BAPTISM AND THE LORD'S SUPPER, SYMBOLS OF IMMORTALITY.
I. The baptism administered by John the Baptist—
IF the sinful man is on the way to absolute destruction, if the immortalization of our nature is the purpose of the Gospel, we may expect to find this thought embodied in the two emblematic ceremonies which are, as it were, the escutcheon of the Church of Jesus Christ. 1 And, in fact, it is so, for both baptism and the Lord's supper tell us of death and immortality. In order that we may be convinced of this, let us begin by the study of baptism as it was instituted by John the Baptist, adopted by Jesus, and prescribed by him to his disciples.
1 The ministry of Jesus is opened by baptism; it is closed by the Lord's supper. The two ceremonies embody a common thought; they both tell us of a death needful for the salvation of the world, and also of a new life born in baptism and sustained by the Lord's supper. Jesus speaks of his death as a baptism: Luke xii. 50; Mark x. 38.
It will be observed that we avoid the use of the word sacrament, the meaning of which has been unhappily falsified. According to the dictionary of the Academy, the sacraments "have been instituted in order to confer the grace of which they are the sign." The danger is lest to the sacrament should be attributed a magic virtue. If we are to avoid falling into fetishism, we are bound to maintain that without the concurrence of faith the sacrament is powerless to confer any grace.
GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW. Chapter III.
"In those days appeared John the Baptizer; he preached in the wilderness of Judea. ’mRepent ye,’ said he, ’for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.‘ It is of John that the prophet Isaiah speaks when he says: ’A voice is heard in the wilderness: Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.‘ pJohn had a tunic of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his food was locusts and wild honey." 1
1 These were the clothing and nourishment of the poor. Austerity was appropriate in an apostle of repentance. The true penitent considers himself unworthy to live; he keeps himself apart, he deprives himself of the pleasures of civilized life, his food is of the simplest, and his clothing the coarsest. The sackcloth worn by the Jews in time of mourning was made precisely of camel's hair; it was at the same time a sign and an instrument of penitence. A leathern girdle would make the wearer all the more sensible of the coarseness of this tissue, the old French name of which, camelot, from the Latin camelus, seems to be an allusion to the costume of John the Baptist. It was a very coarse and cheap material.
"The inhabitants of Jerusalem, of all Judea, and of the region round about the Jordan went out to John the Baptizer. They were baptized by him in the river after having confessed their sins. But John seeing a great number of Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, said to them: "Ye offspring of vipers, have ye learnt to flee from the wrath to come?" 2
2 In other terms: "What are you come here for? No doubt for you this baptism is only another rite added to so many other formal rites, a mere opus operatum. Be not deceived; no rite will protect you from the wrath to come."
"Bring forth then fruits answering to repentance, and do not believe that it will suffice to say within yourselves: 'We have Abraham as our father.'" 3
3 Another mischievous illusion of the Pharisees: salvation by the privilege of birth.
"No, for I tell you that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And even now is the axe laid at the root of the trees; every tree, therefore, that bringeth not forth good fruit, is about to be hewn down and cast into the fire. For my part, I baptize you in the water with a view to repentance. But he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to bear. He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire." 4
4 This flame will burn out the impurities of believers; it will burn up the impenitent.
"With the fan in his hand he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing-floor; he will gather his wheat into the garner, but the chaff he will burn up in unquenchable fire.
Then Jesus, coming from Galilee, went to the Jordan and presented himself to John to be baptized by him. But John would have hindered him, saying: 'It is I who have need to be baptized by thee, and comest thou to me?' Jesus answering said unto him: 'Consent to it now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.' Then John consented. After having been baptized Jesus went up straightway out of the water, and to! the heavens were opened before him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending in the form of a dove, coming upon him. At the same time was heard a voice from heaven, saying: 'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.'"
What, then, is the predominant thought in this baptism administered by John the Baptist? It seems to relate to a mortal danger threatening the sinners. This thought was symbolized by the ceremony in question. The object of the baptism was an escape from a "wrath to come." John the Baptist speaks in turn of the axe that cuts down the barren trees, of the fire that burns them to ashes, of the wind that carries away chaff and makes it disappear. The chaff that is not carried off by the wind becomes the prey of unquenchable fire. Then, adding acts to words, he plunges the sinners into deep water. In harmony with all the images in his discourse, this immersion is a new symbol of death. It is a simulation of a capital execution.
Let us note that those who came to John the Baptist began by confessing their sins. They remind us of certain malefactors who, urged by remorse, make voluntary confession of their crime and submit to the punishment. This has actually occurred. The English newspapers, some years ago, told the story of a murderer who, having taken refuge in Australia and being then no longer in danger of pursuit, spontaneously recrossed the ocean to come to London and denounce himself, thus, as it were, himself putting the rope round his own neck. So it was with the Jews who sought the baptism of John; they acknowledged themselves unworthy to live.
The apostle Peter speaks of baptism as the antitype of the deluge. 1 God having declared that he would not send another universal deluge, the human conscience none the less claims the death of transgressors. On a reduced scale the immersion of baptism is a deluge voluntarily submitted to, even demanded, by the guilty individual. We would here again call attention to the manifold symbol presented by the deep water: it was at the same time the instrument of capital punishment, and a tomb; it was also a veil covering the sinner from the view of a God too pure to behold iniquity. The symbolism was so much the more admirable because the accomplishment of the rite was almost without danger and its application always easy, for water is never altogether lacking in the neighbourhood of human habitations. Fire and steel are, on the contrary, symbols of which the use could hardly be otherwise than dangerous. Lastly, the rapid and impetuous Jordan might be thought of as ready to carry off the baptized offender into the depths of the accursed lake, known by the name of the Dead Sea.
1 1 Pet. iii. 21.
It is said that John baptized at AEnon, near to Salim, because there was much water there. 1 According to the dictionaries which are recognized as authorities, to baptize in the original language signifies to plunge, and sometimes when it relates to living beings to drown. 2 The ancient classic authors employ this term in speaking of a ship which, leaking in all parts, founders and is engulfed in the waters of the sea; or, again, in speaking of the smith who dips into a vessel filled with water the red-hot iron that he has just been hammering he makes it undergo a baptism. In the Septuagint translation the same term is used with reference to Naaman the Syrian, who plunged himself seven times in the Jordan. 3
1 John iii. 23. The very name of AEnon indicates a plentiful spring. In Matt. iii. 6 it is said that John was baptizing in the Jordan, not on the bank of the river.
2 "Those who are being drowned in the sea": hoi en to thalatte baptizo menoi, Bas., 256. "He killed him by drowning ": baptizon auton apekteine, AEsop, Fab. Seethe French-Greek lexicons at the word noyer. The French word noyer, to drown, is derived from the Latin necare, to put to death, immersion being no doubt the easiest and most usual mode of putting noxious animals, etc., to death. [In Dr. Dunbar's English-Greek Lexicon (Edinburgh, 1840) the first meaning of the verb to plunge is baptizo.]
3 2 Kings v. 14.—In German, Taufe, baptism, taufen, to baptize, spring from the same root as tief, deep, Old German, toufen. Such, at least, was the etymology maintained by Luther. This is closely related to the English dip, deep, and the name of dippers formerly applied to the Baptists; in Dutch, doopgezind and doopen, akin to the German taufen.
The Jews went in crowds to John the Baptist because there was in the air the presentiment of a catastrophe. The epoch was indeed very threatening, not unlike our own. Israel, the frail sparrow, was struggling in the talons of the Roman eagle.
The imperial legionaries in the midst of Jerusalem were like an axe placed at the root of the trees. The thunder-cloud could be seen forming, the distant rumblings, precursors of the lightning-flash that was soon to strike, could already be heard; there were premonitions of one of the most frightful disasters that ever terrified the world.
In the same way as the voluntary vaccination-wound averts the disease by paying it a kind of tribute, so it was hoped that by the acceptance of the simulated death of baptism the divine anger might be turned away, and escape from the imminent peril secured. Touched by this repentance, God, by John's ministry in baptism, pardoned the true penitents. On the other hand, he rejected the Pharisees and Sadducees who, strangers to true repentance, thought to make of this immersion a magical device for reconciling themselves to God. The Pharisees and Sadducees are the hypocrites whose superstitious formalism will always seek to materialize religious ceremonies. John the Baptist warned these men against such culpable illusions. Neither baptism, nor circumcision, nor sacrifices, nor the fact of belonging to the posterity of Abraham, nor the sacred rolls of the Law, could ever save anyone. There is no salvation except in conversion and a new life.
II. The baptism submitted to by Jesus—
These remarks will enable us to perceive the sense and meaning of the baptism submitted to by Jesus Christ.
Jesus being without sin, and being therefore unable to confess any, it is easy to understand that John would decline to administer baptism to him. An innocent man is not to be executed. John naturally exclaims: "I have need to be baptized by thee; it is I, a sinner, who would need to be baptized by thee, and thou comest to me!" But Jesus insists. In his sympathy, although himself innocent, he wishes to share the punishment of the guilty. Jesus, who was to crown his ministry by an expiatory death, begins that ministry and prepares himself for it by submitting to the symbolic ceremony of baptism. Spontaneously he presents himself to receive it, in the same way that three and a half years later he will go forward towards death. His baptism becomes the earnest and the pledge of the sacrifice of his life. The solidarity which his love for sinners establishes between himself and them leads him, in anticipation of the reality, to submit in a figure to that death which the conscience of his guilty brethren makes them feel that they deserve. Thus it is that he will "fulfil all righteousness" according to the terms of his answer to John. His immersion will be the symbol of his entrance into the death of the cross. So, too, the Jordan will be the emblem of the sepulchre in which his body must one day be laid. Uniting himself to our lot, he shares our punishment, and descends with us into the tomb in order that he may enable us to rise again from it with him. But, as his sojourn in the tomb was to last but a short time, so his stay in the water must not be prolonged. Therefore it is said that he went up straightway out of the water. This word straightway seems otherwise inexplicable. Similarly in the somewhat extraordinary phrase, "The heavens were opened before him," the words before him or for him which appear in some important manuscripts would seem useless unless we perceive in the fact so recorded a prophetic allusion to the ascension of Jesus Christ.
The Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove. This apparition recalls the dove of Noah's ark and its pacific message. The dove of the baptism of Jesus would also be an emblem of the pacification wrought by the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ and of the reconciliation of God to men coming, as we have seen, after that ceremony which itself was a figure of the deluge.
Then the voice of God is heard proclaiming that the sacrifice, of which the baptism was the anticipatory type, has rejoiced the heart of the heavenly Father: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Jesus takes care himself to give us the key to the meaning of those words. He says that he is loved by the Father because he lays down his life, and having voluntarily abandoned it, takes it again. 1
In the Gospel story there are only three occasions on which the voice of the heavenly Father is heard, and on each occasion it is to celebrate the praise of the Son who is about to sacrifice himself. It is heard first at the baptism of Jesus, then at the transfiguration, when the Saviour talks with Moses and Elijah of his coming death, 2 and lastly three days before the death of Jesus, at the tithe when he compares himself to the grain of wheat, which "except it die abideth alone, but if it die it beareth much fruit." Jesus adds, speaking of his death: But for this cause came I unto this hour"; at the same moment was heard the Father's voice responding to his. 3
To return to the words that were spoken after the baptism, may they not be considered as a prologue to the apostles' preaching? What say Peter and Paul, heralds of God himself, if not, in effect: "Jesus is the only and well-beloved Son of God; hear ye him"?
The expiatory death of Jesus Christ, his prompt resurrection, his ascension, the Pentecostal descent of the Holy Spirit, the preaching of the Gospel in all the earth, in a word, the whole Gospel appears to be contained in the story of the baptism of Jesus, like the oak in the acorn. At the same time, our own history as disciples of Jesus Christ is to be found there recounted in symbol, as we shall proceed to show.
III. The baptism instituted by Jesus Christ and interpreted by his apostles, the symbol of a new birth—
Prescribed for all Christians, baptism has even to the present day kept the entrance-door to the visible Church; but, thanks to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the rite has been enriched by a new element. The emergence from the water no longer signifies merely that the baptized sinner obtains a respite; it is the symbol of a double renovation: moral resurrection in the present life, bodily resurrection in the life to come.
1 John x. 17, sq.
2 Exodos, Luke ix. 31. Moses, Elijah, and Jesus Christ are the only three men mentioned in Scripture as having fasted forty days. The religious fast is a symbol of a renunciation of life for the service of God.
3 John xii. 28.
The baptism of the primitive Church was, then, the emblem of a salvation wrought through death. Submerged and, so to speak, executed, the old man was considered to have perished in the water, from whence arose a new man, destined to a new life of holiness and righteousness. Christian baptism presented at first a sort of summary of the vital doctrines of Christianity. For the believer it was a symbol of his faith and a preparation for the supreme trial of death. He would say: "My body is plunged in the water, it will soon be deposited in the earth, it is about to arise out of the water, it will one day arise out of the midst of the dust. Meanwhile I am going to prepare by a new life for the life of the glorified saints." Thus understood, the ceremony of baptism, a touching symbol of the most consolatory realities, was the source of profound joy.
If the sentiments of Jesus in his baptism become our own; if our faith, responding to his love, unites us spiritually with him; if, while suffering every day the deleterious consequences of our faults, we bear them with resignation; and if, like Jesus, we consent to suffer with and for others, we, too, shall receive the Holy Spirit, that is to say, a new and higher life. There will come into our hearts an infusion of righteousness. A spiritual resurrection will anticipate the final resurrection of our bodies.
Such was the teaching of the apostle Paul: What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Far from us be such a thought. We who died to sin, how should we live any longer in sin? Are ye perhaps ignorant that as many of us as have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into the communion of his death?
If, then, we have been buried in the waters of baptism and assimilated to Christ in his death, it is in order that like as Christ was raised from among the dead through the glorious power of the Father, so we also might rise to live a new life. If in order to die a death like his we have become, as it were, the same plant with him, we shall doubtless remain united, to rise again with him.
We know that our old man was crucified with Christ, in order that that organ of sin might be destroyed, and that we might no longer be in bondage to sin; for sin has no power over a being that is dead. But if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. 1
Elsewhere the same apostle says: "Baptized with Christ, you have been buried with him, that you may rise again with him." 2 Paul compares the water of believers' baptism to the sepulchre wherein the body of Jesus lay between the time of his death and that of his resurrection. In another place the apostle declares that the Israelites were baptized in the Red Sea. The sea swallowed up the Egyptian soldiers; the Israelites themselves went down into the bed of the sea as into a sepulchre, from which they went forth alive only in consequence of a miracle. The water threatened them on all sides. 3
The apostle Peter, too, after having spoken of the deluge, immediately adds:"Whereunto correspondeth the figure whereby we are saved, that is baptism." 4
1 Rom. vi. 1-8.—The translation of the passage here given is to a slight extent paraphrased. A perfectly clear and expressive translation cannot be always absolutely literal. A certain freedom, for instance, explains the remarkable success of M. Henri Lasserre's translation of the Gospels. Limpid and spirited,
it is even in some respects more exact than the versions which boast of their literalism. But be that as it may, paraphrase is admissible, provided that, while acknowledged, it remains concise and, above all, faithful to the thought of the author; this is the principle that we have sought to carry out in this work, here and elsewhere.
2 Col. ii. 12. Cf. Luke xii. 50; Mark x. 3, 39.
3 1 Cor. x. 2.
4 1 Pet. iii. 21.
IV. The Churches have distorted both the rite and its meaning—
Unhappily, the symbolism of baptism has been lost in the practice of the traditional Churches. The immersion of believers has at last been replaced by a drop of water moistening the face of a little child. This alteration of the rite appears to us to be deeply regrettable, not because we attach a superstitious virtue to any sort of ceremony, far from it, but because the alteration of the rite has involved the alteration of important teaching embodied in it.
It is generally supposed that the purpose of baptism is to symbolize the washing away of a stain, and this, indeed, is one of its symbolic lessons; but the accessory has been made to supersede the essential: as we have seen, baptism was first of all a symbol of death and resurrection. Besides, this debased form of baptism imposed upon mere babes is an unwarrantable interference with their future liberty. The spontaneity of the believer's act in asking for immersion gave to the rite its chief value. If its spontaneity be suppressed, baptism itself might just as well be abolished. 1
As now practised in the traditional Churches, this ceremony has the disadvantage of favouring in a greater or less degree the superstitious idea of a magical salvation. The Anglican liturgy supports this mischievous notion. In the Reformed Churches baptism is little more than the symbol of a Pelagian idea. Man is born good, a new birth is not at all necessary. Besides, the soul is born imperishable; "why, then, bring out these ideas of death and resurrection? There is no question of putting to death the old man, let him live! an ablution will suffice.
We are thus brought back to the lustral water of pagan ceremonies; and thus does the traditional baptism pervert the principal teaching of the Gospel.
V. Protest of the Baptist Churches—
This abuse has been so painfully felt that many Christians have joined together in order to combat it. Under the name of Baptists they have founded numerous and flourishing Churches. In each of their temples there is a large cistern, into the water of which the neophyte is completely plunged after having declared that he wishes to die to the world and to be born to a new life. There was good reason for the protest of the Baptists, but, forced to create a new sect, they have erected a barrier which isolates them. 2
1 The baptismal liturgy of Neuchatel contains this sentence: "Parents of this child... you pray God by his Spirit to produce in the child that new birth of which baptism is the seal." To affix the seal to a blank sheet is hardly a normal mode of procedure. Cf. Acts viii. 12.
2 In England the isolation referred to in the text is very little felt. Not only is there much fraternal intercourse between the Baptist Churches and other Free Churches, but in a large number of Baptist Churches, probably now the majority, the question of baptism is not made a bar to communion.[Note by the Translator.]
We believe it to be much better to practise the immersion of believers while avoiding as far as possible a separation from the various evangelical communities. We hope that the Churches will have the wisdom henceforth to cease excommunicating those of their members who practise baptism by immersion.
Our hope in this matter rests upon the fact that a long controversy has at last led most evangelical theologians to the same conclusions on the two following points relating to ecclesiastical history:1st. In the primitive Church, baptism was practised by immersion. 2nd. Believers only were baptized. To which we will add: those who, out of respect for the instructions of the founder of the Church, desire to conform strictly to the rite as established by him, ought at least to be tolerated, if not also imitated.
VI. Admissions of Paedobaptist theologians—
We now quote some authorities in support of these conclusions: “Baptism being administered by immersion, says M. Reuss, entrance into the water would represent the death and burial of the old man. The rising up out of the water would correspond to the resurrection of the new man. The believer being thus baptized into the death of Christ, entered upon a phase of existence that marked the transition from the former life to that which was to follow, as the tomb had done for Christ 1 It is evident that in presence of this conception of baptism, that of infants is excluded from the apostle's thought and horizon.” 2
The learned theologian and philologist, Hermann Cremer, does not hesitate to translate the word baptism by immersion or submersion. 3
1 Col. iii. 1; Gal. ii. 19; Rom. viii. 10; 2 Tim. ii. 11.
2 Epitres pauliniennes, vol. ii., p. 64.
3 Eintauchen, untertauchen. —His explanation is, nevertheless, very incomplete.
“In the primitive Church, as we read in Dr. Schaff's Encyclopaedia, baptism was by immersion, except in the case of the sick (clinic baptism), who were baptized by pouring or sprinkling. These latter were often regarded as not properly baptized.... Of sprinkling we read: the practice first came into common use at the end of the thirteenth century, and was favoured by the growing rarity of adult baptism.... In the same article it is stated that there is no trace of infant baptism in the New Testament.”1
Mosheim, Gieseler, Hase, Neander, Dean Stanley, and most of the ecclesiastical historians who belong to evangelical Protestantism, are unanimous on this point. As an example we will cite the statement of Professor Chastel, who says:” In describing the ancient rites of baptism we have almost constantly supposed it administered to adults. At the beginning, in fact, it seems to have been only to them, since they only were able to give account of their belief, and with full understanding to make the moral engagements suitable to the Christian vocation. One passage of St. Paul seems even positively to exclude the contrary usage, for in that case the sanctification of Christian children which Paul treats as depending upon the fact that they are the issue of believing parents would have been guaranteed by their own baptism. 2 It is true that in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles the baptism of whole families is spoken of, 3 but there is nothing to prove that infants were comprised in them, and the less so because the profession of faith in Christ is there always required. Besides, the words oikos, oikia, as well as familia in Latin, designate the assembly of masters and servants, rather than that of parents and children.... The custom of baptizing none, or scarcely any, but adults, evidently prevailed until nearly the end of the second century. Tertullian, who mentions the baptism of infants as then already introduced, speaks of it only to condemn it, because of the importance of the engagements that accompanied it, which could not be entered into by infants. If the need was alleged of assuring to the child the divine pardon, he alleged in reply the innocence of that age. He therefore did not hesitate to advise the postponement of the sacrament until adult age.” 1
1 A Religious Encyclopedia, based on the Real-Encyklopaedie of Herzog; edited by Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D., etc.; Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark, 1883—at the word Baptism. "In the ancient Church, before the establishment of the custom of deferring baptism, sometimes even to the death-bed, the rule was to baptize by triple immersion. As Tertullian says: 'Non semel sed ter ad singula nomina in personas singulas tinguimur' (Adv. Prax., c. 26). But when the sick and dying (clinici ) had to be baptized, that rite was no longer practicable. In these cases baptism was administered exceptionally by pouring or sprinkling three times. This custom, however, was not established without considerable difficulty, and was for a long time regarded as insufficient (Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., lib. vi., c. 43). See Suicer, Thesaurus ecclesiasticus, at the word klinikos." —Eug. Picard, Encyclopedie des sciences religieuses, article Bapteme, vol. ii., p. 62.
2 1 Cor. vii. 14.
3 Acts xvi. 30-34; xviii. 8; 1 Cor. i. 16.
A learned theologian of the Anglican Church, the late Dean Stanley, Chaplain to the Queen, expressed himself thus: “The change from immersion to sprinkling has set aside the larger part of the apostolic language regarding baptism, and has altered the very meaning of the word.... The practice of immersion, apostolic and primitive as it was, had the sanction of the Master, of the venerable Churches of the early ages and of the sacred countries of the East... it is still continued in Eastern Churches... though peculiarly unsuitable to the tastes, the convenience, and the feelings of the countries of the North and West.” 2
The reformers maintained in principle the true notion of baptism. Let us listen to Luther, who endeavoured, but in vain, to re-establish immersion. He said: “The immersion in water signifies that our old man ought every day to be drowned, with his sins and passions, and, added the reformer, he ought to be kept under the water, for the fellow can swim.” 3
So, too, Calvin: “Baptism is a symbolic representation of the blood of Christ; it shows us that we are crucified with Christ, and that in him we possess a new life.... The word baptize signifies to immerse; immersion was the custom followed by the ancient Church.”4.
1 Chastel, Histoire de l'Eglise, vol. i., p. 140, sq. See Tertullian, De Baptismo, c. 140
2 Nineteenth Century, October, 1879, pp. 697, 698, passim.
3 Cat. Min., iv. 12. Luther, as we have seen, understood the word Taufe, baptism, to be derived from the adjective tief, deep, in accordance with the primitive character of the Christian rite.
4 Instit., lib. iv. 15, §§ 1-6, 19.
VII.The history of the rite a protest against the alterations that it has undergone
Let us now consult the most ancient monuments of the primitive Church.
The stones of the Catacombs cry out against the debasement of baptism. The mural paintings of these subterranean galleries show us what this ceremony was for the Church of the first centuries. There is to be seen Noah at the door of the ark, which might be considered as a floating coffin upon the waves of the deluge. Upon the ark an egg signifies the resurrection, or a tree rises out of the vessel as a symbol of new birth in the midst of universal death. Often, too, may be seen a dove carrying an olive leaf or branch in its beak. 1 Beside the ark may be observed sometimes Lazarus coming forth from his tomb; sometimes Jonah cast forth by the sea-monster and standing erect on the shore, with the word anastasis (resurrection) inscribed in full at the bottom of the painting.
The picture of the Israelites crossing the Red Sea also reminds us of baptism. But the emblem most frequently met with is that of fish, sometimes painted, sometimes modelled in little figures of bronze, bone, or baked earth. The great fish is the emblem of Christ. 2 The little fishes (pisciculi ) are symbols of the believers, because, as Tertullian says, "Our birth takes place in the waters of baptism." The dolphin, the saviour fish, carrying on his back a basket of loaves, represents Jesus Christ, who procures for man the living bread. In pagan antiquity the dolphin is known to have been looked upon as a friend of man; it brought into port those who had been shipwrecked.
In other frescoes, the water springs from the mystic rock, stricken by the rod of Moses. "This water forms a river, wherein swims the Christian, that diminutive of the sacred ichthus, which is the Christ. The fisher of souls casts his line and takes him."
1 This fact may confirm the meaning that we have attributed to the appearance of a dove after the baptism of Jesus, p. 173.
2 The Greek word ichthus (ICQUS), which signifies a fish, contains the initials of the name and titles of the great Chief of the Church: lesous Christos, Theou Uios, Soter; Jesus Christ, God's Son, Saviour.
3 Th. Roller, Encyclopedie des sciences religieuses, at the word Catacombes.
The earliest Fathers apply to the ceremony of baptism the names regeneratio, innovatio, carnis abjectio, unda genitalis, nativitas secunda: new birth, renovation, putting away of the flesh, birth water, second birth. Gregory of Nazianzen goes so far as to call baptism "communion of the Word," because this rite unites us to the eternal Word by making us members of his body.
In the early Churches it was the custom for the deacon to present the catechumens to the bishop on the eves of Easter and Pentecost, before the first dawning of the new day.
Wrapped in a shroud, they were plunged three times into the water. This triple immersion was the figure of a complete death, as well as of the resurrection of Jesus Christ on the third day. Then were offered to the neophytes milk and honey, the nourishment of babes, and white clothing, symbol of virginal innocence. Christian names were also given to them, which they adopted instead of their former pagan names. This custom originated the use of the word baptize in the sense of giving a name. Thus the twilight hour, the new clothing replacing the shroud, the refreshment offered to the neophytes: everything in this ancient ritual spoke of the death of the old man and the birth of the new man. The frame was worthy of the picture. How all that has been changed!
The triple plunge was maintained among the Greeks until the eighth century, and in the West until the sixth. Even at the present day, in all the Greco-Russian Churches, baptism is still administered by immersion. It is so, too, in the Armenian, Coptic, and Nestorian Churches.
In the West, Thomas Aquinas, in the thirteenth century, recommended immersion as the safest practice. Sprinkling did not prevail until later than that. In 1311 the Council of Ravenna allowed a choice between the two rites.
At Rome, in the early centuries of the Church, the neophytes were taken to the Tiber. In England, the monk Augustine baptized the new converts in the rivers or in the sea. Sometimes the immersion took place in cisterns or wells, where no running water was available.
These tanks or reservoirs were often made in the form of a tomb. The baptistery received the name of piscine, a pond peopled with fish, or of natatorium, a lake for swimming in. It was by preference dug in the immediate neighbourhood of a spring or a stream, so that the water might be both fresh and abundant.
These archaeological details, which we take from the Abbe Martigny's Dictionary of Christian Antiquities evidently lend their support to the signification that we have recognized in baptism. Other archaeologists, as Augusti, De Rossi, Garucci, De Vogue, etc., have shown that the baptisteries, of which vestiges in a more or less complete state of preservation are still to be found in the three continents of the ancient world, are so many proofs of the fact that baptism was administered by immersion.
As for the baptism of infants, it is impossible to quote a single example earlier than the third century. Even in the third century only one mention of such baptism has been discovered. Born in the fourth century, Augustine, son of the pious Monica, was instructed by her in all the truths of the Gospel; yet he was baptized only at his own request after he had passed his thirtieth year. So, too, Gregory of Nazianzen, John Chrysostom, Basil, Ephrem, Ambrose, all brought up in the principles of Christianity, were baptized only after having attained adult age.
Let us recall a clear testimony rendered to Conditionalism by the baptism of the ancient Church. M. Picard says: “This singular idea, that the soul mortal by nature acquires immortality by baptism, is found already in Hermas: "Handed over unto death, men enter the baptismal water; they come out thence destined unto life." 1 In baptism man receives afresh the Spirit of God, received a first time from the breath of his mouth and lost by sin, He thereby becomes immortal. 2 Gregory of Nyssa attributes to the soul alone the immortality that results from baptism: "The body remains mortal because of sin, but it becomes capable of resurrection by union with the body of Christ in the holy supper." 3
To sum up: the traditional rite is a grave departure from the primitive baptism as it was instituted by John the Baptist, adopted by Jesus Christ, and by him prescribed to his disciples. This conclusion is evidently forced upon us by a careful study of the texts of Scripture and of the customs of the Church in the first centuries.
1 Lib. iii., simil. ix., c. 16-18.
2 Tertull., De Baptismo, c. 5. See Irenaeus, Adv. Haeres., lib. iii., c. 17.
3 Article already quoted, Encyclopedie des sciences religieuses, vol. ii., p. 59.
VIII. Examination of an objection against baptism by immersion
Let us, however, examine an objection that has been raised against the primitive rite. “It had, no doubt (says Dean Stanley) the sanction of the apostles and of their Master. It had the sanction of the venerable Churches of the early ages and of the sacred countries of the East.... The practice is still continued in Eastern Churches.... But he adds: The practice of immersion... is peculiarly unsuitable to the tastes, theconvenience, and the feelings of the countries of the North and West.”
That which Dean Stanley speaks of as a motive of convenience is often nothing more than laxity or weakness. Moreover, there is nothing to prevent the warming of the baptismal water. The argument used by Dean Stanley cannot therefore be sustained, and we cannot but subscribe to the protest of M. Steinheil:
“Have Christians the right to debase a sacrament by despoiling it of its divine symbolism? Would they not do much better to invoke a blessing on infants, as Jesus did, and to administer baptism under normal conditions rather than mutilate it by a premature administration. 1
Experience has proved that the solemn presentation of the little child in a Christian assembly would have all the advantages of paedobaptism without its disadvantages. If the child becomes the object of the prayers of the family and friends present, the purpose of the pious parents is surely attained. 2
1 Tel bapteme, telle Eglise, p. 52; Paris, 1879.
2 The Christian World of 16 Oct., 1890, on page 522, under the heading A Dedication of Infants, contains an interesting account of a presentation of infants in a Baptist place of worship. This innovation is thought likely to promote the projected union of the Baptist and Congregational Churches.
Pastor Alfred Porret has expressed views very similar to those of the venerable M. Steinheil. He has thus written: “Either we are greatly deceived, or there is here one of the questions which will come to the front in the near future. In our opinion it is difficult to avoid being struck by the poverty of the arguments from Scripture in favour of paedobaptism, and by the factitious and sophistical character of most of the reasoning by which it is upheld. We believe that no impartial historian will traverse the statement of the illustrious Neander to the effect that infant baptism obtained a footing gradually in the second and third centuries as aconsequence of the disastrous idea that the sacraments are necessary for salvation, but that such baptism was unknown in the apostolic age. We cannot avoid also asking ourselves in the name of experience whether the sense of the importance of the new birth is not seriously diminished by the value that is attributed to baptism when received in a condition of unconsciousness, and whether anything could be worse than the sad state of things, compounded of superstition and formalism, in which we now live, or, rather, in which we are now perishing.” 1
While awaiting the general abandonment of the baptism of infants, it is exceedingly desirable that, as a measure of transition, the pastors and ministers who preside at the baptismal ceremony should warn the parents against the dangers and the abuse of that ceremony. Every time when it is observed, those present should be informed that the modern, rite is defective, and that in principle it would be preferable to replace it by the imposition of hands, reserving the ordinance of baptism for adult age. It is the fact that when the parents are Christians, the children who have been baptized have no greater privilege than those who remain unbaptized. The salvation of the children depends upon the prayers that may be offered for them, the education that they may receive, and in the end upon the decision which they will themselves come to when they have reached the age of reflection. 2
1 Evangile et Liberte, 12 Sept., 1884. From the debasement of baptism to its entire suppression there are but two steps; one of these has lately been taken by the National Church in Zurich. Henceforth all the pastors of that Church are enabled to receive unbaptized persons as effective members of the ecclesiastical community.
2 With regard to the age of reflection, it is of the greatest importance to make the children understand that that age begins very early. Ostervald's catechism contained a statement likely to lead to pernicious error on this point. In the chapter entitled Of the confirmation of the baptismal vow this question may be read: What is the difference between the state in which you have been in childhood and that in which you will henceforth be?
ANS. The salvation of infants is assured; but those who have attained the age of reason are responsible to God for their conduct.
The ratification of the baptismal vow is usually made at the age of from sixteen to eighteen years. The child, not yet a catechumen, who might read this question might well conclude from that word henceforth that he was provisionally irresponsible. Officially declared irresponsibIe, he might think it safe to let his evil propensities have free scope until the time when, arrived at the age of reason, he would become "responsible before God for his conduct."
We would replace the answer quoted by a declaration somewhat in these terms: As soon as they can distinguish between good and evil, children are responsible to God for their conduct; but considering the instruction that we have just received, the responsibility that we now assume will henceforth be increased.
IX. The Lord's supper an emblem of the sustenance of the new life symbolically conferred in baptism—
The symbolism of the Lord's supper makes a kind of pendant to that of baptism. Baptism being a figure of the birth of the new man, the supper represents the maintenance and developement of the new life. The new man receives as his nourishment the words, the example, the life of Christ, his Spirit; in a word, the Christ himself as figured by the broken bread in the supper and by the wine poured out into the cup. The communion continues the work of our immortalization.
"I am the bread of life," said Jesus, "the bread that cometh down out of heaven, that a man may eat thereof and not die." 1 Is the bread a symbol of happiness? If it had been a question of happiness, Jesus would more probably have spoken of milk and honey, perhaps of the fatted calf. 2 Is bread a symbol of holiness? Equally little.
To specify holiness, Jesus would have spoken of unleavened bread. The image chosen had, then, reference only to the maintenance of existence, pure and simple. Such bread might have a disagreeable taste, or even be mixed with impurities; but in any case nutritive meal must have entered into its composition, it prevents death from hunger; that is its sole destination, and the reason of its existence. The notions of happiness and holiness remain in the background. On the other hand, the notion of duration is brought into prominence in the same context. Jesus is the food that
abideth, 3 the living bread which gives imperishable life. We find on the lips of Jesus the expression used later on in the first Epistle of John with meaning of survive.
1 John vi. 27, 48, 50, sq.
2 Cant. iv. 11; Luke; xv. 23.
3 John vi. 27, menousan, in contrast with the earthly food, which becomes decomposed (apollumenen) and perishes. In 1 Cor. xv. 6, menein has the relation to the believer who abideth while the world passeth away.
"He that... drinketh my blood hath eternal life," said Jesus. "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves." Is the blood a symbol of happiness? No, still less so than the bread; it would rather be a symbol of horror and disgust. The very thought of drinking blood, and most particularly human blood, is repugnant to the imagination. It revolted, and still revolts, the Jews especially, to whom blood is forbidden under heavy penalties; and so it was after this saying of Jesus that many of his disciples left him. Is blood a symbol of sanctification? Still less is it so, since such a drink was a defilement; but it is the symbol of life properly so called. Moses had said, "The blood is the life;" to drink it was for the Israelite a strong, clear, and precise image of the transfusion of a vital fluid. Desiring to inculcate a most important truth, Jesus did not shrink from a metaphor that must have been truly shocking to Jewish ears.
X. This another symbol, the key of which has been lost by the Churches through their Platonism.
As with baptism, so it has been with the Lord's supper. Under the influence of Platonic ideas, the meaning of the symbol has been obscured. The meaning of the practice having been lost, the supper, too, became a magical operation, a sort of fetish.
Notwithstanding the Reformation, a remainder of fetishism has survived in the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation. Calvin approached nearly to the primitive conception: he saw in the supper a symbol of the spiritual communion of the human soul with the invisible but present Christ. Still, by retaining the notion of an inalienable immortality, Calvin did away with the absolute necessity for this communion. A man who is by nature imperishable can, if he will, do without communion with God. It will be possible for him to be reconciled to God and to love him without exactly seeking in him the alimentation of his being. That being so, logic asks what can be the great utility of the supper, and it is easily explained why in many Protestant Churches this ceremony has so nearly fallen into desuetude. Abandoned to a great extent by the masculine portion of the flocks, its tendency is, alas! to disappear. It is with it as with baptism: the ancient and veritable significance of these august ceremonies must be re-established, if they are ever to resume their proper position. They are the armorial bearings of which the degenerate Church has lost the meaning. Lest they should lose their nobility and vitality in the ritualism, the sacerdotalism, and the sacramentalism of certain sects, the evangelical communities ought to seek in the primitive doctrine of ontological life in Christ the key of these important symbols. The question is worth the trouble; it is a question, as it seems to us, of the future of those communities.
Comments