Still Waters Revival Books - Baptism - Puritan
Hard Drive
In administering the rite of circumcision, it was customary to give a name to the child. This is evident from the circumstances attending the
circumcision of John the Baptist, as related in the gospel according to Luke
1:59-64; and also those attending the circumcision of our blessed Saviour, as
found recorded in the next chapter of the same gospel. The same practice
probably existed, from the earliest period of the New Testament church, in the
administration of baptism. It
makes, however, no necessary, or even
important part of the rite. A
baptism administered without a name,
would, of course, be just as valid as if one were announced; and there is
nothing in the essential nature of the case, which would forbid a name given to
a child in baptism being reconsidered and altered afterwards.
Yet, inasmuch as a child, when baptized, is announced to the church as a new
member, subject to its maternal watch and care, it ought, in common, for
obvious reasons, to be introduced and known under some name, so that each child
may be distinguished, and may receive its appropriate treatment. To introduce a
nameless member into any society, would be both unreasonable and inconvenient.
Moreover, it is of great consequence, both to civil and religious society,
that the birth and baptism of every child be recorded in regular church books. The formation of this
record requires, it is evident, the use of a name; and after the name is adopted and recorded in this
public register, it is plain that frequent alterations of the name, and
tampering, in a corresponding manner, with the public register would lead to
endless confusion and mischief. Thus we are conducted, by a very obvious train
of reasoning, to the conclusion that the name announced in baptism ought, in
general, to be carefully retained, without subtraction or addition. Sometimes,
indeed, the civil law requires such registers to be made and preserved, in
regard to every birth and baptism. Where this is the case, there is, evidently,
an additional reason for adhering strictly to the name announced in baptism,
recorded in the appropriate register, and thus brought under oYcial notice, and
recorded as the property of the state. See a number of curious questions
proposed and resolved, concerning the names imposed in baptism, in the Polilicæ
Ecclesiasticæ of the learned Gisbertus
Voetius, Tom. 1, pp. 714-24.
This unscriptural and pernicious doctrine is not confined to the Roman
Catholics, in whose system it may without
impropriety be said to be indigenous; but is also frequently found in the
pulpits and manuals of some Protestants, in the midst of whose general principles it ought to be regarded as a
poisonous exotic.
I. The doctrine referred to, as held by some Protestants, in its most
objectionable form, appears to be this: that the spiritual change which the
scriptures designate by the term regeneration, is always attendant upon, and effected by, the rite of baptism, when
duly administered; that, on the one hand, every person, infant or adult, who
has been baptized by an authorized minister, is a regenerated person; and that,
on the other, every person who has not been baptized, however deep or mature
his penitence and faith, is still unregenerate. In short, the position is, that
the inward grace of regeneration always accompanies the outward sign of baptism; that they are inseparable;
that the one cannot exist without the other; that he who has been thus
regenerated, if he dies without falling from grace, is certainly saved; that
baptism is essential to salvation; and that to call by the name of regeneration
any moral change from the love of sin to the love of holiness, which takes
place either before or
after baptism, is unscriptural and absurd.
This, as I understand them, is the doctrine maintained by Bishop Tomline,
Bishop Marsh, Bishop Mant, and a number of other writers, of equal conspicuity,
in the Church of England, and by not a few divines of the Protestant Episcopal
Church in our own country.
This doctrine, I apprehend, is contrary to scripture; contrary to
experience; contrary to the declared opinion of the most wise, pious, and
venerated divines even of the Episcopal denomination; and adapted to generate
the most dangerous errors with regard to Christian character, and the gospel
plan of salvation.
1. It is contrary to scripture.
Without regeneration, the scriptures declare, it is impossible to enter into
the kingdom of heaven. But the penitent malefactor on the cross undoubtedly
entered into the kingdom of heaven, if we are to credit our Lord's express
declaration (Luke 23:43). Yet this penitent believing malefactor was never
baptized: therefore he was regenerated without baptism; and of course,
regeneration and baptism are not inseparably connected. Again, Simon Magus
received the outward and visible ordinance of baptism, with unquestionable
regularity, by an authorized administrator; yet who will venture to say, that
he received the "inward and invisible grace" signified and
represented in that ordinance? He was evidently from the beginning a hypocrite,
and remained, after baptism, as before, "in the gall of bitterness, and in
the bond of iniquity" (Acts 8:13-23). Therefore the outward and sensible
sign, and the inward and invisible grace are not in all cases, or necessarily, connected.
Again, it is evident that the apostle Paul, Lydia, the Ethiopian eunuch, the
Philippian jailor, etc., "believed with the heart," and were,
consequently, brought into a state of acceptance with God before they were baptized; but we are told that as many as
believe have been "born of God," and made the " sons of
God" (John 1:12-13). Of course, regeneration may take place, in the case of adults, ought to take place, and in these cases, did take place, before baptism; and, consequently, is not the
same thing with baptism, or inseparably
connected with that rite. Once more: we are assured in scripture, that "he
who is born of God, or regenerated, doth not commit sin (that is, deliberately
or habitually), for his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is
"born of God;" and further, that "every one that loveth is born
of God and knoweth God;" and that "whosoever believeth that Jesus is
the Christ is born of God" (1 John 3:9; 4:7; 5:1). But can it be said that
this character belongs to all who are baptized? Or, that none who are
unbaptized manifest that they possess it? Surely no one in his senses will
venture to make the assertion. Therefore a man may be "born of God"
before he is baptized, and, consequently, the administration of the outward
ordinance, and that work of the Holy Spirit, called in the word of God
regeneration, are not always connected.
2. The doctrine before us is as contrary to experience as it is to scripture. "It is asserted,"
says an eminent divine of the Church of England, now living "It is
asserted, that the spiritual change of heart called regeneration invariably
takes place in the precise article of baptism. If this assertion be well
founded, the spiritual change in question will invariably take place in every
adult at the identical moment when he is baptized: that is to say, at the very
instant when the hand of the priest brings his body in contact with the
baptismal water; at that precise instant, his understanding begins to be
illuminated, his will to be reformed, and his affections to be purified.
Hitherto he has walked in darkness; but now, to use the scriptural phrase, he
has passed from darkness to light. Hitherto he has been wrapped in a death-like
sleep of trespasses and sins; but now he awakes, and rises from the dead, Christ
himself giving him life. Hitherto he has been a chaos of vice, and ignorance,
and spiritual confusion; the natural man receiving not the things of the Spirit
of God, for they are foolishness unto him: but now he is created after God in righteousness and true
holiness; being in Christ he is a 'new creature;' having become spiritual, the
things of the Spirit of God are no longer foolishness to him; he knows them
because they are spiritually discerned. Such are the emphatic terms in which
regeneration is described by the inspired writers. What we have to do,
therefore, I apprehend, is forthwith to inquire, whether every baptized adult,
without a single exception, is invariably found to declare, that, in the
precise article of baptism, his soul experienced a change analogous to that
which is so unequivocally set forth in the above mentioned texts of
scripture."[1] We need not dwell long on the inquiry.
The fact is notoriously not so. Nor does it diminish the difficulty, in admitting
the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, to say, as the Arminian advocates of
this doctrine invariably do say, that those who are once regenerated may fall
from grace, and manifest a most unhallowed temper. This is not the question.
The question is, does experience evince that every subject of baptism, who has
reached an age capable of manifesting the Christian character, does, at
the moment of receiving the baptismal water,
show that he is the subject of that regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, by
which "old things are passed away, and all things become new" in the
Lord (1 Cor. 5:17)? No one who has a particle of intelligence or candour can
imagine that any such fact exists; but if it does not, then the doctrine under
consideration falls of course.
3. The doctrine of baptismal regeneration is contrary to the declared
opinion of the most pious, judicious, and venerable Protestant divines,
including those of the very highest authority in the Church of England. Nothing
can be more certain than that the mass of the English reformers distinctly
taught that baptism is a sign only of
regeneration, and that the thing signified might or might not accompany the
administration of the outward ordinance, according as it was received worthily
or otherwise. In support of this assertion, the most explicit quotations might
be presented from the writings of those distinguished martyrs and prelates,
Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, and Hooper; and after them from the writings of the
eminent bishops, Jewell, Davenant, Hall, Usher, Reynolds, Leighton, Hopkins,
Tillotson, Beveridge, Burnet, Secker, and a host of other divines of the
English Church, of whose elevated character it would be little less than an
insult to any intelligent reader to attempt to offer testimony. All these men
declare, in the most solemn manner, against the doctrine of baptismal
regeneration, in the sense which we are now considering. Indeed, I cannot call
to mind a single writer of that church, from the time of Archbishop Cranmer to
the present hour, who had the least claim to the character of an
evangelical man, who did not repudiate the
doctrine which I am now opposing; and not a few of them denounce it as popish, and adapted to subvert the whole system of vital
and spiritual religion.
4. The last argument which I shall urge, against the doctrine of baptismal
regeneration, is that it is adapted to generate the most fatal errors with regard to the gospel plan of salvation.
So far as this doctrine is believed, its native tendency is to beget a
superstitious and unwarranted reliance on an external ordinance; to lower our
estimate of that inward spiritual sanctification which constitutes the essence
of the Christian character; in fact, to supersede the necessity of that
spiritual change of heart, of which the scriptures speak so much, and for which
the most holy and eminent servants of Christ have, in all ages, contended. The
truth is, the doctrine now under consideration is the very same in substance,
with the doctrine of the opus operatum
of the Papists, which all
evangelical Protestants have been opposing, for more than three hundred years,
as a mischievous delusion. Accordingly, the popish character and fatal tendency
of this error have been unreservedly acknowledged by many bishops, and other
pious divines of the Church of England, as well as by many of the same
denomination in this country.
Further, if regeneration, which is the commencement of holiness in the soul,
is always communicated in baptism, then it follows as, indeed, those who
entertain this doctrine distinctly avow that baptism invariably places its
subject in a state of salvation; so that every baptized person who dies
immediately after the administration of this sacrament, is infallibly sure of
entering the kingdom of heaven. If this doctrine were fully believed, would not
every thinking anxious parent refrain from having his child baptized in
infancy, and reserve the ordinance for an hour of extremity, such as the
approach of death, that it might serve as an unfailing passport to glory? Would
it not be wise in every adult who may be brought to a knowledge of the Saviour,
from Paganism, or from the world, to put off his baptism to the last hour of
his life, that he might be sure of departing in safety? This is well known to
have been one of the actual corruptions of the fourth century, growing out of
the very error which I am now opposing. "It was the custom of many,"
says Dr. Mosheim, "in that century, to put off their baptism till the last
hour; that thus immediately after receiving by this rite the remission of their
sins, they might ascend pure and spotless to the mansions of life and
immortality."
This is no far-fetched or strange conceit. It is the native fruit of the
doctrine before us. Nay, if we suppose this pernicious theory to take full
possession of the mind, would it not be natural that a tender parent should
anxiously desire his child to die
immediately after baptism; or even, in a desperate case, to compass
its death, as infallibly for its eternal
benefit? And, on the same principle, might we not pray for the death of every
adult, immediately after he had received baptism, believing that then "to die would certainly be gain (Phil
1:21)?" In fine, I see not if the doctrine be true, that a regenerating
and saving efficacy attends every regular baptism I see not how we can avoid
the conclusion, that every pagan, whether child or adult, that can be seized by
force, and however thoughtless, reluctant or profane, made to submit to the
rite of baptism, is thereby infallibly made "a child of God, and an
inheritor of the kingdom of heaven?"
These consequences, which appear to me demonstrably to flow from the theory
in question, afford sufficient evidence that it is an unscriptural and
pernicious error, even if no other means of refutation could be found.
It is not forgotten that language which seems, at first view, to countenance
the doctrine which I am opposing, is found in some of the early fathers. Some of them employ terms which would imply, if
interpreted literally, that baptism and regeneration were the same thing. But
the reason of this is obvious. The Jews were accustomed to call the converts to
their religion from the Gentiles little children, and their introduction into the Jewish church, a new
birth, because they were brought, as it
were, into a new moral world.
Accordingly, circumcision is repeatedly called in scripture "the
covenant," because it was the sign of
the covenant. Afterwards, when baptism, as a Christian ordinance, became
identified with the reception of the gospel, the early writers and preachers
began to call this ordinance regeneration, and sometimes illumination, because every adult who
was baptized, professed to be born of God, illuminated by the Holy Spirit. By a
common figure of speech, they called the sign by the name of the thing signified. In the truly primitive times this language was
harmless, and well understood; but as superstition increased, it gradually led
to mischievous error, and became the parent of complicated and deplorable
delusions.
II. But there is another view of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration,
which is sometimes taken, and which, though less pernicious than that which has
been examined, is still, I apprehend, fitted to mislead, and, of course, to do
essential mischief. It is this: that baptism is that rite which marks and
ratifies the introduction of its subject into the visible kingdom of Christ;
that in this ordinance the baptized person is brought into a new state or
relation to Christ, and his sacred family; and that this new state or relation
is designated in the scripture by the term regeneration, being intended to express an
ecclesiastical birth, that is, being
"born" into the visible kingdom of the Redeemer. Those who entertain
this opinion do not deny that there is a great moral change, wrought by the
Spirit of God, which must pass upon every one, before he can be in a state of
salvation. This they call conversion, renovation, etc.; but they tell us that the term "regeneration" ought not to be applied to this spiritual change;
that it ought to be confined to that change of state and of relation to the visible kingdom of Christ which is constituted by baptism; so that a person, according to them,
may be regenerated, that is, regularly introduced into the visible church, without
being really born of the Spirit. This theory, though by no means so fatal in
its tendency as the preceding, still appears to me liable to the following
serious objections.
1. It makes an unauthorized use of an important theological term. It is vain
to say, that, after giving fair notice of the sense in which we use a term, no misapprehension or harm
can result from the constant use of it in that sense. The plea is insufficient.
If the sense in question be an unusual and especially an unscriptural one, no
one can estimate the mischief which may result from the use of it in that
sense. Names are so closely
connected with things, that it is
of the utmost importance to preserve the nomenclature of theology from
perversion and abuse. If the sense of the word "regeneration" which
is embraced in this theory, were now by common consent admitted, it would give
an entirely new aspect to all those passages of scripture in which either
regeneration or baptism is mentioned, making some of them unmeaning, and others
ridiculous; and render unintelligible, and in a great measure useless, if not
delusive, nine-tenths of the best works on the subject of practical religion
that have ever been written.
2. But there is a more serious objection. If men be told that every one who
is baptized, is thereby regenerated "born of God," "born of
the Spirit," made a "new creature in Christ" will not the mass
of mankind, in spite of every precaution and explanation that can be employed,
be likely to mistake on a fundamental point; to imagine that the disease of our
nature is trivial, and that a trivial remedy for it will answer; to lay more
stress than they ought upon an external rite; and to make a much lower estimate
than they ought of the nature and necessity of that holiness without which no
man shall see the Lord?
After all, however, although the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, in the
first and most objectionable sense, is known to be rejected by all the truly
evangelical divines of the Church of England, and by the same class in the
Protestant Episcopal Church in this country; yet it cannot be denied that
something, to say the least, very like this doctrine is embodied in the
baptismal service of that denomination on both sides of the Atlantic. The
following specimens of its language will at once illustrate and confirm my
meaning:
"Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this child is regenerate,
and grafted into the body of Christ's church
let us give thanks unto Almighty God for these benefits, and with one accord
make our prayers unto him, that this child may lead the rest of his life
according to this beginning." And again: "We yield thee hearty
thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to,
regenerate this infant by thy Holy Spirit,
to receive him for thine own child by adoption, and to incorporate him into thy
holy church,'' etc. The same language is also repeated in the baptismal service
for "those of riper years." They are represented as being
"regenerated," as being "born again," and "made heirs
of salvation," and as having "put on Christ."
This language is differently interpreted, by the Episcopal ministers who
employ it, according to the opinion which they adopt with regard to baptism.
Those who coincide in opinion with Bishop Mant, and others of similar
sentiments, make no scruple of avowing, that these expressions literally
import, what they fully believe, that every one who is duly baptized is, in and
by that rite, born of the Spirit, and brought into a state of grace and
salvation. A second class of interpreters, however, consider this language of
the liturgy as merely importing that the person baptized is brought into a new
state, or a new relation to the visible church. While a third class, although
they acknowledge that the language before us, literally interpreted, does
certainly express more than a mere visible relation, even the participation of
truly spiritual and saving blessings; yet say, that they can conscientiously
employ it, because a liturgy intended for general use, ought to be, and must
be, constructed upon the principle, that those who come to receive its offices
are all to be considered as sincere, and
as having a right, in the sight
of God, to the ordinance for which they apply! And thus it happens, that those
who reject as popish and delusive the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, as
taught by Mant, and those who concur with him, feel no difficulty in publicly
and solemnly repeating this language, every time they administer the ordinance
of baptism.
It is not for one of another communion to interpose between the consciences
of Episcopal ministers, and the import of their public formularies. In fidelity
to my own principles, however, and as a warning to those of my own church who
may be assailed by the proselytizing efforts of some of this denomination, I
may be permitted to say, that if I believed with Bishop Mant, and his
associates in sentiment, the language of the baptismal service would be
entirely to my taste; but if not, I could not, on any account, conscientiously
employ it. It would not satisfy me to be told, that the language of one of the
Thirty-Nine Articles, and some of the language found in the Book of Homilies,
bears a different aspect. This is, no doubt, true. Still this does not remove
or alter the language of the baptismal service. There it stands, a distress and
a snare to thousands of good men, who acknowledge that they could wish it
otherwise but dare not modify it in the smallest jot or tittle.[2]
Had I no other objection to ministering in the Church of England, or in the
corresponding denomination in this country, this part of the liturgy would
alone be an insurmountable one. I could not consent continually to employ
language which, however explained or counteracted, is so directly adapted to
deceive in a most vital point of practical religion. I could not allow myself
to sanction by adoption and use, language which, however explained and
counteracted in my own ministry, I knew to be presented and urged by many
around me in its literal import, and declared to be the only true doctrine of
the church.
As to the plea that a liturgy must necessarily be constructed upon the
principle that all who come to its offices must be presumed to be sincere, and be solemnly assured,
in the name of God, that they are so, nothing can be more delusive. Cannot
scriptural truth be as plainly stated, and as wisely guarded in a liturgical
composition as in any other? Our Methodist brethren have a prescribed form for
baptism; and so far as I recollect its language, they have succeeded, without
apparent difficulty, in making it at once instructive, solemn, appropriate, and
unexceptionable.[3] And I have heard Presbyterian ministers
a thousand times tell their hearers, with as much distinctness in administering
sacraments, as in ordinary preaching, that "the sacraments become
effectual to salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth
administer them; but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of his
Spirit in them that by faith receive them."
But it may be asked, what kind or degree of efficacy do Presbyterians consider as connected with baptism?
Do they suppose that there is any beneficial influence, physical or moral, in
all cases, connected with the due
administration of this sacrament? I answer, none at all. They suppose that the washing with water in this
ordinance is an emblem and a
sign of precious benefits; that it holds
forth certain great truths, which are the glory of the Christian covenant, and
the joy of the Christians's heart; that it is a seal affixed by God to his
covenant with his people, whereby he certified his purposes of grace, and
pledges his blessing to all who receive it with a living faith; nay, that it is
the seal of valuable outward privileges, even to those who are not then, or at any other time, "born of
the Spirit;" that, as a solemn rite appointed by Christ, it is adapted to
make a solemn impression on the serious mind; but that when it is administered
to the persons, or the offspring of those who are entirely destitute of faith,
there is no pledge or certainty that it will be accompanied with any
blessing. They receive the water, but not the Spirit. They are engrafted into the visible church, but not
into the spiritual body of Christ, and are, after baptism, just as they were before,like Simon the Sorcerer, "in the gall of
bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity" (Acts 8:23).
It is well known that the Presbyterian church differs from the Episcopal in
regard to the subject announced at the head of this note. We differ in two
respects. First, in not requiring or
encouraging the appearance of any other sponsors, in the baptism of children, than the parents,when they are living and qualified to present
themselves in this character; and secondly, in not requiring, or even admitting, any godfathers or godmothers at
all in cases of adult baptism. My
object in the remarks which I am about to make on this subject is not to impugn
either the principles or practice of our Episcopal brethren; but simply to
state, for the instruction of the members of our own church, why we cannot
think or act with them in relation to this matter.
It is curious to observe the several steps by which the use of sponsors, as
now established in the Romish and some Protestant churches, reached its present
form. Within the first five or six hundred years after Christ, there is no
evidence that children were ever presented
for baptism by any other persons than their parents, provided those parents were living, and were
professing Christians. When some persons in the time of Augustine (who
flourished toward the close of the fourth, and beginning of the fifth
century), contended that it was not lawful, in any case, for any excepting
their natural parents to offer children in baptism; that learned and pious
father opposed them, and gave it as his opinion that, in
extraordinary cases, as, for example, when
the parents were dead; when they
were not professing Christians; when they cruelly forsook and exposed their
offspring; and when masters had young slaves committed to their charge; in
these cases (and the pious father mentions no others), he maintains that any
professing Christians, who should be willing to undertake the benevolent
charge, might with propriety, take these children, offer them in baptism, and
become responsible for their Christian education. This, every one will
perceive, is in strict conformity with the principles maintained in the
foregoing essay, and with the doctrine and habits of the Presbyterian church.
The learned Bingham, an Episcopal divine of great learning, seems to have
taken unwearied pains, in his Ecclesiastical Antiquities,to collect every scrap of testimony within his reach,
in favour of the early origin of sponsors. But he utterly fails of producing
even plausible evidence to that amount; and at length candidly acknowledges
that, in the early ages, parents
were, in all ordinary cases, the presenters and sureties for their own
children; and that children were presented by others only in
extraordinary cases, such as those already
alluded to. It is true, indeed, that some writers, more sanguine than
discriminating, have quoted Dionysius, Tertullian, and Cyril of Alexandria, as
affording countenance to the use of sponsors in early times. Not one of those
writers, however, has written a sentence which favours the use of any other
sponsors than parents, when they were in life, and of a proper character to
offer their children for the sacramental seal in question. Even Dionysius,
whose language has, at first view, some appearance of favouring such sponsors;
yet, when carefully examined, will be found to speak only of sponsors who
undertook to train up in the Christian religion some of the children of pagans
who were delivered, for this purpose, into the hands of these benevolent
sureties, by their unbelieving parents. But this, surely, is not inconsistent
with what has been said. And, after all, the writings of this very Dionysius
are given up by the learned Wall, and by the still more learned and illustrious
Archbishop Usher, as a "gross and impudent forgery," unworthy of the
least credit.
It was not until the council of Mentz, in the ninth century, that the Church
of Rome forbade the appearance of parents as sponsors for their own children,
and required that this service be surrendered to other hands.
Mention is made, by Cyril, in the fifth
century, and by Fulgentius in the sixth, of sponsors in some peculiar cases of adult baptism. When adults, about to be baptized, were
dumb, or under the power of
delirium, through disease, and of course
unable to speak for themselves, or to make the usual profession; in such cases
it was customary for some friend or friends to answer for them, and to bear
testimony to their good character, and to the fact of their having before
expressed a desire to be baptized. For this, there was, undoubtedly, some
reason; and the same thing might, with propriety, in conceivable circumstances
be done now. From this, however, there was a transition soon made to the use of
sponsors in all cases of adult
baptism. This latter, however, was upon a different principle from the former.
When adults had the gifts of speech and reason, and were able to answer for
themselves, the sponsors provided for such never answered or professed for
them. This was invariably done by the adult himself. Their only business, as it
would appear, was to be a kind of curator or guardian of the spiritual life of
the persons baptized. This office was generally fulfilled, in each church, by
the deacons when adult
males were baptized; and by the
deaconesses when females came forward to receive this ordinance.
Among the pious Waldenses and Albigenses, in the middle ages, no other
sponsors than parents seem to have been in common use. In one of their
catechisms, as preserved by Perrin, and Morland, they ask, "By whom ought
children to be presented in baptism?" Answer, "By their parents, or
by any others who may be inspired with this charity:" which is evidently
intended to mean, as other documents respecting them show, that where the
parents were dead, or absent, or could not act, other pious professors of
religion might take their places.
According to one of the canons of the Church of England, "parents are
not to be urged to be present when their children are baptized, nor to be
permitted to stand as sponsors for their
own children." In the Protestant Episcopal Church in this country, parents
"shall be admitted as sponsors if it be desired." But in both
countries it is required that there be godfathers and godmothers for all
adults, as well as for infants.
The baptismal service of the Methodist Church in the United States, for
infants, does not recognize the use of any sponsors at all, excepting the
parents, or whatever other "friends" may present them.
It is plain then, that the early history of the church, as well as the word
of God, abundantly sustains the doctrine and practice of the Presbyterian
church in this matter. We maintain that as the right of the children of
believers to baptism flows from the membership and faith of their parents
according to the flesh, so those parents, if living, are the only proper
persons to present them for the reception of this covenant seal. If, however,
their proper parents, on any account, cannot do this, they may, upon our
principles, with propriety, be presented by any professed believers, who,
quoad hoc, adopt them as their children,
and are willing to engage, as parents, to "bring them up in the nurture
and admonition of the Lord" (Eph. 6:4).
If, indeed, nothing else were contended for in this case than that, when
believing parents have pious and peculiar friends who are willing to unite with
them in engagements to educate their children in the true religion, such
friends might be permitted to stand with them, there might not be so much to
condemn. Even then the solemn question might be asked; "Who hath required
this at your hand?" (Isa. 1:12). But when the system is to set aside
parents; to require that others take their places, and make engagements which
they alone, for the most part, are qualified to make; and when, in pursuance of
this system, thousands are daily making engagements which they never think of
fulfilling, and in most cases, notoriously have it not in their power to
fulfill, and, indeed, feel no special obligation to fulfil; we are constrained
to regard it as a human invention, having no warrant whatever, either from the
word of God or primitive usage; and as adapted, on a variety of accounts, to
generate evil, much evil, rather than good.
In the apostolic church, there was no such rite as that which under this
name has been long established in the Romish communion as a sacrament, and adopted
in some Protestant churches as a solemnity, in their view, if not commanded,
yet as both expressive and edifying. It is not intended in this note to record
a sentence condemnatory of those who think proper to employ the rite in
question: but only to state with brevity some of the reasons why the fathers of
the Presbyterian church thought proper to exclude it from their ritual; and why
their sons, to the present hour, have persisted in the same course.
1. We find no foundation for this rite in the word of God. Indeed our
Episcopal brethren, and other Protestants who employ it, do not pretend to find
any direct warrant for it in scripture. All they have to allege, which bears
the least resemblance to any such practice, is the statement recorded in Acts 8:14-17:
"Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had
received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: who when they
were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For
as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of
the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy
Ghost." That there is here a reference to the extraordinary or miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost, and these conferred by extraordinary
officers, is so perfectly apparent, that it is no wonder the advocates of
confirmation do not press it as proof of their point. The only wonder is, that they ever mention it as
affording the most remote countenance to their practice.
The diligent reader of scripture will find four kinds, or occasions of laying on hands recounted in
the New Testament. The first, by Christ himself, to express an authoritative
benediction, Matt. 19:15, Mark 10:16; the second, in the healing of diseases,
Mark 16:18, Acts 28:8; the third, in conferring the extraordinary gifts of the
Spirit, Acts 8:17, 19:6; and the fourth, in setting apart persons to sacred
office, Acts 6:6, 13:3, 1 Tim. 4:14. The venerable Dr. Owen, in his commentary
on Heb. 6:2, expresses the opinion that the laying on of hands there spoken of
is to be considered as belonging to the third class of cases, and, of course,
as referring to the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit. Others have
supposed that it rather belongs to the fourth example above enumerated, and
therefore applies to the ordination of ministers. But there is not a syllable
or hint in the whole New Testament which looks like such a laying on of hands
as that for which the advocates of confirmation contend.
2. Quite as little support for Confirmation can be found in the purest and
best periods of uninspired antiquity. Towards the close of the second century,
several uncommanded and superstitious additions had been made to the ordinance
of baptism. Among these were anointing with oil, in avowed imitation of the Jewish manner of consecration;
administering to the baptized individual a mixture of milk and honey
as the symbol of his childhood in a new life, and as a pledge of that heavenly
Canaan, with all its advantages and happiness, to which the hopes of the
baptized were directed; the laying on of the hands of the minister officiating in baptism, for
imparting the Holy Spirit; to all which may be added, that immediately after
the close of this century, we find the practice of exorcism introduced as a preliminary to baptism, and as a
means of expelling all evil spirits from the candidate for this ordinance.
These superstitious additions were made to succeed each other in the following
order: exorcism; confession;
renunciation; baptism; chrismation,
or anointing with oil, which was done in the form of a cross; and finally, the laying on of hands, or
confirmation, which immediately followed
the anointing with oil, and the administration of the simple element above
mentioned.
"As soon as we are baptized," says Tertullian, "we are
anointed with the blessed unction." And he adds, "This unction is
according to the Jewish dispensation, wherein the high priest was anointed with
oil out of a horn." The laying on of hands, or confirmation, immediately
followed the unction. "As soon as we come from the baptismal laver,"
says Tertullian, "we are anointed, and then hands are imposed." This
was considered as essential to the completion of the ordinance. "We do not
receive the Holy Ghost," says the same father, "in baptism, but being
purified by the water, we are prepared for the Holy Ghost, and by the laying on
of hands, the soul is illuminated by the Spirit." The exorcism, then, the
anointing with oil, the sign of the cross, the imposition of hands for
conveying the Holy Spirit, and the administration of milk and honey to the
candidate, were all human additions to baptism, which came in about the same
time, and ought, in our opinion, to be regarded very much in the same light
with a great variety of other additions to the institutions of Christ, which,
though well meant, and not destitute of expressiveness, are yet wholly
unauthorized by the King and Head of the church.
3. When the practice of the laying on of hands, as an ordinary part of the
baptismal service, was added by human invention to that ordinance, it always
immediately followed the application of
water, and the anointing with oil. "As soon as we come from the baptismal
laver," says Tertullian, "we are anointed, and then hands are laid
on." And it is further acknowledged by all, that everyone who was
competent to baptize, was equally competent to lay on hands. The two things
always went together; or rather formed parts of the baptismal ordinance, which
was not thought to be consummated without the imposition of hands by him who
had applied the water and the unction. And this continued to be the case,
throughout the greater part of the church, for the first three hundred years.
Then the term bishop signified
the pastor or overseer of a flock or congregation. Every pastor was a bishop,
as had been the case in apostolic times. And then, in ordinary cases, none but
the bishop or pastor of each church, administered baptism. Of course, he only
laid on hands. But afterwards, in the progress of corruption, when Prelacy was
gradually brought in, it became customary, for the sake of doing greater honour
to the prelates, to reserve this imposition of hands to them, as a part of
their official prerogative. Jerome expressly declares, that the committing this
benediction wholly to the bishops, was done "rather in honour of the
priesthood, than from necessity imposed by any law" (Dialog.
Adv. Lucifer). Even now, throughout the
Greek Church, this rite is administered, for the most part, in close connection
with baptism, and is dispensed by any priest who is empowered to baptize. In
like manner, in the Lutheran and other German churches, in which confirmation
is retained, it is administered by every pastor. Still, even when confined to
prelates, this imposition of hands was not, in ordinary cases, long separated
from the baptism: for the children were commonly carried to the bishop to have
his hands laid upon them as soon as convenient. After a while, however, it
became customary to separate the two things much more widely. Confirmation, or
the laying on of the bishop's hands, began to be postponed for a number of
years, according to circumstances; until, at length, it was often left till the
arrival of adult age, and even, in some cases, till the decline of life. All
these progressive steps evidently marked a mere human invention, for which
there is no divine appointment or warrant whatever.
4. The rite of confirmation is superfluous. As it was plainly a human invention, so it is unnecessary, and answers no purpose which is not quite as well,
to say the least, provided for in the Presbyterian Church, which rejects it. It
is said to be desirable that there should be some transaction or solemnity by
which young people who have been baptized in their infancy, may be called to
recognize their religious obligations, and, as it were, to take upon themselves
the profession and the vows made on their behalf in baptism. Granted. There can
be no doubt that such a solemnity is both reasonable in itself, and edifying in
its tendency. But have we not just such a solemnity in the Lord's Supper; an
ordinance divinely instituted; an ordinance on which all are qualified to
attend, and ought to attend, who are qualified to take on themselves, in any scriptural or rational
sense, their baptismal obligations; an ordinance, in fact, specifically
intended, among other things, to answer this very purpose: that is, the purpose
of making a personal acknowledgment and profession of the truth, the service,
and the hopes of Christ. Have we not, I say, in the sacramental supper just
such a solemnity as we need for the end in question simple, rational,
scriptural, and to which all our children may come, just as soon as they are
prepared in any form to confess Christ before men? We do not need confirmation, then, for the purpose for which it is
professed to be desired. We have something better (because appointed of God),
quite as expressive, more solemn, and free from certain objectionable features
which are now to be mentioned.
5. Finally, we reject the rite of confirmation in our church, because in
addition to all the reasons which have been mentioned, we consider the formula
prescribed for its administration in the Church of England, and substantially
adopted by the Episcopal Church in this country, as liable to the most serious
objections. We do not think it a duty in any form to practice a rite which the
Saviour never appointed; but our repugnance is greatly increased by the
language with which the rite in question is administered by those who employ
it. In the "Order of Confirmation," as prescribed and used in the
Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, the following language
occurs. Before the act of laying on hands, the officiating bishop, in his prayer,
repeats the following language: "Almighty and ever living God, who hast
vouchsafed to regenerate these thy servants, by water and the HOLY GHOST, and hast given unto them forgiveness of all their
sins," etc., etc. And again, in another prayer, after the act of confirmation
is completed, he speaks to the Searcher of hearts thus: "We make our
humble supplications unto thee for these thy servants, upon whom, after the
example of thy holy apostles, we have now laid our hands; to certify
them by this sign of thy favour and
gracious goodness towards them," etc. And also, in the act of laying on
hands, assuming that all who are kneeling before him already have the holy sanctifying Spirit of Christ, he prays that
they "may all daily increase
in the Holy Spirit more and more."
Such is the language addressed to large circles of young people of both
sexes, many of whom there is every reason to fear, are very far from having
been "born of the Spirit," in the Bible sense of that phrase; nay,
some of whom manifest so little seriousness, that any pastor of enlightened
piety would be pained to see them at a communion table; yet the bishop
pronounces them all and he appeals to
heaven for the truth of his sentence he pronounces them all regenerate, not only by water, but also by the HOLY GHOST; certifies to them, in the name of God, that they are objects
of the divine "favour,"
and declares that, being already
in a state of grace and favour with God, they are called to "grow in
grace;" to "increase in the Holy Spirit more and more."
There are many who have long regarded, and who now regard this language not
only with regret, but with shuddering, as adapted to cherish false hopes nay,
to deceive and destroy souls by wholesale. I must again say, that if there were
no other obstacle to my consenting to minister in the Protestant Episcopal
Church, this alone would be an
insurmountable one. For it must come home to the conscience and the feelings,
not of the bishop only, but of every pastor in that church who has, from time
to time, a circle of beloved youth to present for confirmation. It is vain to
say that the church presumes that all who come are sincere, and of course born
of the Spirit, and in a state of favour with God. This is the very point of our
objection. She so presumes, and undertakes to "certify" them of it. Presbyterian ministers do not, dare not,
use such language. They do not and dare not, undertake to "certify"
to any number of the most mature and exemplary communicants that ever gathered
round a sacramental table, that they are all in a state of grace and salvation, and that they
have nothing to do but to "follow on," and "increase in the Holy
Spirit."
Nor is it a sufficient answer, I repeat, to say, that a liturgy, being a
fixed composition, cannot be so constructed as to discriminate between
different characters. This is denied. Every enlightened and faithful minister
of whatever denomination, who is at liberty to employ such language as he
approves, knows how to express himself, both in prayer and preaching, in
discriminating and expressive terms; and how to avoid modes of expression
adapted to deceive and betray uuwary souls. It is surely not impracticable to
address the largest and most promiscuous assembly in a manner which though not
adapted to the precise case of every individual shall be at least free from
error, free from everything of a deceptive and ensnaring character. Our
Methodist brethren, it was before remarked, have a prescribed liturgical form
for baptism; which they have rendered sufficiently discriminating, and at the
same time unexceptionably safe. And, what is not unworthy of notice in this
place, though the liturgy of the Protestant Episcopal church is evidently the
model which, to a certain extent, they have kept before them in constructing their
own, they have wisely discarded altogether the ceremony of confirmation from
their ritual.
The advocates of confirmation, as a separate ecclesiastical rite, seldom
fail of quoting Calvin as expressing an opinion decisively in favour of it.
This is doing great injustice to that illustrious man. Calvin directly and
warmly opposes the idea of confirmation being considered as a distinct
ordinance, claiming divine authority in the church of God. This he reprobates;
and especially the practice of confining the administration of it to prelates;
but adds, "that he has no objection to parents bringing their children to
their minister, at the close of childhood, or the commencement of adolescence,
to be examined according to the catechism in common use, and then, for the sake
of greater dignity and reverence, closing the ceremony by the imposition of
hands. "Such imposition of hands," therefore, says he, "as is
simply connected with benediction, I highly
approve, and wish it were now restored to its primitive use, uncorrupted by
superstition." (Institutes,
Book 4, chapter 19, sect. 4). But what serves to throw light on Calvin's real
sentiments on this whole subject is that, in commenting on Acts 8:17, he
reproaches the Papists for pressing that passage into the support of their
sacrament of confirmation; and not only asserts but proves, that the laying on
of hands there spoken of, relates not at all to the ordinary and sanctifying,
but to the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost, which have long since ceased in
the church; and, of course, that the passage in question ought never to be
quoted in favour of confirmation, or of any other permanent rite in the
Christian church.
It has been sometimes ignorantly, and most erroneously asserted that the
Westminster Assembly of divines, in putting to vote, whether baptism should be
performed by sprinkling or immersion,
carried it in favour of sprinkling,
by majority of one only. This is
wholly incorrect. The facts were these. When the committee which had been
charged with preparing a directory for the worship of God brought in their
report, they had spoken of the mode of baptism thus: "It is
lawful and sufficient to sprinkle the child." To this Dr. Lightfoot, among others, objected; not because he doubted
of the entire sufficiency of sprinkling; for he decidedly preferred sprinkling to immersion; but because he thought
there was an impropriety in pronouncing that mode lawful only, when no one present had any doubts of its
being so, and when almost all preferred it. Others seemed to think, that by
saying nothing about dipping,
that mode was meant to be excluded,
as not a lawful mode. This they did not wish to pronounce. When,
therefore, the clause, as originally reported, was put to vote, there were
twenty-five votes in favour of it, and twenty-four against it. After this vote,
a motion was made and carried, that it be recommitted. The next day, when the committee reported, and when
some of the members still seemed unwilling to exclude all mention of dipping, Dr. Lightfoot remarked, that to say that
pouring or sprinkling was lawful, would be "all one as saying, that it was lawful to use bread and wine in the Lord's Supper." He, therefore, moved
that the clause in the "Directory respecting the mode of baptism, be
expressed thus:
"Then the minister is to demand the name of the child, which being told
him, he is to say (calling the child by his name)
"I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost."
"As he pronounceth these words, he is to baptize the child with water,
which, for the manner of doing it, is not only lawful, but sufficient, and most expedient to
be, by pouring, or
sprinkling of the water on the face of the
child, without adding any other ceremony." This was carried. See
Lightfoot's Life, prefixed to the
first volume of his Works (folio
edition), p. 4; compared with Neal's History of the Puritans, Vol. 2, pp. 106-07; compared with the Appendix, No.
2 (quarto edition), where the Directory, as finally passed, is given at full
length.
We do not learn, precisely, either from Lightfoot's biographer (who was no
other than the indefatigable Strype), or from Neal, by what vote the clause, as
moved by Lightfoot, was finally adopted; but Neal expressly tells us, that
"the Directory passed the Assembly with great unanimity."
From this statement, it is evident that the question which was carried in
the Assembly, by a majority of one, was
not whether affusion or sprinkling was a lawful mode of baptism; but whether all mention of
dipping, as one of the lawful modes should be omitted.
This, in an early stage of the discussion, was carried, by a majority of one in
the affirmative. But it would seem that the clause, as finally adopted, which
certainly was far more decisive in favour of sprinkling or affusion, was passed
"with great unanimity."
At any rate, nothing can be more evident, than that the clause as it originally
stood, being carried by one vote only, and afterwards, when recommitted, and so
altered as to be much stronger in
favour of sprinkling, and then adopted without difficulty, the common statement
of this matter by our Baptist brethren is an entire misrepresentation.
Footnotes
1. Faber's Sermons,
Vol. I, pp. 145-46.
2. An evangelical and deeply conscientious minister of the
Episcopal Church, who, after struggling for some time with the most distressing
scruples, as to this very feature in the baptismal service, ventured to alter a
few words, was forthwith given to understand that such liberties would not be
tolerated, and was soon constrained to withdraw from the Episcopal communion.
3.[Obviously the Methodists of Miller's day were
considerably different from contemporary Methodists in the U.S.]
Copyright ©1997 by Kevin Reed