846
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1846, by
GOULD, KENDALL & LINCOLN,
In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts
PREFACE
TO THE
INDIA EDITION
The author of the following discourse was, by education and profession, a Pedobaptist. During his passage from America to India, in the spring of 1812, he began to doubt the truth of his former sentiments. After his arrival in this country, and before he communicated the exercises of his mind to any of the Baptist denomination, he became convinced, that the immersion of a professing believer, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is the only Christian Baptism.
This discourse exhibits the reasons for his present belief. It was preached in Calcutta on the Lord’s day, Sept. 27th, 1812, previous to the administration of the ordinance of baptism, and is now committed to the press, in compliance with the request of some who heard it, and from a desire to furnish his distant friends in America, with a more full and satisfactory statement of the reasons of his change, than could be made in private communications.
N. B. For many testimonies, inserted in this discourse, the author acknowledges himself indebted to Mr. Booth’s Pedobaptism Examined.
CALCUTTA, Nov. 1812
PREFACE
TO THE
FOURTH AMERICAN EDITION
The author has spared a few days from his missionary work, in revisiting this discourse for a new edition.
He feels much satisfaction, in finding, that, through the lapse of seven years, the authenticity and correctness of the numerous testimonies adduced, have not been questioned in a single instance.
He wishes also to say, that after having seen and heard much that has been urged, both in India and America, against his statements, he sincerely thinks, that not one has been disproved, except concerning persons born of Christian parents, and not baptized till adult age. Finding himself mistaken, in the case of Augustine, he has now suppressed the whole paragraph, not because he doubts that there are such cases on record, but because his present situation deprives him of the means of authenticating them to satisfaction.
RANGOON, Nov. 1819
SERMON
MATTHEW 28:19
Baptizing them in the name of the Father
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
When our Lord commissioned his disciples to proselyte all nations, he instituted the sacred ordinance of baptism.
The words of the institution suggest two inquiries: What is baptism? and, To whom is baptism to be administered?
I. What is baptism?
Had the Greek word, which denotes the act of baptizing, been translated, in the English version of the New Testament, there would probably have been, among English readers, no dispute concerning its import. Had either of the English words, wash, or sprinkle, or immerse, been substituted for the Greek word, an English reader would instantly conceive an appropriate meaning. But, unhappily, our translators have retained the original word, and contented themselves with merely changing its termination. Thus, an English reader is deprived of his usual guide. There are no other applications of the word, in his own language, from which he can learn its import. The only expedient, therefore, of which he can avail himself, is to ascertain the import of the original word: and to this end, the following considerations may conduce.
1. The primitive word (βάπτω) from which the word denoting baptism, is derived, signifies immersion. This, with the general consent of the Pedobaptists themselves, is as much the appropriate meaning of the Greek word, as of the English word, dip or immerse (note 1). This is the word used in the New Testament, when the rich man entreats, that Lazarus may be sent to dip the tip of his finger in water (Luke 16:24): when Christ says, “He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it (John 13:26); and when, in the Revelation, Christ is represented, as clothed with a vesture dipped in blood (Revelation 19:13). The inspired penmen have used no other word, beside this and its derivatives, to convey the idea of immersion; nor have they ever used this word in any other sense.
The word denoting baptism (βαπτιζω) is derived from the verbal of this primitive word (βάπτος) by a change in termination, which, according to an established principle in the Greek language, never effects the primary idea; but when made on words, expressing a quality or attribute, merely conveys the additional idea of causing or making.
Thus the Greek word, which signifies pure, with this change of termination, signifies to make pure. The Greek word, which signifies sprinkled, with this change of termination, signifies to make sprinkled, or to sprinkle. And the Greek word, which signifies immersed, with this change of termination, signifies to make immersed, or to immerse (note 2).
Accordingly, that eminent Greek critic, Dr. Campbell, expressly pronounces the primitive and the derivative to be synonymous (note 3).
2. The word which denotes the act of baptizing, according to the usage of Greek writers, uniformly signifies or implies immersion.
It is the word used in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, to express the action of Naaman, when he dipped himself seven times in Jordan (2 Kings 5:14). It is the word used by Josephus, to convey the idea of immersion; in describing the death of one, who was drowned in a pool, by order of Herod (note 4); and by the same author, in instances too numerous to be detailed (note 5).
It is the word used by Porphyry, in mentioning a river, in which an offender on entering, is immediately immersed up to the head (note 6). Numerous instances may be pronounced from other Greek authors, to confirm this signification (note 7).
Nor has any instance been produced in which the word, literally applied, does not denote immersion, or washing by immersion. In figurative applications, this word, like the English words dip and immerse, and like all other words, is probably used with some freedom. But should a few instances of this kind be found, would they be sufficient to invalidate the force of evidence resulting from the proper and general use of the word? What law will bind a subject, if he is at liberty to depart from the proper and general interpretation of the principal term and affix to it a signification, which is drawn from some rare figurative application? Had the rite of baptism been prescribed in the English language, and the word dip been used to express the act, could we have entertained a doubt concerning the meaning? And in what light should we regard an attempt to prove, that it has no definite import, but signifies sprinkling, or any kind of wetting, because Dr. Johnson defines the word, 1. To immerse; 2. To moisten, to wet; and in proof of the latter meaning cites these lines of Milton:
‘And tho’ not mortal, yet a cold shuddering dew
Dips me all over?’ (note 8)
If this principle of interpretation be allowed, it will destroy the force of every command.
That immersion is the native and proper signification of the word βαπτιζω, is so universally asserted by all lexicographers and critics, that no one scarcely presumes to deny it; and to attempt to prove this point, by citing authorities, would be quite preposterous (note 9).
That immersion is the exclusive signification of the word, appears from the testimonies of eminent Pedobaptist authors, whose concessions on this subject could not have been affected by Baptist partialities, but must have resulted from conviction of truth alone (note 10).
Buddæus: “The words βαπτίζειν and βαπτισμός are not to be interpreted of aspersion, but always of immersion” (note 11).
Alstedius: “βαπτίζειν, to baptize, signifies only to immerse, not to wash, except by consequence” (note 12).
J. J. Wetstenius: “To baptize is to plunge, to dip. The body, or part of the body, being under water, is said to be baptized” (note 13).
J. Altingius: “For baptism is immersion, when the whole body is immerged; but the term baptism is never used concerning aspersion” (note 14).
Beza: “Christ commanded us to be baptized, by which word, it is certain, immersion is signified. Nor does βαπτίζειν signify to wash, except by consequence; for it properly signifies to immerse for the sake of dyeing. To be baptized in water, signifies no other, than to be immersed in water, which is the external ceremony of baptism” (note 15).
Luther: “The term baptism 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 the 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 evidently requires it” (note 16).
Casaubon: “This was the rite of baptizing, that persons were plunged in to the water; which the very word βαπτίζειν, to baptize, sufficiently declares” (note 17).
Cattenburgh: “In baptism the whole body is ordered to be immersed” (note 18).
Keckermannus: “We cannot deny, that the first institution of baptism constituted in immersion, and not sprinkling” (note 19).
Salmasius (note 20): “Thus Novatian, when sick, received baptism, being περιχυθεις, sprinkled, not βαπτίσθεις, baptized. Euseb. Vi. Hist. C. 43” (note 21).
Dr. Campbell: “The word βαπτίζειν, both in sacred authors, and in classical, signifies to dip, to plunge, to immerse; and was rendered by Tertullian, the oldest of the Latin fathers, tingre, the term used for dyeing cloth, which was by immersion. It is always constructed suitably to this meaning. Thus it is ἑν ὕδατι [in water], ἑν τῷ Ιορδάνῃ [in the Jordan]. But I should not lay much stress on the preposition ἑν, which, answering to the Hebrew ב, may denote with, as well as in, did not the whole phraseology, in regard to this ceremony, concur in evincing the same thing. – Had βαπτιζω been here employed in the sense of ῥαίνω, I sprinkle, (which, as far as I know, it never is, in any use, sacred or classical), the expression would doubtless have been” etc. (note 22) – “When therefore, the Greek word βαπτιζω is adopted, I may say, rather than translated into modern languages, the mode of construction ought to be preserved, so far as may conduce to suggest its original import. It is to be regretted, that we have so much evidence, that even good and learned men allow their judgments to be warped, by the sentiments and customs of the sect which they prefer. The true partisan of whatever denomination, always inclines to correct diction of the Spirit, by that party” (note 23).
3. There are no instances, in the New Testament which require us to depart from the etymological and established interpretation of the word.
We must believe, that the writers of the New Testament used words according to their usual acceptation, in the Greek language, unless the connection requires some other interpretation. If we suppose, that they used words in a manner different from common, established use, without giving sufficient intimation, either expressly or by the obvious scope of the passage, we must give up our only guide to the meaning of the word, or charge them with a design of misleading. They certainly knew that their readers would naturally and necessarily interpret every word in the usual way, unless taught differently by the connection.
Let us examine those instances, in which it has been supposed, that the connection renders the idea of immersion inadmissible.
A. It is said, that we cannot suppose, that the washings (according to the Greek, baptisms) of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and tables, or those ablutions which Jews practiced before eating, were all don by immersion (Mark 7:3-4).
With regard to the former, it must be remembered, that the Jews were commanded, in their law, to cleanse unclean vessels by immersing them; “whether it be a vessel of wood, or raiment, of skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, wherein any work is done, it must be put into water” (Leviticus 11:32). What is more probable, that that they abused the first institution of this ceremony, by superstitiously immersing a variety of articles not included in the divine command?
That the Jews, on returning from market, immersed themselves before eating, may appear improbable to an inhabitant of the north of Europe or America; but not to you, my brethren, who are acquainted with the customs of these eastern countries, and witness the frequent ceremonial immersion of the natives.
But that these baptisms were really immersions, and, therefore, that the use of the word, in these instances, instead of weakening, must confirm the belief, that it always means immersion, appears from the following testimonies.
Grotius: “They cleansed themselves from defilement, contracted in the market, not by washing the hands merely, but by immersing the body” (note 24).
Scaliger: “The more superstitious part of them, [the Jews,] every day, before they sat down to meat, dipped the whole body. Hence the Pharisee’s admiration at Christ, Luke 11:38” (note 25).
Rabbi Maimonides: “Wherever in the law, washing of the flesh, or of the clothes is mentioned, it means nothing else, that the dipping of the whole body in a laver; for if any man dips himself all over, except the tip of his little finger, he is still in his uncleanness” (note 26).
“A bed that is wholly defiled, if a man dips it part by part, is pure” (note 27).
B. It is said, that the three thousand converted on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41), could not have been baptized by immersion the same day.
Admitting that they were all baptized the same day, which, however, is not asserted, it remains to be proved, that the twelve apostles were not assisted by others. In the preceding chapter, we are informed that the number of disciples together, was one hundred and twenty, among whom were doubtless many of the seventy, appointed by Christ himself. And after it is proved, that the twelve apostles were alone concerned in administering the ordinance, the expedition with which some modern baptisms of large numbers have been actually performed, relieves the subject from all possible difficulty.
C. Another objection is thus stated: “At dead of night, in the city of Philippi, the jailor and all his were baptized by Paul and Silas (Acts 16:23-34). Is it to be believed, that, in a city guarded by Roman sentinels, the prisoners, Paul and Silas, when their jailor had received strict charge, at his peril, to keep them safely, would, nevertheless, take him and his family abroad, in the night, just after the whole city had been roused by an earthquake, and go to a pond, or a river, to baptise [sic] them by immersion” (note 28)?
This case can present no difficulty to the minds of any of you, my brethren, who may have been within the yard of the prison in this city, or are acquainted with the fact, that prison yards, in the east, as well as the yards and gardens of private houses, are usually furnished with tanks of water.
D. It is said again, with reference to the rites of cleansing, under the Jewish dispensation, that “by the apostle to the Hebrews, (Hebrews 9:10) these various purifications, or sprinklings, are expressly called (διαφοροις βαπτίσμοις) diverse baptisms” (note 29).
This might be urged with some plausibility, had no immersions been prescribed in the Jewish ritual. But since these were numerous, as will appear, on examining the Levitical law (e.g. Leviticus 15:1-33; Leviticus 16:26-28; Numbers 19:7-8), the application of the word, by the apostle Paul, affords no reason for ascribing it to any other, beside its usual import (note 30).
E. Another instance, supposed to be objectionable, may be thus stated. Christ promised to baptize his disciples with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5), and on the day of Pentecost, fulfilled his promise by pouring out the Spirit upon them (Acts 2:1-4, Acts 2:33). Here, it is said, the pouring out of the Spirit is compatible with the supposition, that sprinkling or pouring is baptism, but not with the supposition, that immersion only is baptism.
This objection derives all its force, from the erroneous supposition that the baptism of the disciples consisted in having the Spirit poured out upon them. But if the pouring out of the Spirit proves that pouring is baptism, their being filled with the Spirit proves that filling is baptism.
The truth is, that the pouring out of the Spirit was merely the means by which they became baptized or immersed in the Spirit. The Spirit was poured out to such a degree, that the promise of Christ was accomplished, and they were immersed, yea, filled with the Spirit. In confirmation of this interpretation, the miraculous wind, the symbol of the Holy Spirit, is represented as filling all the house where they were sitting (note 31).
It is true, that, on this interpretation, there is no literal immersion; but since the representation is figurative, we ought not expect a perfect resemblance in all points, but such a resemblance only, as will justify the figurative application.
F. The same remark is applicable to the baptism of the Israelites, in the cloud, and in the sea (1 Corinthians 10:1-2), which has been thought incompatible with the idea of immersion.
The apostle, in the context, informs us how they were baptized, not by being sprinkled or washed, but by being under the cloud, and by passing through the sea. Is there any impropriety in representing their situation, with the sea on each side, and the cloud covering them, as an immersion in the cloud, and in the sea? Is not this the natural, obvious import of the passage? As to the supposition, that they were sprinkled with the spray from the sea, and the rain from the cloud, it is made without evidence (Psalm 68:8-9 [does not allude] to this event, note 32), and appears too fanciful, and too evidently contrived to serve a turn, to require further remark (note 33).
We have now considered the principal instances in the New Testament, which have been thought to attach some other idea, beside that of immersion, to denoting baptism; and certainly discover no sufficient reason, for departing from the etymological and established interpretation.
4. The places chosen for the administration of the ordinance, and the circumstances attending those instances, in which the act of baptizing is particularly described, in the New Testament, plainly indicate immersion.
John baptized in the river Jordan (Mark 1:5), and in Enon, because there was much water there (John 3:23). Christ was baptized in Jordan, and after the ordinance, came up out of the water (Mark 1:9-10). Philip and the eunuch went down both into the water, and after baptism, came up out of the water (Acts 8:38-39). The phrase, went into the water, does not, indeed, imply in itself, that the subjects were immersed. It is one thing, to go into the water; and it is another thing, to be immersed. But the phrase implies by consequence, that the subjects were immersed. For it cannot be supposed, that John and the primitive disciples resorted to rivers, and went into the water, for the purpose of pouring or sprinkling. Do the advocates of pouring or sprinkling find this the most convenient mode of administering the ordinance?
5. Baptism is, by the apostle Paul, repeatedly compared to burial. In one passage, believers are said to be buried with Christ by baptism (Romans 6:4), and in another, to be buried with him in baptism, and to be therein risen with him (Colossians 2:2).
Whether baptism, in these passages, denotes external or spiritual baptism, it is evident, that the figure derives all its propriety and beauty from some implied resemblance between the external rite and a burial; nor can it be imagined, that the apostle would have ever compared baptism of any kind to burial, had there been no such resemblance.
When we are said to be spiritually circumcised, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh (Colossians 2:11), there is an evident allusion to the nature of the external rite of circumcision; and the propriety of the figure depends solely on the resemblance which can be traced, between the external rite and the spiritual operation.
When Paul was exhorted to be baptized, and to wash away his sins (Acts 22:16), there was an evident allusion to the use of water, in the ordinance of baptism; and had there been no application of water on which to ground such an allusion, we may be certain that we should never have heard of washing away sins in baptism.
Accordingly, none are ever said to be washed in circumcision, because there is no resemblance between that rite and washing. So also, though we are said, in a spiritual sense, to be crucified with Christ, we are not said to be crucified with him in baptism or circumcision, because there is no resemblance between those rites and crucifixion (note 34).
Nor are we ever said to be buried in circumcision, or to be risen therein to newness of life. Such expressions would be highly improper and absurd; because there is nothing like burial or resurrection in the rite of circumcision.
For the same reason, we may rest assured, that if baptism had consisted in sprinkling or pouring, or any partial application of water whatever, though we might possibly have heard of being washed in baptism, we should never have heard of being buried in baptism; for there being no resemblance, between such application of water and a burial, there could have been no propriety in representing baptism under such a figure.
But there is a confessed resemblance between immersion and a buial; and since the phrase, buried in baptism, is sanctioned by the highest authority, even divine inspiration, we have invincible proof, that baptism consists not in sprinkling or pouring, but in immersion.
6. The idea of immersion is the only one, which will suit all the various connection, in which the word is used in the New Testament.
The word certainly has some meaning, whether more limited, or more general; and when used to denote the ordinance of baptism, certainly has one uniform meaning, which is applicable in every instance. What is this meaning?
Is it sprinkling? We must then read, “And they were all sprinkled of him in the river Jordan” (Mark 1:5): “Buried with him by sprinkling” (Romans 6:4): “They were all sprinkled unto (Greek, into) Moses, in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Corinthians 10:2).
Is it washing? We must then read, He shall wash you with (Greek, in) the Holy Ghost and fire” (Matthew 3:11); “Arise and be washed, and wash away thy sins” (Acts 22:16): “So many of us, as were washed into Jesus Christ, were washed into his death” (Romans 6:3).
The idea of immersion always suits the connection in which the word is used; or, in the words of Dr. Campbell, the word ‘is always constructed suitably to this meaning.’ Thus we may read, with propriety of sentiment and expression – “And they were all immersed of him in the river Jordan : buried with him by immersion : They were all immersed into Moses (the Mosaic religion) in the cloud and in the sea : He shall immerse you in the Holy Ghost and fire : Arise and be immersed, and wash away thy sins : So many of us, as were immersed into Jesus Christ, were immersed into his death.
7. The Greek people certainly understand their own native language, better than any foreigners. We must, therefore, believe that their practice, whatever it be, affords a correct and indisputable interpretation of the Greek word. Now, from the first introduction of the gospel, to the present time, they have invariably practiced immersion. This is true, not only of the Greek people, but of the whole Greek church, from the southern provinces of Greece, to the northern extremity of the Russian empire, a church, which, in point of territory and population, embraces nearly one half of Christendom.
Deylingius: “The Greeks retain the rite of immersion to this day, as Jeremiah, the patriarch of Constantinople, declares” (note 35).
Mr. Chambers: “In the primitive times, this ceremony was performed by immersion; as it is to this day, in the oriental churches, according to the original signification of the word” (note 36).
Dr. Wall: “All the Christians in Asia, all in Africa, and about one third part of Europe, are of the last sort,” (practice immersion) “in which third part of Europe, are comprehended the Christians of Græcia, Thracia, Servia, Bulgaria, Rascia, Walachia, Moldavia, Russia, Nigra, and so on; and even the Muscovites, who, if coldness of the country will excuse, might plead for a dispensation, with the most reason of any…The Greek church, in all branches of it, does still use immersion; and they hardly count a child, except in case of sickness, well baptized without it” (note 37).
8. Not only all the branches of the Greek church, but the whole Christian world, for the space of thirteen hundred years, practiced immersion, as the only real baptism. Sprinkling or pouring was never tolerated, except in case of dangerous sickness, or in want of sufficient quantity of water, and in such cases, was called baptism, by way of courtesy merely, - not being regarded as real baptism, but as a substitute, which, through the indulgence of God, and (in later times) the authority of the pope, would answer the ends of baptism. Never, by any Christians, in any age, was sprinkling or pouring allowed in common cases, until the council of Ravenna, assembled by the pope, in the year 1311, declared immersion or pouring to be indifferent. From that time, the latter gradually came into general use. It was not, however, admitted into England, till the middle of the sixteenth century and not sanctioned till the middle of the seventeenth; when the Westminster assembly, influenced by Dr. Lightfoot, decided, that “dipping of the person in water, is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered, by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person” (note 38).
As the truth of these assertions, concerning the practice of the church, must be established by testimony, independently of argumentation, I hope to be excused for the number and length of the following quotations, from Pedobaptist authors of acknowledged authority.
Grotius: “That baptism used to be performed by immersion, and not by pouring, appears both from the proper signification of the word, and the places chosen for the administration of the rite, John 3:23; Acts 8:38; and also from the many allusions of the apostles, which cannot be referred to sprinkling, Romans 6:3-4; Colossians 2:12” (note 39).
Vitringa: “The act of baptizing is the immersion of believers in water. This expresses the force of the word. Thus also it was performed by Christ and the apostles” (note 40).
Curcellœus: “Baptism was performed by plunging the whole body into water, and not by sprinkling a few drops, as is now the practice. Nor did the disciples, that were sent out by Christ, administer baptism afterwards, in any other way” (note 41).
Westminster Assembly of Divines: “Buried with him by baptism. See Colossians 2:12. In this phrase, the apostle seemeth to allude to the ancient manner of baptism, which was to dip the parties baptized, and, as it were, to bury them under the water” (note 42).
Calvin: “From these words, John 3:23, it may be inferred that baptism was administered by John and Christ, by plunging the whole body under water. Here we perceive how baptism was administered among the ancients; for they immersed the whole body in water” (note 43).
Bailey: “Baptism, in strictness of speech, is that kind of ablution or washing, which consists in dipping; and when applied to the Christian institutions, so called, it was used by the primitive Christians, in no other sense that that of dipping, as the learned Grotius and Casauben well observe” (note 44).
Dr. Wall (note 45): “We should not know by these accounts,” (John 3:23; Mark 1:5; Acts 8:38) “whether the whole body of the baptized was put under water, head and all, were it not for two later proofs, which seem to me to put it out of the question. One, that St. Paul does twice, in an allusive way of speaking, call baptism a burial, which allusion is not so proper, if we conceive them to have gone into the water, only up to the armpits, etc., as it is, if their whole body was immersed. The other, the custom of the near succeeding times. – As for sprinkling, I say, as Mr. Blake, at its first coming up in England, Let them defend it that use it” (note 46).
Bingham: “There are a great many passages in the epistle of St. Paul, which plainly refer to this custom” (immersion) “As this was the original apostolic practice; so it continued to be the universal practice of the church, for many ages, upon the same symbolical reasons, as it was first used by the apostles. It appears from Epiphanius and others, that almost all heretics who retained any baptism, retained immersion also. The only heretics, against whom this charge” (of not baptizing by a total immersion) “is brought, were the Eunomians, a branch of the Arians” (note 47).
Dr. Towerson: “But, therefore, as there is so much the more reason, to represent the rite of immersion, as the only legitimate rite of baptism, because the only one, that can answer the ends of its institution, and those things which were to be signified by it; se especially, if (as is well known, and undoubtedly of great force) the general practice of the primitive church was agreeable thereto, and the practice of the Greek church to this very day. For who can think, either the one, or the other, would have been so tenacious of so troublesome a rite, were it not, that they were well assured, as they of the primitive church might very well be, of its being the only instituted and legitimate one?” (note 48)
Venema: “It is without controversy, that baptism, in the primitive church, was administered by immersion into water, and not by sprinkling. The essential act of baptizing, in the second century, consisted, not in sprinkling, but in immersion into water, in the name of each person in the Trinity. Concerning immersion, the words and phrases that are used, sufficiently testify; and that I was performed in a river, a pool, or a fountain. To the essential rite of baptism, in the third century, pertained immersion, and not aspersion, except in cases of necessity, and it was accounted a half-perfect baptism. Immersion, in the fourth century, was one of those acts that were considered as essential to baptism: - nevertheless, aspersion was used in the last moments of life, on such as were called clinics, - and also where there was not a sufficient quantity of water” (note 49).
Salmasius: “The ancients did not baptize, otherwise than by immersion, either once or thrice; except clinics, or persons confined to their beds, who were baptized in a manner of which they were capable; not in the entire laver, as those who plunge the head under water; but the whole body had water poured upon it. (Cypr. 4, Epist. 7) Thus Novation, when sick, received baptism, being περιχυθεις, sprinkled, not βαπτισθεις, baptized. Euseb. 6 Hist. C. 43” (note 50).
Bp. Taylor: “The custom of the ancient churches was not sprinkling, but immersion; in pursuance of the sense of the word (baptize) in the commandment, and the example of our blessed Saviour. Now this was of so sacred account in their esteem, that they did not account it lawful to receive him into the clergy who had been only sprinkled in his baptism, as we learn from the epistle of Cornelius to Fabius of Antioch, apud. Euseb. L. 7, C. 43. It was a formal and solemn question, made by Magnus to Cyprian, whether they were only sprinkled with water, and not washed or dipped” (note 51).
Cyprian: (In reply to Magnus.) “You ask, dear son, what I think of those, who, in sickness, receive the sacred ordinance; whether, since they are not washed (loti,) in the saving water, but have it poured on them, (perfusi,) they are to be esteemed right Christians (note 52). In the saving sacraments, when necessity obliges, and God grants his indulgence, abridgments of divine things, (divina compendia,) will confer the whole on believers” (note 53).
Dr. Wall: “Anno Dom. 251, Novation was, by one party of the clergy and people of Rome, chosen bishop of that church, in a schismatical way, and in opposition to Cornelius, who had been before chosen by the major part, and was already ordained. Cornelius does, in a letter to Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, vindicate his own right, and shows that Novation came not canonically to his orders of priesthood, much less was he capable of being chosen bishop; for that all the clergy, and a great many of the laity, were against his being ordained presbyter, because it was not lawful, they said, for any one that had been baptized in his bed, in time of sickness (τον εν κλινῃ δια νοσον περιχυθεντα), as he had been, to be admitted to any office of the clergy” (note 54).
Cornelius: “He (Novation) fell into a grievous distemper, and it being supposed that he would die immediately, he received baptism, being sprinkled with water on the bed whereon he lay, if that can be termed baptism” (note 55).
Valesius: “As sick persons who are baptized in their beds, could not be immersed by the priest, they had only water poured on them (perfundebantur). Therefore, this kind of baptism was accounted informal and imperfect; for it appeared to be received, not voluntary, but through fear of death, by men laboring under distraction of mind, and actuated by no suitable views; and since baptism properly signifies immersion, this kind of affusion could scarcely be called baptism. Wherefore, clinics (for so they were called, who received this kind of baptism) were, by the twelfth canon of the council of Neocæsarea, prohibited the priesthood” (note 56).
Monks of Cressy: “Is it lawful, in the case of necessity, occasioned by sickness, to baptize an infant, by pouring water on its head, from a cup, or the hands?” (note 57)
Pope Stephen III: (In reply to the monks of Cressy) “Such a baptism, performed in such a case of necessity, shall be accounted valid” (note 58).
Basnage: “This (the response of Stephen, in the year 754) is accounted the first law against immersion. The pontiff, however, did not dispense with immersion, except in the case of extreme necessity. This law, therefore, did not change the mode of dipping, in public baptisms; and it was not till five hundred and fifty seven years after, that the legislature, in a council at Ravenna, in the year 1311, declared immersion and pouring indifferent” (note 59).
Venema: “Beveridge, on the fiftieth apostolical canon, asserts, that the ceremony of sprinkling began to be used instead of immersion, about the time of Pope Gregory, in the sixth century; but without producing testimony in favor of his assertion; and it is undoubtedly a mistake. Martene declares in his Antiq. Eccles. Rit. L. 1, P. 1, C. 1, that in all the ritual books, or pontifical manuscripts, ancient or modern, that he has seen, immersion was required; except by the Cenomanensian, and that of a more modern date, in which pouring on the head is mentioned. In the council of Ravenna, also, held in the year thirteen hundred and eleven, both immersion and pouring are left to the determination of the administrator; and the council of Nismes, in the year one thousand two hundred and eighty-four, permitting pouring, if a vessel could not be had; therefore, only in case of necessity” (note 60).
Dr. Whitby: “It being so expressly declared here (Romans 6:4) and Colossians 2:12, that we are buried with Christ in baptism, by being buried under water, and the argument to oblige us to a conformity to his death, by dying to sin, being taken hence; and this immersion being religiously observed by all Christians for thirteen centuries, and approved by our church (of England) and the change of it into sprinkling, even without any allowance from the Author of this institution, or any license from any council of the church, 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 might be again of general use, and aspersion only permitted, as of old, in case of the clinici, or in present danger of death” (note 61).
Stackhouse: “Accordingly, several authors have shown, that we read no where in scripture of any one’s being baptized but by immersion; and from the acts of councils, and ancient rituals, have proved, that this manner of immersion continued, as much as possible, to be used, for thirteen hundred years after Christ” (note 62).
Dr. Wall: “France seems to have been the first country in the world, where bapti
