Referring to the position of the disciples on the action of baptism, a
correspondent says: “That, in regard to the sacrament of baptism, the
whole christian world have been in the dark, from the earliest history
of the church until within three hundred years, and much the greater
part are still behind!” He adds, “Not deceived, be it remembered, about
some things not essential to the ordinance, but _in regard to the very
nature of it_. And what is yet more singular, denominations possessing
much the greater share of learning are most in the dark!” He proceeds,
“Nay, even the christian fathers, who were, some of them, Greeks, and
men of learning, and who certainly should have known something about
their own language, were in serious error upon this very subject!”
All this is said, by our worthy friend, in reference to our position,
that nothing but immersion is baptism. It contains several items, and
to give them all possible conspicuity we notice them separately.
_First._ His first trouble is about the whole christian world being
in the dark, if our position is true. This expression, “the whole
christian world,” must be simmered down a little. We strike out of
it, then, all the christians of the first two centuries, as not in
the dark, for they held and practiced nothing but immersion for
baptism. This is sufficient, if we could say no more. But we add to
this all Baptists of modern times, who have not been in the dark on
this point. No fact is better authenticated than that for the first
thirteen centuries immersion was invariably practiced by all professed
christians, except, after the third century, in cases of extreme
weakness, where they thought immersion could not be endured, they
decided that affusion would do; but these could never hold office in
the church. Even the Episcopalian church, in the time of Mr. Wesley,
almost invariably immersed. Now sum up all these, and then decide how
large the number in the dark, and you will find that the sprinklers are
a mere drop in the bucket.
_Second._ The above shows that they have not possessed much the greater
share of learning, but much the smaller share of learning.
_Third._ The christian fathers, so called, are not to be entered in
that list. They were on the other side, and practiced immersion and
nothing else. The remark of the Cyprian shows that he is defending
something new and in doubt; hence his remark that “it is of equal
validity with the laver of salvation.” There was no doubt about what he
calls “the laver of salvation,” but there was doubt about sprinkling.
The one needed argument and the perversion of the passage in Ezekiel to
support it; the other was universally acknowledged.
We admit that the evidence is abundant “that pouring and sprinkling
were used” from the beginning of the fourth century not only to the
rise of the Anabaptists, but till now; but that pouring and sprinkling
were held in doubt, in general, and utterly repudiated by many,
is equally abundantly proved. The discovery that _baptizo_ means
_immerse_, and nothing else, could not have been made by any of the
fathers, for at that time no one denied that such was its meaning. In
the few instances where sprinkling or pouring was used, it was not on
the ground that _baptizo_ meant pour or sprinkle, but on the ground
that pouring or sprinkling would do in extreme cases of weakness where
they deemed the persons unable to endure immersion. No man can produce
one scrap of authority to show that any man at that early period, or
for many long centuries after, ever attempted to defend pouring or
sprinkling on the ground that _baptizo_ meant pour or sprinkle. Those
who practiced sprinkling or pouring generally in the early ages, did
not think they were doing what the Lord commanded, or what the apostles
practiced, but something else that _would do_. Luther, Calvin, Wesley
and Clarke, admitted that the ancient practice was immersion, but
they thought sprinkling or pouring _would do_. This was the ground of
argument for many long centuries. The idea of trying to prove that any
person was ever sprinkled or poured upon, for baptism, in the time of
the apostles, is a mere modern invention, and the idea that _baptizo_
means sprinkle or pour, is of equal modern date. These are new grounds
altogether, taken by modern men, who have been driven from the old
ground. It will not do in our time to admit—as all the ancients
did—that the apostles immersed—that immersion was the ancient
practice—that _baptizo_ means _immerse_, and nothing else, but that
“this rite has been _changed somewhat_,” and that _something else will
do as well_. This is too barefaced for our time, and the opposition
have changed their ground, and are now trying to make us believe that
their practice is sustained by the meaning of _baptizo_ and the ancient
practice.