Difficulties with Regard to Baptism
THE history of any human mind is incomplete unless it affords us some knowledge of inward struggles in regard to the acquisition of truth and the performance of duty. One of these crises occurred in the life of Mr. Alexander, while he was president of the college; and we must interrupt the regular narrative, to give some account of his difficulties respecting Baptism. His own record of this is so extensive that it might even form a separate publication. For our present purposes we must endeavour to afford an honest representation of the whole, in the way partly of abridgment and partly of extract.
“About this time,” says he, probably indicating some part of the years 1797, 1798, or 1799, “I fell into doubt respecting the authority of infant baptism. The origin of these doubts was in too rigid notions as to the purity of the church, with a belief that receiving infants had a corrupting tendency. I communicated my doubts very freely to my
friend Mr. Lyle, and to Mr. Speece, and found that they had both been troubled by the same. “We talked much privately on the subject, and often conversed with others in hope of getting some new light. At length Mr. Lyle and I determined to give up the practice of baptizing infants, until we should receive more light. This determination we publicly communicated to our people, and left them to take such measures as they deemed expedient; but they seemed willing to await the issue. We also communicated to the Presbytery the state of our minds, and left them to do what seemed good in the case; but as they believed that we were sincerely desirous of arriving at the truth, they took no steps, and I believe made no record.
u Things remained in this posture for more than a year. During this time I read much on both sides, and carried on a lengthened correspondence, particularly with Dr. Hoge. Two considerations kept me back from joining the Baptists. The first was that the universal prevalence of infant baptism, as early as the fourth and fifth centuries, was unaccountable on the supposition that no such practice existed in the times of the apostles. The other was, that if the Baptists are right, they are the only Christian church on earth, and all other denominations are out of the visible church. Besides, I could not see how they could ever obtain a valid baptism.”
Mr. Speece was however more precipitate, and having concluded that the Antipedobaptists were right, strongly urged his friends to join him in going over. They endeavoured to retard his progress, but his mind was naturally inclined to peremptory conclusions, and impatient of dubiety.
One Sunday morning, therefore, lie went to a Baptist meeting, held within two miles of the college, and without having given notice of his intention, was there re-baptized by immersion. On his return he seemed much satisfied with what he had done. The church soon licensed him to preach, and he began to go about the country with his Baptist brethren. “He attended an Association in Cumberland, where he preached; some of the ministers informed him that he aimed well, but that if he would do execution he c must put to more powder, They gloried much in their acquisition, and the day was often fixed by public rumour for my baptism and that of Mr. Lyle. It was evident, however, that Mr. Speece was not perfectly happy in his new connection; yet he said nothing.
“I determined now/1 says he,” to begin anew the examination of the subject, and to follow the evidence which I might discover, to whatever point it might lead me. I had been too much disposed to reject certain kinds of evidence, as tending to favour the superstitions of popery, but now I resolved to give to every species of evidence and argument its due weight, and to abide by the consequences. Accordingly I applied my mind to the subject with great intensity. One night I slept none, but spent the whole time in pursuing a train of reasoning on this subject.
“I began with the historical proofs of the early existence of this practice. At the beginning of the fifth century infant baptism was undoubtedly universal. This is evident from the frequent mention of the subject by many writers, while none can be found who doubted of its lawfulness.
When Augustine urged on Pelagius that the denial of original sin would lead to the denial of infant baptism, Pelagius rejected with horror the thought of withholding baptism from children, and declared that he had never known or heard of any heretic who denied it. The practice had not been brought in recently, or the change would have been known to such men as Augustine, Jerome and Pelagius.
“But we have other testimonies to the universality of the practice. About the middle of this century a council was held at Carthage, over which Cyprian the martyr presided. A question was here propounded by a presbyter named Fidus, respecting the proper time of administering this sacrament to infants. The doubt was, whether it should be deferred till the eighth day, as in the case of circumcision, or should be administered at an earlier time. The opinion of the council, consisting of more than sixty bishops, was unanimous, that it was unnecessary to wait, but that the ordinance might be administered at any time after birth. Now when an incidental question arises and is discussed, relative to the baptism of infants, and there is yet no intimation of any doubt being entertained respecting the lawfulness of the thing itself, it furnishes far stronger evidence that all received the practice without dissent, than if the same council had given a unanimous decision in favour of the practice; for this would have induced a suspicion that some must have denied or doubted the practice, in order to make it necessary that such an opinion should be formally expressed.
“We must go a step further. Origen was born and grew up to manhood before the close of the second century, though
he wrote and flourished in the former part of the third century. Origen was a man of extraordinary learning, and possessed a memory which retained almost every thing he ever acquired. In several places of his writings, he mentions infant baptism, but does not speak of it as a new thing, lately brought in, but declares that it had been handed down by tradition from the Apostles. But if it had sprung up after the Apostles’ days, it must have been so near to Origen’ s time, that he could not be ignorant of the fact. A universal change in a public and interesting ordinance, could not have taken place in a very short time. Some churches, at least for a while, would have adhered to the Apostolic practice. Some discussion must have occurred. This would have drawn attention to the subject; and such a man as Origen, living as he did the greater part of his time in Palestine, could not have been ignorant of so great a change in the subjects of baptism, if it had been introduced after the death of John. Suppose that some one in our day should pretend that infant baptism was not practised by the Keformers, Luther, Zwingle and Calvin. Though we are separated from them by an interval the double of that which intervened between John and Origen, yet would any learned man now be at a loss to know the truth of the facts in question? If infant baptism arose and became universal before the time of Origen, or rather the time to which his knowledge extended, it must have originated very near to the times of the Apostles, and its spread must have been exceedingly rapid, and at the same time marvellously silent; for in little more than half a century it was accomplished, and yet learned men, living at the close of that short period, knew nothing of the change, but ignorantly supposed that the practice had been actually derived from the Apostles.
“That this is the genuine testimony of Origen [and not an addition of Kufinus] is confirmed by the state of the fact in the days of Cyprian, a little after his time. For the Council of Carthage, referred to above, must have believed that the practice came down from the Apostles; for they were of opinion that baptism came in the room of circumcision; as appears by the letter of Cyprian to Fidus. How so great a change could have taken place without any thing being said about it, or any opposition being offered, always appeared to me unaccountable. It seemed altogether reasonable to think, that if adult baptism had been the only baptism practised by the Apostles, and by all churches in the age immediately subsequent to their time, in the many countries of the world over which Christianity had extended itself, it would be scarcely possible that in the short space of three or four hundred years, there should not be found a single church upon earth which adhered to the primitive practice. And as to the fact of the universal prevalence of infant baptism in Asia, Africa and Europe, as early as the time of Augustine, in the beginning of the fifth century, even the Baptists do not pretend to dispute.
“But we must carry up the universal practice to a much earlier period. When the system of Pelagius was charged with leading to the denial of infant baptism, he utterly rejected the consequence, and declared, as has been said above, that he had never heard of any, even the most daring 210 SILENT CHANGE IMPOSSIBLE.
heretic, who called in question the propriety of infant baptism. Now if it had been denied by any part of the church within a hundred years of his time, he who travelled so widely in Europe, Africa and Asia, and was well acquainted with the condition of those regions, must have known it.
“I repeat it, such a change in the subjects of an important sacrament, which was the badge of Christian profession and the door of entrance into the visible Church, could not have been made without much discussion. Opinions may and often do spread rapidly, without attracting much attention, or leading to much controversy. But this cannot be the case in regard to a great religious rite, performed in the presence of the church. Let us suppose, that some time after the decease of the last Apostle, some judaizing teacher, not contented that under the Christian dispensation there was no place for the infants of believers, should have determined to extend to them the ordinance of baptism. With converts from Judaism he might have found it easy to satisfy them, that as the Christian Church was derived from the Jewish, and was enlarged in its extent and privileges, it could not be that infants, who had been included in all the preceding covenants of God with his people, should enjoy no privilege whatever in the Christian Church; that therefore as baptism signified the same thing emblematically as circumcision, and stood precisely in the same place in the Christian Church as circumcision in the Jewish, infants ought, by clear analogy, to be admitted to baptism. Suppose, I say, the person who first introduced infant baptism, to have used this argument with the Jewish converts. It would not
be surprising if he should bring some of them over to his opinion. Suppose the practice to have commenced at Jerusalem or Antioch. It is a problem worthy of consideration by Antipedobaptists, how long it would have taken to extend the practice throughout all the churches in the whole world. Could it without a miracle have been accomplished in one century? And let it be remembered, that the more rapid the progress, the greater the exertion demanded. If the change went on gradually, without exertion, the progress must have been slow, and a change so universal could not have taken place in one or even in two centuries. But if the advocates for infant baptism were very zealous and made use of great efforts to introduce the practice, there must have been a great running to and fro, many discourses delivered, and many writings circulated. Surely a change wrought in this way would have left its impression upon the literature and history of the age. How then does it happen, that not a vestige of these arguments and endeavours, nor any notice of them should have come down — I do not say to our times — but even to the times of Origen, less than a hundred years after the practice commenced?
“But even supposing it possible that all documents relating to this universal change should have been irrecoverably lost, so that not the least hint of any author remains concerning it, is it not a marvellous thing that among so great a multitude of churches, planted by the Apostles and intrusted to their disciples and immediate successors, not one should adhere to what they must have known was the uniform practice of the Apostles? If the innovation was
begun at Jerusalem, and was received by the churches in Judea, can any one bring himself to believe; when some advocate of the new practice came to Antioch, where Ignatius was bishop, or to Smyrna, where Polycarp presided, or to Rome where Clement, the companion of Paul, had his residence, that such a novelty would receive no opposition from these Apostolic men? Would they not have been as staunch for confining baptism to believers, as the Baptist churches now would be, if any should seek to persuade them to baptize their children? And with much more reason; for they could say to the innovator, ‘However plausibly you may argue in the way of analogy, we know that the uniform practice of all the Apostles was different, and that in all the churches planted by them and their coadjutors, there never was an infant baptized. We have conversed with the Apostles, were instructed by them, and have laboured with them, and can testify to all the churches that what is now attempted to be introduced is an innovation, unsanctioned by Apostolic precept or practice.’ And as such opposition would undoubtedly have been made by those holy men, would it not have had influence to retard the progress of the error?
“It will manifestly not satisfy the demands of the case to fix the introduction of infant baptism so near to the days of the Apostles. We must come lower down in the second century. Let us then place the commencement of the practice in the latter part of this century. And as this is absolutely necessary to the maintenance of the hypothesis, so it is convenient on another account. Tertullian, the only man
of antiquity who has uttered a word unfavourable to the institution, lived about this time. Indeed, if the usage was not Apostolic, it must have been introduced in the later part of the second century. Earlier it could not be, for reasons which are incontrovertible; later it could not be, for we find it soon afterwards so firmly established and so universally practised, that such men as Origen and Cyprian had no knowledge of its being an innovation, but believed that it had been derived from the Apostles.
“When I first read Tertullian’s testimony, this hypothesis appeared very plausible; for it has been pertinently asked, how can it be supposed that such a man as Tertullian would oppose infant baptism, if it had been universally practised from the time of the Apostles? But if the practice was just beginning to prevail, nothing would be more likely than that this learned but austere man should set his face against it, and dissuade from the practice. Whatever may be doubtful, one thing is certain, namely, that it was customary at this time to bring young infants to baptism, and that for certain reasons which he assigns, Tertullian dissuaded from the practice. But when the whole passage is impartially considered, it makes very little in favour of the opinion that infant baptism was a new thing, an innovation just commencing. If this had been the fact, it would undoubtedly have suited his purpose to mention it. But Tertullian had evidently adopted the opinion afterwards current, that sins committed after baptism could not easily be pardoned. This led many, among whom was the Emperor Constantine, to defer their baptism until the near
approach of death. Tertullian did not confine his dissuasions to infants,, but extended them to young persons generally, and to widows; which shows that his objection did not arise from the circumstance of infancy, but from the consideration stated before. From all that is said by the early fathers concerning infant baptism, I drew the conclusion that it had been generally practised without any dispute having ever arisen respecting it. And it is certain that it must have been common before the time of Origen and Tertullian; for it could not have become general between that time and the time of Augustine without having been known; since that is a period of history in which we have many writers and much more detailed information respecting the affairs and customs of the Christian church than in the preceding period between the Apostles and the beginning of the third century. And that this practice did prevail in that earlier period may be gathered from the testimonies of Justin Martyr and Irenseus.
“Here then it appeared that infant baptism could be traced up to a period bordering on the Apostolic age. How could this be accounted for on the principles of the Baptists? Could it have crept in and become universal within a few years after the Apostles? Here I was brought to a stand, and though I had laid it down as a principle from which I would not depart, to receive no doctrine or practice for which there appeared no foundation in the Holy Scriptures, I had come to a state of mind in which it appeared much more probable that it had its origin with the Apostles than that it had been privily brought in afterwards. I was
prepared, therefore, to examine the Scriptures without any bias against the doctrine. I could not but believe that if the Apostles had sanctioned the practice, some vestiges of it would be discernible in the New Testament. For, taking my stand at the period when all acknowledge it to have become universal, I had to admit that so far as relates to historical probability there was much more likelihood that silently and without dispute it should have descended from the Apostles, than that it should have come in and gained a universal prevalence in opposition to the practice of the Apostles. All the facts are in accordance with the former supposition; all are unaccountable upon the latter.
“I asked myself whether there was any thing in Scripture which had an analogy with infant baptism. The right of circumcision immediately occurred to my mind, as bearing at least some resemblance to it. I had been wont to consider the argument founded on the assumption that baptism succeeded in the place of circumcision as weak and inconclusive, for it seemed to involve a begging of the question. But I was willing to examine how far the analogy between the two institutions extended. And the more I considered the subject the stronger did this analogy in the main points appear. Circumcision, as well as baptism, was a religious rite instituted by God himself. Circumcision had an emblematical or mystical signification; it evidently represented the regeneration of the heart; and here the import of the two rites appeared to be not only similar but identical; for all admitted that baptism sets forth emblematically the washing away of sin. Then as to the subjects of the two
ordinances, both, in the case of adults, required faith in the recipient. Paul asserts that Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised. If a stranger wished to join the Israelitish church, he was required to be circumcised, and in order to this he must profess his faith in Jehovah, the God of Israel, and avow a resolution to comply with all the precepts of the Mosaic law; just as the adult heathen, when he applied for baptism, was required to profess his faith in Jesus Christ, and to promise obedience to his commands. Circumcision was the regular entrance into the Israelitish community, as baptism into the Christian church. From a view of these points of resemblance, one inference was clear, namely, that all the ridicule cast upon infant baptism is misplaced, because the very same might be cast on circumcision, of which the infant could know as little as of baptism. Again, the Jews esteemed circumcision a great privilege, and Paul admits that it was every way profitable. Now if there is nothing come in its place, then are the privileges of the Christian less than those of the Jew; but Paul teaches that the Gospel dispensation is by far the more glorious.
“About this time a friend lent me a volume of Dr. Hammond’s Works, in which I found a treatise on Infant Baptism. This presented the subject in a new light. The author, making little use of the common arguments, undertakes to derive the doctrine from two sources, neither of which is in the Bible, but which both serve to illustrate what is there. The first of these is Jewish Proselyte Baptism, the second is the practice of the primitive church.
Not having read this treatise for nearly half a century, I cannot pretend to state the author’s reasonings; but I will give my own views of the arguments derived from these sources.
“When a law is given to any people, a knowledge of certain common and notorious things is presumed by the legislator; for to enter into a minute description of every circumstance would be tedious and cumbersome. A law of this State of New Jersey inflicts a heavy pecuniary mulct on one who is engaged in - gill-fishing, but does not define what sort of fishing this is. If it should be necessary, in some other country, to interpret this law, it would be requisite to refer to such documents as would show what was commonly understood by the term; and without such explanations the law would be unintelligible. So in England, there are laws against poaching, but to a common reader in this country, where no such offence does or can take place, explanation is indispensable. Many canons of the church can be understood only by a reference to the history of the times. If a law should be found in the Jewish code, directing proselytes from the heathen to be circumcised before admission to the privileges of the Israelitish church, one unacquainted with the Mosaic institutions would be at a loss to know whether this included infants; but if he should turn to the seventeenth chapter of Genesis he would see at once that infants as well as adults were intended. Here then the question arises, whether any custom existed among the Jews in our Saviour’s time, which would enable them to determine to whom baptism was to be administered, under the command, ‘Go,
proselyte all nations, baptizing them, If the command had been, ‘Go, circumcise all nations, the case would be clear; but had the Jews been acquainted with the rite of baptism? I am aware that Dr. Owen, Dr. Gill and Dr. Jennings, with others, deny that any such practice existed among the Jews, previously to the time of our Lord. But after weighing the evidence exhibited by Lightfoot, Selden, Hammond, Wall, and other writers profoundly versed in Hebrew antiquities, I am fully convinced that the rite of baptism was not a novelty among the Jews, when John began his ministry. If the rite had never been known before, it would have been necessary to explain minutely what the nature of the ceremony was, and not merely to designate it by a single word. When certain priests and Levites were sent from the Sanhedrim to John, to inquire who he was, there was no question about the rite itself, which would naturally have been the object of inquiry if they had never heard of it before; whereas the only query was about his authority to administer it. c If thou art not the Messiah, Elias, or that prophet, why baptizest thou? ‘The testimony against proselyte baptism is purely negative, and may all be summed up in a single sentence. The practice is never mentioned by Philo or Josephus, Jewish writers who lived nearest to the time of Christ, nor by any other writer until the Talmud was written, two centuries or more after the Christian era. To this it may be answered, that mere negative testimony is in any case of very little weight, unless it can be shown that the witnesses had occasion to mention the fact if it had existed. Again, when any practice is once fully established and familiar to all, there is seldom any mention of it by writers sacred or profane. When any discussion of it arises, then of course it is frequently referred to. After the Israelites were fully settled in Canaan, we hear nothing of circumcision for centuries, while all admit that it was universally practised. From the creation till the time of Moses we have no distinct mention of the Sabbath, and yet we know that from the beginning God blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. There is nothing said in the New Testament about the admission of proselytes to the Jewish religion from the heathen; and although Josephus mentions many who were proselyted, he enters into no description of the ceremonies observed at the admission of such. The traditionary laws of the Jews, giving a minute account of all the rites and ceremonies of the temple-service, were committed to writing in the Talmud. Here we have the most full and particular testimony concerning the ceremonies observed in making proselytes. Maimonides, one of the most learned of the Jewish rabbins, has given us a minute account of proselyte baptism.” *
In detailing the arguments which influenced his conclusion on this important point, Mr. Alexander proceeds to consider the traces of infant baptism in the New Testament. But it would be unjust to give the reasoning in abridgment or extract. On another part of the subject he proceeds as follows:
“As to the mode of baptism, I hold it to be a dispute
* The extended citation of Jewish authorities and Christian fathers, which follows in the manuscript, cannot be brought within the just limits of this memoir.
about a very trivial matter. The mere mode of applying water, when used emblematically and sacramentally, cannot be an affair of very serious importance, unless, indeed, the very mode of application be emblematical. Thus in the Lord’s Supper, it is of no consequence whether the bread is of wheat or barley, leavened or unleavened, but it is of importance that the bread be broken, because that action of breaking the bread is emblematical of the breaking of Christ’s body, and cannot with propriety be omitted, as it is by the Komanists, who place an unbroken wafer on the tongue of the communicant. If immersion in water is that in the sacrament which is significant, then this action or mode, and no other, should be used. The Baptists have therefore endeavoured to prove that baptism was intended to signify and represent the burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as a primary object, and then our death unto sin, and the like. But this is not the idea set forth in the Scriptures. They never speak of baptism as being a commemorative ordinance, like the Lord’s Supper. They never represent the thing signified as being the burial and resurrection of Christ. It does indeed signify our spiritual burial and resurrection; that is to say, it signifies the washing of the soul from the impurities of sin. Baptism is every where represented in connection with the remission of sins.
“If now it could be demonstrated that John baptized by a total immersion of the body, and that the Apostles did likewise, we should be no more obliged to use this mode, than to use unleavened bread at the Lord’s Supper; being sure, nevertheless, that no other kind of bread could have been eaten at the Passover. We are no more bound to follow this mode than the mode of reclining on couches at the Lord’s table; the latter being as important a .mode as the manner of applying water to the body; unless, as I said before, the thing intended to be signified or represented in baptism, is held forth by the very action or mode of immersion, which can never be proved. We are at liberty, therefore, to depart from what we know was an original mode, provided that mode was only incidental and unconnected with the essential meaning of the sacrament.
“But we have conceded too much. So far is it from being true, that all baptisms mentioned in the New Testament were by a total immersion of the body, it cannot be proved that this was the mode in a single instance.” Here follows an argument on this head, which would not fall within our plan.
By this process of diligent inquiry his mind was at length brought to peace upon a subject which had given him great distress for as much, it is believed, as two years. He quietly resumed the practice of the church, in which he was joined by his friend and relative Mr. Lyle. And after a short time Mr. Speece returned to the bosom of the church, of which he remained for many years an ornament.
It is not without entertainment that we read the account of these events in the “History of the Kise and Progress of the Baptists in Virginia,” by the Rev. Kobert B. Semple. He is speaking of the Middle District Association.
“The sessions were as usual, until October, 1800, when they met at Tarwallet Meeting-House, in Cumberland
County. This is said to have been one of the most unpleasant, and, indeed j confused meetings, that the Association had ever witnessed. The consequences did not subside for several years, as we shall presently show. It was at this session that Mr. Conrad Speece (now a Presbyterian preacher), who had been baptized in the course of the year, by elder James Saunders, was introduced as a Baptist preacher, and was found, both in the pulpit and private conference, agreeable and clever. He was a man of considerable learning, having been educated for a Presbyterian preacher. By reading some treatise on believers’ baptism, as ’tis said, he became convinced of the impropriety of infant baptism. After some time devoted to the study of the subject, he offered himself as a candidate for baptism, and was accordingly baptized by Mr. Saunders. Soon after this Association, he professed to be again convinced of the validity of infant sprinkling, and wrote a letter to Mr. Saunders, to that effect. He rejoined the Presbyterians, and has since continued with them. Of his motives it is difficult to judge. By some it was said that he was disgusted with the turbulent proceedings of the Association at this session; by others, that Mr. Speece was much disappointed on rinding that Baptist preachers received little or no compensation for their ministerial services. It is, perhaps, more probable, that he found the general tenor of the manners and customs of the Baptists quite different from his own and those of his former associates. Finding his temper soured at the loss of society to which his habits were assimilated, and not able at once to accommodate himself to that into which he had now fallen, he was the more easily persuaded of the truth of principles, which but a few months previously he had renounced as erroneous and false. It has sometimes been made a question in private companies, whether it would not have been more wise, on this occasion, to have separated baptism and church membership. There were at this time several other eminent Presbyterian preachers, halting between two opinions. It was thought they were perfectly persuaded of the impropriety of infant baptism, and therefore did not for many years baptize a single child, but were averse to joining the Baptists, or, however, from some cause, did not do it. Now, say some, had one or more of these been baptized, without requiring them to become members of the Baptist Church, he could have baptized the rest, and they might have formed a society to themselves, in which the ordinances would have been preserved pure, although their church government and general manners would have been different from the other Baptists. These suggestions were wholly speculative; one thing however is certain, that when Mr. Speece deserted the Baptists, the scruples of all the others were quickly removed, and they resumed the absurd practice of sprinkling children. Of Speece we must say, we wish that he had either never submited to baptism, or that, being baptized, he had not again turned away.” pp. 197, 198.
The family of Dr. Alexander have repeatedly heard him speak of a long journey of exploration which he made during these years into what is now the State of Ohio. He travelled on horseback, with a mounted and armed servant.
But we can turn to no living person who can give us the date. We remember his evening stories about his meeting a bear at night, and his coming suddenly on a camp of hunters who were rejoicing over great spoil. And he has often been heard to say, that in Chilicothe, which is now a city, the best room in the best house, at the time of his visit, had the stump of a tree remaining in its earthen floor.