By the late Rev. ARCHIBALD ALEXANDER, D.D., First Professor in the Theological Seminary at Princeton, N.J.
IT seems that Dr. Archibald Alexander, during the early years of his ministry (1797-99) fell into doubt for a time in regard to infant baptism. This led him to make a thorough study of the subject with the result that he became quite satisfied as to the entire Scripturalness of it. He drew up a statement of the evidence for infant baptism, beginning with the historical proofs. His treatment of this part of his inquiry, which is republished below, is remarkably able and convincing, and the evidence brought out is, in our opinion, unanswerable:—
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. Spence, 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. Things remained in this posture for more than a year. . . .
I determined now 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 kind of evidence, as tending to favour the superstitions of popery, but now I resolved to give any 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. . . .
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 an 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 testimonials 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 to 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 everything 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 Reformers, 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 Rufinus) 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 anything being said about it, or any opposition being offered, always appears 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 fifteenth 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 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 this 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 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 Antipede-baptists, 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 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 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 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 irrevocably 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 entrusted 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 anyone 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 in practice.” And as such opposition would undoubtedly have been made by these 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 that 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 had 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 dissuades 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 this 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 discussions 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 Irenaeus.
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 principle 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 profitable 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 acknowledged it to have become universal, I had to admit that so far as it 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 anything in Scripture which had an analogy with infant baptism. The rite 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 or 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, our 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 that 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.
Where 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 the State of New Jersey inflicts a heavy pecuniary mulct on any 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, baptising 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. “If thou are not the Messias, Elias, or that prophet, why baptisest 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 and Josephus, Jewish writers that lived nearest 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 fully established and familiar to all, there is seldom any mention of it by writers, sacred or profane. When any discussion 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 traditional 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 Jewish proselytes. Maimonides, one of the most learned of the Jewish rabbins, has given us a most minute account of proselyte baptism. As to the mode of baptism, I hold it to be a dispute 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 Romanists, 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 everywhere represented in connection with the remission of sins.
If now it could be demonstrated that John baptised 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.