feast. He was, says Plutarch, one chosen among the guests, the most
pleasant and diverting in the company, that would not get drunk, and yet
would drink freely; he was to rule over the rest, to forbid any
disorder, but to encourage their mirth. He observed the temper of the
guests, and how the wine worked upon them; how every one could bear his
wine, and to endeavour accordingly to keep them all in harmony, and in
an even composure, that there might be no disquiet nor disturbance. To
do this effectually, he first proclaimed liberty to every one to drink
what he thought proper, and then observing who among them was most ready
to be disordered, mixed more water with his wine, to keep him equally
sober with the rest of the company; so that this officer took care that
none should be forced to drink, and that none, though left to their own
choice, should get intoxicated. Such, we have reason to believe, was the
governor of the feast at the marriage in Cana of Galilee, which our Lord
honoured with his presence. The term ἀρχιτρίκλινος literally signifies
the governor of a place furnished with three beds; and he acted as one
having authority; for he tasted the wine before he distributed it to the
company, which, it is universally admitted, was one of the duties of a
symposiarch. Neither the name nor the act accords with the character and
situation of a guest; he must, therefore, have been the symposiarch, or
governor of the feast. The existence of such an officer among the Jews
is placed beyond a doubt, by a passage in the apocryphal book of
Ecclesiasticus, where his office is thus described: “If thou be made the
master of a feast, lift not thyself up, but be among them as one of the
rest; take diligent care of them, and so sit down. And when thou hast
done all thine office, take thy place, that thou mayest be merry with
them, and receive a crown for the well-ordering of the feast,”
Ecclesiasticus xxxii, 1. See ARCHITRICLINUS.
BAPTISM, from the Greek word βαπτίζω, is a rite or ceremony by which
persons are initiated into the profession of the Christian religion; or,
it is the appointed mode by which a person assumes the profession of
Christianity, or is admitted to a participation of the privileges
belonging to the disciples of Christ. It was by this mode that those who
believed the Gospel were to be separated from unbelievers, and joined to
the visible Christian church; and the rite accompanying it, or washing
with water, was probably intended to represent the washing away, or
renouncing, the impurities of some former state, viz. the sins that had
been committed, and the vicious habits that had been contracted; and to
this purpose it may be observed, that the profession of repentance
always accompanied, or was understood to accompany, the profession of
faith in Christ. That our Lord instituted such an ordinance as baptism,
is plain from the commission given to the Apostles after his
resurrection, and recorded in Matt. xxviii, 19, 20. To this rite there
is also an allusion in Mark xvi, 16; John iii, 5; Acts ii, 41; viii, 12,
36–38; xxii, 16. The design of this institution, which was to express
faith in Christ on the part of those who were baptized, and to declare
their resolution of openly professing his religion, and cultivating real
and universal holiness, appears from Rom. vi, 3, 4; 1 Peter iii, 21;
Ephes. v, 26; and Titus iii, 5. We find no account of baptism as a
distinct religious rite, before the mission of John, the forerunner of
Christ, who was called the “Baptist,” on account of his being commanded
by God to baptize with water all who should hearken to his invitation to
repent. Washing, however, accompanied many of the Jewish rites, and,
indeed, was required after contracting any kind of uncleanness. Also,
soon after the time of our Saviour, we find it to have been the custom
of the Jews solemnly to baptize, as well as to circumcise, all their
proselytes. As their writers treat largely of the reasons for this rite,
and give no hint of its being a novel institution, it is probable that
this had always been the custom antecedent to the time of Moses, whose
account of the rite of circumcision, and of the manner of performing it,
is by no means circumstantial. Or, baptism, after circumcision, might
have come into use gradually from the natural propriety of the thing,
and its easy conformity to other Jewish customs. For if no Jew could
approach the tabernacle, or temple, after the most trifling uncleanness,
without washing, much less would it be thought proper to admit a
proselyte from a state so impure and unclean as Heathenism was conceived
to be, without the same mode of purification. The antiquity of this
practice of proselyte baptism among the Jews, has been a subject of
considerable debate among divines. It is strenuously maintained by
Lightfoot. Dr. John Owen considers the opinion, that Christian baptism
came from the Jews, as destitute of all probability. On the other hand,
Mr. Wall has made it highly probable, to say the least, from many
testimonies of the Jewish writers, who without one dissenting voice
allow the fact, that the practice of Jewish baptism obtained before and
at, as well as after, our Saviour’s time. There is also a strong
intimation, even in the Gospel itself, of such a known practice among
the Jews in the time of John the Baptist, John i, 25. The testimonies of
the Jewish writers are of the greater weight, because the practice,
reported by them to have been of so ancient a date, did still remain
among them; for if it had not been of that antiquity to which it
pretends, viz. before the time of Christ, it is not likely that it would
ever have become a custom among the Jews afterward. Would they begin to
proselyte persons to their religion by baptism in imitation of the
disciples of Jesus of Nazareth, whom they held accursed? And yet if this
proselyte baptism were adopted by the Jews since the time of Christ, it
must have been a mere innovation in imitation of Christians, which is
not very likely. This ceremony is performed by immersion in the oriental
churches. The practice of the western churches is, to sprinkle the water
on the head or face of the person to be baptized, except in the church
of Milan, in whose ritual it is ordered, that the head of the infant be
plunged three times into the water; the minister at the same time
pronouncing the words, “_I baptize thee in the name of the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Ghost_;” importing that by this ceremony the person
baptized is received among the professors of that religion which God,
the Father of all, revealed to mankind by the ministry of his Son, and
confirmed by the miracles of his Spirit.
2. It is observable that the baptismal form, above cited from St.
Matthew, never occurs in the same words, either in the book of the Acts,
or in any of the Epistles. But though the form in St. Matthew never
appears elsewhere, the thing intended thereby is always implied. There
are many ceremonies delivered by ecclesiastical writers, as used in
baptism, which were introduced after the age of Justin Martyr, but which
are now disused; as the giving milk and honey to the baptized, in the
east; wine and milk, in the west, &c. They also added unction and the
imposition of hands. Tertullian is the first who mentions the signing
with the sign of the cross, but only as used in private, and not in
public worship; and he particularly describes the custom of baptizing
without it. Indeed, it does not appear to have been used in baptism till
the latter end of the fourth or fifth century; at which time great
virtue was ascribed to it. Lactantius, who lived in the beginning of the
fourth century, says the devil cannot approach those who have the
heavenly mark of the cross upon them as an impregnable fortress to
defend them; but he does not say it was used in baptism. After the
council of Nice, Christians added to baptism the ceremonies of exorcism
and adjuration, to make evil spirits depart from the persons to be
baptized. They made several signings with the cross, they used lighted
candles, they gave salt to the baptized person to taste, and the priest
touched his mouth and ears with spittle, and also blew and spat upon his
face. At that time also baptized persons wore white garments till the
Sunday following. They had also various other ceremonies; some of which
are now abolished, though others of them remain in the church of Rome to
this day.
3. The Quakers assert, that water baptism was never intended to continue
in the church of Christ any longer than while Jewish prejudices made
such an external ceremony necessary. They argue from Eph. iv, 5, in
which _one_ baptism is spoken of as necessary to Christians, that this
must be a baptism of the Spirit. But from comparing the texts that
relate to this institution, it will plainly appear that water baptism
was instituted by Christ in more general terms than will agree with this
explication. That it was administered to all the Gentile converts, and
not confined to the Jews, appears from Matt. xxviii, 19, 20, compared
with Acts x, 47; and that the baptism of the Spirit did not supersede
water baptism appears to have been the judgment of Peter and of those
that were with him; so that the one baptism spoken of seems to have been
that of water; the communication of the Holy Spirit being only called
baptism in a figurative sense. As for any objection which may be drawn
from 1 Cor. i, 17, it is sufficiently answered by the preceding verses,
and all the numerous texts, in which, in epistles written long after
this, the Apostle speaks of _all_ Christians as baptized; and argues
from the obligation of baptism, in such a manner as we can never imagine
he would have done, if he had apprehended it to have been the will of
God that it should be discontinued in the church. Compare Rom. vi, 3,
&c; Col. ii, 12; Gal. iii, 27.
4. Baptism, in early times, was only administered at Easter and
Whitsuntide, except in cases of necessity. Adult persons were prepared
for baptism by abstinence, prayer, and other pious exercises. It was to
answer for them, says Mosheim, that sponsors, or godfathers, were first
instituted in the second century, though they were afterward admitted
also in the baptism of infants. This, according to M. Daillé, was not
done till the fourth century. Wall refers the origin of sponsors, or
godfathers, on the authority of Tertullian, to the commencement of the
second century; who were used in the baptism of infants that could not
answer for themselves. The catechumens were not forward in coming to
baptism. St. Ambrose was not baptized before he was elected bishop of
Milan; and some of the fathers not till the time of their death. Some
deferred it out of a tender conscience; and others out of too much
attachment to the world; it being the prevailing opinion of the
primitive times, that baptism, whenever conferred, washed away all
antecedent stains and sins. Accordingly they deferred this sanctifying
rite as long as possible, even till they apprehended they were at the
point of death. Cases of this kind occur at the beginning of the third
century. Constantine the Great was not baptized till he was at the last
gasp, and in this he was followed by his son Constantius; and two of his
other sons, Constantine and Constans, were killed before they were
baptized. As to the necessity of baptism, we may observe, however, that,
though some seem to have laid too great stress upon it, as if it were
indispensably necessary in order to salvation; it must be allowed, that
for any person to omit baptism, when he acknowledges it to be an
institution of Christ, and that it is the will of Christ that he should
submit to it, is an act of disobedience to his authority, which is
inconsistent with true faith.
5. The word _baptism_ is frequently taken for _sufferings_, Mark x, 38;
Luke xii, 50; Matt. xx, 22, 23. Of expressions like these we find some
traces in the Old Testament also, where waters often denote
tribulations, Psalm lxix, 1, 15; cxxiv, 4, 5; and where to be swallowed
up by the waters, and to pass through the great waters, signify to be
overwhelmed with miseries and calamities.
6. St. Paul, endeavouring to prove the resurrection of the dead, among
several other reasons in support of the doctrine, says, “If the dead
rise not at all, what shall they do who are baptized for the dead?” 1
Cor. xv, 29. Of this phrase various interpretations have been given;
three of which only shall be here mentioned. “It means,” say some,
“‘baptized in the room of the dead just fallen in the cause of Christ,
and who are thus supported by a sucession of new converts, immediately
offering themselves to fill up their places, as ranks of soldiers who
advance to combat in the room of their companions, who have just been
slain in their sight.’” Others think it signifies, “In hope of blessings
to be received after they are numbered with the dead.” Dr. Macknight
supplies the words, τῆς ἀναϛάσεως, and reads the clause, “Who are
baptized for the resurrection of the dead;” or in consequence of their
believing in the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead; on account of
which faith, and their profession of it, they are exposed to great
sufferings, for which they can have no recompense, if there be no
resurrection of the dead, nor any future life at all.
7. As to the subjects of baptism, the anti-pædobaptists hold that
believing adults only are proper subjects, because the commission of
Christ to baptize appears to them to restrict this ordinance to such
only as are taught, or made disciples; and that, consequently, infants,
who cannot be thus taught, ought to be excluded. “It does not appear,”
say they, “that the Apostles, in executing the commission of Christ,
ever baptized any but those who were first instructed in the Christian
faith, and professed their belief of it.” They contend that infants can
receive no benefit from baptism, and are not capable of faith and
repentance, which are to be considered as prerequisites.
8. As to the mode, they observe that the meaning of the word βαπτίζω
signifies to _immerse_ or _dip_, and that only; that John baptized in
Jordan; that he chose a place where there was much water; that Jesus
came up out of the water; that Philip and the eunuch went down both into
the water; that the terms, _washing_, _purifying_, _burying in baptism_,
so often mentioned in the Scriptures, allude to this mode; that
immersion only was the practice of the Apostles and the first
Christians; and that it was only laid aside from the love of novelty,
and the coldness of climate. These positions, they think, are so clear
from Scripture, and the history of the church, that they stand in need
of but little argument for their support. Farther, they also insist that
all positive institutions depend entirely upon the will and declaration
of the institutor; and that, therefore, reasoning by analogy from
previously abrogated rites is to be rejected, and the express command of
Christ respecting baptism ought to be our rule.
9. The Pædobaptists, however, are of a different opinion. As to the
subjects of baptism, they believe that qualified adults, who have not
been baptized before, are certainly proper subjects; but then they
think, also, that infants ought not to be excluded. They believe that,
as the Abrahamic and Christian covenants are the same, Gen. xvii, 7;
Heb. viii, 12; that as children were admitted under the former; and that
as baptism is now a sign, seal, or confirmation of this covenant,
infants have as great a right to it as the children of the Israelites
had to the seal of circumcision under the law, Acts ii, 39; Rom. iv, 11.
Farther, if children are not to be baptized because there is no positive
command for it, for the same reason they say that women should not come
to the Lord’s Supper; nor ought we to keep holy the first day of the
week; neither of these being expressly commanded. If baptizing infants
had been a human invention, they also ask, how such a practice could
have been so universal in the first three hundred years of the church,
and yet no record have remained when it was introduced, nor any dispute
or controversy about it have taken place? Some reduce the matter to a
narrower compass; urging, (1.) That God constituted in his church the
membership of infants, and admitted them to that privilege by a
religious ordinance, Gen. xvii; Gal. iii, 14, 17. (2.) That this right
of infants to church membership was never taken away: and this being the
case, they argue, that infants must be received, because God has
appointed it; and, since they must be received, it must be either with
baptism or without it; but none must be received without baptism;
therefore, infants must of necessity be baptized. Hence it is clear
that, under the Gospel, infants are still continued exactly in the same
relation to God and his church in which they were originally placed
under former dispensations. That infants are to be received into the
church, and as such baptized, is also inferred from the following
passages of Scripture: Gen. xvii; Isa. xliv, 3; Matt. xix, 13; Luke ix,
47, 48; Acts ii, 38, 39; Rom. xi, 17, 21; 1 Cor. vii, 14.
10. Though there are no express examples in the New Testament of Christ
and his Apostles baptizing infants, yet there is no proof that they were
excluded. Jesus Christ actually blessed little children; and it is
difficult to believe that such received his blessing, and yet were not
to be members of the Gospel church. If Christ received them, and would
have us “receive” them, how can we keep them out of the visible church?
Beside, if children were not to be baptized, it is reasonable to expect
that they would have been expressly forbidden. As whole households were
baptized, it is also probable there were children among them. From the
year 400 to 1150, no society of men, in all that period of seven hundred
and fifty years, ever pretended to say it was unlawful to baptize
infants: and still nearer the time of our Saviour there appears to have
been scarcely any one who advised the delay of infant baptism. Irenæus,
who lived in the second century, and was well acquainted with Polycarp,
who was John’s disciple, declares expressly, that the church learned
from the Apostles to baptize children. Origen, in the third century,
affirms, that the custom of baptizing infants was received from Christ
and his Apostles. Cyprian, and a council of ministers, held about the
year 254, no less than sixty-six in number, unanimously agreed that
children might be baptized as soon as they were born. Ambrose, who wrote
about 274 years from the Apostles, declares that the baptism of infants
had been practised by the Apostles themselves, and by the church down to
that time. “The catholic church every where declares,” says Chrysostom,
in the fifth century, “that infants should be baptized;” and Augustine
affirmed, that he never heard or read of any Christian, catholic or
sectarian, but who always held that infants were to be baptized. They
farther believe that there needed no mention in the New Testament of
receiving infants into the church, as it had been once appointed and
never repealed. So far from confining baptism to adults, it must be
remembered that there is not a single instance recorded in the New
Testament, in which the descendants of Christian parents were baptized
in adult years. The objection that infants are not proper subjects for
baptism, because they cannot profess faith and repentance, falls with as
much weight upon the institution of circumcision as infant baptism;
since they are as capable or are as fit subjects for the one as the
other. Finally, it is generally acknowledged, that if infants die, (and
a great part of the human race die in their infancy,) they are saved: if
this be the case then why refuse them the sign of union with Christ, if
they be capable of enjoying the thing signified?
11. As to the mode, the Pædobaptists deny that the term βαπτίζω, which
is a derivative of βάπτω, and, consequently, must be something less in
its signification, is invariably used in the New Testament to express
plunging. It is denied, therefore, that dipping is its only meaning;
that Christ absolutely enjoined immersion; and that it is his positive
will that no other mode should be used. As the word βαπτίζω is used to
express the various ablutions among the Jews, such as sprinkling,
pouring, &c, Heb. ix, 10, for the custom of washing before meals, and
the washing of household furniture, pots, &c, it is evident from hence
that it does not express the manner of doing a thing, whether by
immersion or effusion, but only the thing done; that is, washing; or the
application of water in some form or other. It no where signifies _to
dip_, but in denoting a mode of, and in order to, washing or cleansing;
and the mode or use is only the ceremonial part of a positive institute;
just as in the Lord’s Supper, the time of day, the number and posture of
the communicants, the quantity and quality of bread and wine, are
circumstances not accounted essential by any part of Christians. If in
baptism there be an expressive emblem of the descending influence of the
Spirit, pouring must be the mode of administration; for that is the
Scriptural term most commonly and properly used for the communication of
divine influences, Matt. iii, 11; Mark i, 8, 10; Luke iii, 16–22; John
i, 33; Acts i, 5; ii, 38, 39; viii, 12, 17; xi, 15, 16. The term
_sprinkling_, also, is made use of in reference to the act of
purification, Isa. lii, 15; Ezek. xxxvi, 25; Heb. ix, 13, 14; and
therefore cannot be inapplicable to baptismal purification. But, it is
observed, that John baptized “_in_ Jordan:” to this it is replied, To
infer always a plunging of the whole body in water from this particle,
would, in many instances, be false and absurd. The same Greek
preposition, ἐν, is used when it is said they should be “baptized with
fire;” but few will assert that they should be plunged into it. The
Apostle, speaking of Christ, says, he came not, ἐν, “by water only;”
but, ἐν, “by water and blood.” There the same word, ἐν, is translated
_by_; and with justice and propriety; for we know no good sense in which
we could say he came _in_ water. It has been remarked that ἐν is, more
than a hundred times, in the New Testament, rendered _at_; and in a
hundred and fifty others it is translated _with_. If it be rendered so
here, John baptized at Jordan, or with the water of Jordan, there is no
proof that he plunged his disciples in it.
Jesus, it is said, came up _out of_ the water; but this is no proof that
he was immersed, as the Greek term, ἀπὸ, often signifies _from_: for
instance, “Who hath warned you to flee _from_,” not _out of_, “the wrath
to come?” with many others that might be mentioned. Again: it is urged
that Philip and the eunuch went down both into the water. To this it is
answered, that here also is no proof of immersion: for, if the
expression of their going down _into_ the water necessarily includes
dipping, then Philip was dipped, as well as the eunuch. The preposition
εἰς, translated _into_, often signifies no more than _to_, or _unto_:
see Matt. xv, 24; Rom. x, 10; Acts xxviii, 14; Matt. iii, 11; xvii, 27:
so that from none of these circumstances can it be proved that there was
one person of all the baptized, who went into the water ankle deep. As
to the Apostle’s expression, “buried with him in baptism,” that has no
force in the argument for immersion, since it does not allude to a
custom of dipping, any more than our baptismal crucifixion and death has
any such reference. It is not the sign, but the thing signified, that is
here alluded to. As Christ was buried, and rose again to a heavenly
life, so we by baptism signify that we are separated from sin, that we
may live a new life of faith and love.