This volume presents a comprehensive theological treatise on the sacrament of baptism, composed by Francis Patrick Kenrick, who served as Bishop of Philadelphia at the time of publication. The work is presented alongside a supplementary treatise on confirmation, also authored by Kenrick, and includes a translated discourse from St. Basil the Great exhorting believers to receive baptism without undue delay. The book emerged from a specific pastoral and polemical context: Kenrick had earlier served as a missionary in Kentucky, where a Baptist minister challenged him to preach on the subject of baptism in the minister’s own meeting-house. Though Kenrick declined that invitation, he subsequently delivered four sermons on baptism in the Cathedral of Bardstown, which he later expanded and reworked into the present treatise.
“For it also the church received the tradition from the Apostles to give baptism even to infants.”
The volume is dedicated to Right Rev. Benedict Joseph Flaget, Bishop of Louisville, from whom Kenrick had received permission years earlier to publish discourses delivered in Flaget’s Cathedral. Kenrick acknowledges that those sermons formed the “rude materials” out of which the present, more developed work was fashioned. The book’s occasion also reflects Kenrick’s later position in Philadelphia, a city with a numerous Society of Friends, whose members questioned the very institution of water-baptism itself—a challenge distinct from that posed by his earlier Baptist opponents, who accepted the rite’s institution but disputed its mode and proper subjects.
The treatise is structured around several chief points: the necessity of baptism for salvation, the lawfulness and propriety of infant baptism, and the validity of various modes of administering the sacrament. Kenrick addresses these questions through sustained engagement with Scripture, the writings of the Church Fathers, and the positions of various Protestant bodies, including Baptists, Presbyterians, Quakers, and Anglicans. He also engages with contemporary theological controversies, citing figures such as Dr. Pusey, whose tract on baptism had established the sacrament’s efficacy and thereby reduced Kenrick’s need for certain proofs.
The work includes an appendix and concludes with a separate treatise on confirmation, which Kenrick argues should not be separated from baptism in theological treatment. Throughout, Kenrick maintains a polemical but courteous tone, expressing charity toward those with whom he disagrees while firmly defending Catholic teaching. He acknowledges that he has noticed and addressed what he perceives as opposite errors among various sects and living individuals, done without respect of persons but with courtesy and charity. He also expresses concern about what he calls an “awful departure from the ancient and unchangeable principles of faith” among professed ministers of Christ.
Context
The treatise must be understood within the landscape of nineteenth-century American religious controversy, where questions of baptism divided Christian communities along multiple fault lines. Kenrick’s work engages with several distinct opponents, each holding different positions on the sacrament. The Baptists, who traced their name to John the Baptist, maintained that baptism should be administered only to believing adults by immersion. The Society of Friends, or Quakers, founded by George Fox in England around 1650, took the more radical position that water-baptism had been superseded entirely by an interior baptism of the Spirit. Between these positions stood the major Protestant denominations—Presbyterians, Anglicans, and others—who retained water-baptism but differed among themselves regarding its efficacy, proper subjects, and mode of administration.
Kenrick’s context also includes the broader theological inheritance of the Reformation debates. He repeatedly engages with the legacy of Calvin, whose teachings on predestination and the sacraments continued to shape Presbyterian and Baptist theology. The author notes with concern the influence of rationalistic biblical interpretation, exemplified by figures like Albert Barnes, whose work on the Epistle to the Romans had occasioned his suspension from the Presbyterian ministry before he was restored when the New School party prevailed in the General Assembly. Kenrick perceives in such interpretive methods a threat to the stability of Christian doctrine, since they allow clear scriptural testimonies to be explained away as mere theories or accommodations to Jewish prejudice.
The Catholic position Kenrick defends had been defined in response to the Reformation at the Council of Trent, which anathematized those who denied baptism’s necessity or its efficacy in conferring grace. Kenrick also draws on the longer tradition of patristic interpretation, citing figures such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and Gregory of Nazianzen as witnesses to the ancient and universal understanding of baptism. He appeals to these Fathers not as authorities in themselves, he clarifies, but as witnesses to the usage and belief of the early Church, whose testimony carries weight because of their proximity to the apostolic age.
The book also reflects the particular controversies of Kenrick’s American context. He engages with the writings of contemporary Baptist authors such as Isaac Taylor Hinton and Alexander Campbell, with Quaker apologists including Barclay and the more recent Frederick Lucas, and with Anglican divines such as Bishops Hopkins, Mcllvaine, and Onderdonk, as well as Dr. Pusey of the Oxford Movement. He cites the American Protestant Episcopal Convention of 1789, which had remodelled the Book of Common Prayer, and notes the differences between the English and American prayer books regarding baptismal regeneration. This attention to contemporary debate gives the treatise an immediate, occasional character even as it engages with perennial theological questions.
Structure of the Book
The treatise is organized into fourteen chapters followed by an appendix and supplementary materials. The opening chapters establish the scriptural and theological foundations for understanding Christian baptism. Chapter I examines the baptism of John the Baptist, arguing that John’s rite was preparatory rather than identical to Christian baptism. Chapter II treats Christian baptism proper, defending the use of water against the Quaker position that Christ’s baptism is purely spiritual. Chapter III considers apostolic practice, arguing that the Acts of the Apostles and the epistles demonstrate that the Apostles understood Christ’s commission to authorize water-baptism.
The middle chapters address specific objections and doctrinal questions. Chapter IV responds to the objections of the Friends, who denied that water-baptism was instituted by Christ for the Christian dispensation. Chapter V treats the doctrine of original sin, which provides the theological foundation for understanding why baptism is necessary. Chapter VI argues for the necessity of baptism for salvation, engaging with various Protestant positions that weakened or denied this necessity. Chapter VII examines the effects of baptism, defending the Catholic doctrine that the sacrament confers grace and regenerates the soul against those who regarded it as a mere sign or token.
Chapter VIII traces the origin of the Baptists as a distinct body, while Chapter IX offers an extended defense of infant baptism, arguing from Scripture, tradition, and the practice of the early Church. Chapters X and XI address the modes of baptism and the meaning of the term “baptize,” with Kenrick maintaining that while immersion was common in antiquity, other modes such as pouring or aspersion are valid and have been legitimately used. Chapter XII considers apostolic precedents, and Chapter XIII discusses the dispositions required for worthy reception of baptism. Chapter XIV treats the ceremonies surrounding the sacrament.
The volume concludes with several appended materials. An appendix follows the main treatise, and then comes St. Basil’s exhortation to baptism, translated from his works, urging catechumens not to delay their reception of the sacrament. Finally, Kenrick adds his own Treatise on Confirmation, divided into two chapters: the first on the divine institution of confirmation, and the second on its rites. Kenrick explains that he annexed this treatise because the two sacraments should not be separated in theological treatment.
Main Arguments
The central argument of the treatise concerns the nature and necessity of Christian baptism. Kenrick maintains that baptism is a sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ, involving the washing with water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and conferring grace upon the recipient. He argues that the baptism of John, while preparatory and administered on profession of repentance, was distinct from Christian baptism in its effects and significance. Those who had received John’s baptism were not considered full members of the Christian community until they received Christ’s baptism, as demonstrated by the Ephesian disciples in Acts xix who were rebaptized by Paul after having received only John’s baptism.
Against the Quaker position that Christ’s baptism is purely an interior operation of the Spirit, Kenrick argues that the natural meaning of “baptize” is to wash with water, and that in a solemn commission words must bear their obvious sense. He acknowledges that the term is sometimes used figuratively—as when Christ speaks of His suffering as a baptism, or when John predicts that Christ will baptize with the Holy Ghost and fire—but maintains that when used absolutely and without qualification, it must refer to water-baptism. The Apostles, he argues, clearly understood themselves to be authorized to wash with water those who professed faith, as demonstrated by their practice recorded in Acts and the epistles.
Kenrick argues strenuously for the necessity of baptism for salvation, grounding this claim primarily in Christ’s words to Nicodemus: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” He rejects attempts to interpret this text as referring only to spiritual regeneration without water, or as applying only to adults, or as using “water” figuratively for the Spirit’s purifying influence. The ancient Fathers, he notes, were unanimous in understanding this text as referring to baptism. He acknowledges certain exceptions—such as martyrdom, which the Fathers regarded as a baptism of blood—but maintains that for those who can receive baptism, it is a necessary means of salvation.
The treatise also defends the doctrine of original sin as the foundation for understanding baptism’s necessity. Kenrick argues that all humans are born in a state of sin inherited from Adam, and that this doctrine is clearly taught by Scripture, particularly in Romans v. He engages at length with the interpretations of Albert Barnes and others who sought to explain away the Apostle’s testimony, arguing that such interpretive methods would allow every revealed doctrine to be rejected as a theory the sacred writers did not deliver. The fact that infants die, he argues, demonstrates that they share in Adam’s sin, since they are incapable of actual sin.
On the effects of baptism, Kenrick maintains that the sacrament confers sanctifying grace, washing away original sin and actual sins, regenerating the soul, and making the recipient a child of God and heir to eternal life. He rejects the view, common among Protestants, that baptism is merely a sign or token of grace rather than a means of conveying it. He engages with various Protestant positions—the Calvinist view that baptism’s efficacy depends on predestination, the view of some Anglicans that baptism effects only ecclesiastical regeneration, and the Baptist view that baptism is a mere ordinance signifying fellowship with Christ—arguing that all these positions depart from the clear teaching of Scripture and the unanimous testimony of the early Church.
Kenrick also defends the practice of infant baptism, arguing that infants are capable of receiving the grace of baptism and that the Church has always baptized them. He notes that the New Testament records the baptism of entire households, which would have included infants and young children, and that the practice of the early Church, witnessed by the Fathers, confirms this understanding. He argues that Christ’s words about the necessity of new birth apply to all humans, including infants, and that to deny infants baptism is to deny them the ordinary means of salvation.
Key Concepts
The treatise develops several key concepts that structure its argument. The distinction between John’s baptism and Christian baptism is fundamental. Kenrick argues that John’s baptism was preparatory, administered on profession of repentance in preparation for the coming Redeemer, but lacking the efficacy of Christian baptism. Christian baptism, by contrast, is administered in the name of the Trinity, confers the Holy Spirit, and regenerates the soul. The Fathers, he notes, consistently distinguished between the two, even as they acknowledged both involved water.
The concept of baptismal regeneration is central to Kenrick’s argument. He maintains that baptism truly regenerates the soul, effecting a new birth by water and the Spirit. This regeneration is not merely ecclesiastical—a change in external status—but involves a real interior transformation, the infusion of sanctifying grace, and the remission of sins. He engages with Bishop Onderdonk’s distinction between ecclesiastical and moral regeneration, arguing that this distinction is novel and unknown to the Fathers, who regarded baptism as effecting a genuine spiritual rebirth.
Original sin is another key concept. Kenrick defines it as the state of sin inherited from Adam, whereby all humans are born children of wrath, deprived of original justice and the supernatural gifts bestowed on Adam as head of the human race. He distinguishes the Catholic understanding from Calvinistic views that nature is utterly corrupted, maintaining instead that nature is weakened and despoiled but not destroyed. The soul is dead to God through deprivation of grace but can be raised through baptism and the other means of grace.
The treatise also develops the concept of the sacraments as means of grace. Kenrick argues that baptism is not merely a sign signifying grace but an instrument through which God actually confers grace. He draws an analogy to Naaman the Syrian, who was cleansed of leprosy by bathing in the Jordan as the prophet Eliseus commanded, despite his initial reluctance to accept such a simple remedy. The simplicity of the external rite, Kenrick argues, does not diminish its efficacy, since God’s power works through the means He has appointed.
The distinction between the natural and figurative meanings of “baptize” is important for Kenrick’s exegetical method. He acknowledges that the term can be used figuratively—as when Christ speaks of His passion as a baptism, or when Scripture speaks of being baptized with the Holy Ghost—but maintains that when used absolutely and without qualification, it must bear its natural meaning of washing with water. When the term is qualified by additional words, as in “baptized with the Holy Ghost,” a secondary meaning is fixed by the added terms.
Themes
Several deeper themes run through the treatise, giving it coherence beyond its immediate polemical purposes. One such theme is the relationship between the visible and the invisible, the external and the internal, in the Christian life. Kenrick repeatedly argues against what he calls “affected spirituality”—the tendency to disparage external rites and ceremonies as unworthy of a purely spiritual religion. He maintains that God, who created humans as embodied beings, works through material means to convey spiritual grace. The Incarnation itself, in which the Word became flesh, establishes the pattern for sacramental efficacy. Christ used external forms—touching the deaf, the dumb, and the blind; His garment healing the woman with the hemorrhage—and it is consistent with this divine method that He should use water as the instrument of regeneration.
Another theme is the authority of Scripture and the proper method of interpreting it. Kenrick argues that Scripture must be interpreted according to its obvious sense, in light of context and parallel passages, and with attention to the unanimous testimony of the early Church. He criticizes interpretive methods that allow clear scriptural testimonies to be explained away by appeals to figurative language, to supposed Jewish prejudices of the sacred writers, or to private revelations of the Spirit. Such methods, he argues, destroy any standard for distinguishing divine teaching from the vagaries of a disordered imagination and open the door to enthusiasm and fanaticism of the wildest and worst character.
The theme of continuity with the early Church is also prominent. Kenrick repeatedly appeals to the Fathers as witnesses to the faith and practice of the ancient Church, arguing that their unanimous testimony on matters such as baptismal regeneration and infant baptism carries great weight. He acknowledges that the Fathers are not infallible authorities, but maintains that their witness to the interpretation of Scripture and the practice of the Church in the centuries immediately following the Apostles is invaluable. When contemporary innovators depart from this ancient consensus, Kenrick suggests, the presumption is against them.
A related theme is the danger of novelty in theology. Kenrick repeatedly criticizes what he regards as recent innovations—the Quaker denial of water-baptism, the Baptist restriction of baptism to believers, the Calvinist doctrine of predestination as it affects the sacraments, the rationalistic interpretation of original sin—as departures from the ancient and unchangeable principles of faith. He expresses concern about what he perceives as an “awful departure” from these principles among professed ministers of Christ, and urges his readers to entire acquiescence in divine laws without softening divine teaching.
The theme of divine condescension and human pride also runs through the treatise. Kenrick observes that humans often stumble at the simplicity of God’s appointed means of grace, preferring something more dramatic or more intellectually satisfying. Naaman’s initial reluctance to bathe in the Jordan exemplifies this tendency, as does the objection that water is too material a means for the spiritual dispensation of the Gospel. Kenrick argues that such objections proceed from pride of reason rather than humble faith, and that the very simplicity of the sacrament manifests divine power, since God’s works ought to surpass admiration.
The Author’s Conclusions
Kenrick concludes that baptism is a sacrament of divine institution, necessary for salvation, through which God confers grace upon the soul. He maintains that the Catholic Church has preserved the ancient faith regarding baptism against the various errors of Protestantism—against the Quakers who deny water-baptism entirely, against the Baptists who restrict it to believing adults and deny its efficacy, against the Calvinists who make its efficacy dependent on eternal decrees rather than the sacrament itself, and against rationalistic interpreters who explain away the clear testimonies of Scripture.
He concludes that the baptism of John was preparatory and distinct from Christian baptism, and that those who received only John’s baptism needed to receive Christ’s baptism for the remission of sins and the gift of the Spirit. He maintains that the Apostles understood Christ’s commission to authorize water-baptism and practiced it accordingly, as demonstrated by their acts recorded in Scripture and by the universal practice of the Church they founded.
On the question of infants, Kenrick concludes that they are proper subjects of baptism, since they share in Adam’s sin and need the regeneration that baptism confers. He argues that the New Testament witness to household baptisms, the practice of the early Church, and the theological necessity of baptism for salvation all support the Church’s practice of baptizing infants. He appeals to the tenderness of mothers to procure baptism for their children without delay, lamenting the modern indifference that contrasts with the ancient practice of running with newborns to the baptistery.
On the mode of baptism, Kenrick concludes that while immersion was common in antiquity and is a valid mode, other modes such as pouring or aspersion are also valid and have been legitimately used by the Church. He notes that Catholics are not opposed to immersion but maintain the sufficiency of other modes and respect for immemorial local usage. He expresses concern that Presbyterian sprinkling risks nullity from light performance, while maintaining that aspersion reasonably deemed an ablution is valid baptism.
The treatise concludes with Kenrick’s supplementary treatment of confirmation, which he argues should not be separated from baptism. He annexes St. Basil’s exhortation to baptism, which urges catechumens not to delay their reception of the sacrament, and his own treatise on confirmation, treating its divine institution and its rites. Throughout, Kenrick urges his readers to devout prayer and entire acquiescence in divine laws, without softening divine teaching to accommodate human preferences or prejudices.
Significance
This treatise represents a significant contribution to nineteenth-century American Catholic theology, engaging comprehensively with the major Protestant positions on baptism while grounding its arguments in Scripture, patristic testimony, and the defined doctrine of the Catholic Church. Its significance lies partly in its ecumenical engagement: Kenrick takes seriously the arguments of Baptists, Quakers, Presbyterians, and Anglicans, quoting their authors at length and responding to their specific claims. This engagement reflects the reality of American religious pluralism, where Catholics found themselves in constant dialogue and debate with members of other Christian communities.
The work is also significant for its defense of sacramental efficacy against the various Protestant reductions of baptism to a mere sign or ordinance. Kenrick’s argument that baptism truly confers grace, regenerates the soul, and is necessary for salvation represents a clear statement of Catholic sacramental theology in the American context. His engagement with the Oxford Movement, represented by Dr. Pusey, and his critical assessment of the American Protestant Episcopal Church’s revisions to the Book of Common Prayer, reflect the theological ferment of the period.
The treatise’s treatment of original sin engages with the controversies surrounding Albert Barnes and the New School theology, defending the traditional doctrine against rationalistic reinterpretation. Kenrick’s argument that the connection between Adam’s sin and universal death demonstrates the reality of inherited sin, and that infants who die must share in Adam’s sin since they are incapable of actual sin, represents a careful theological argument grounded in Scripture and tradition.
The work also provides insight into the pastoral and polemical concerns of a nineteenth-century American bishop. Kenrick’s account of his earlier missionary labors in Kentucky, his debate with the Baptist minister, and his engagement with the Quaker community in Philadelphia, situate the treatise within the concrete realities of American religious life. His concern about the “awful departure from the ancient and unchangeable principles of faith” among professed ministers of Christ reflects the anxieties of a Catholic bishop witnessing the fragmentation of American Protestantism into competing schools and parties.
The inclusion of St. Basil’s exhortation to baptism connects the treatise to the broader patristic tradition and emphasizes the pastoral urgency of the sacrament. Basil’s discourse, urging catechumens not to delay their baptism, reinforces Kenrick’s own concern about the dangers of postponing baptism and the importance of receiving the sacrament promptly. The supplementary treatise on confirmation, which Kenrick argues should not be separated from baptism, completes the treatment of the sacraments of initiation and emphasizes their unity.
The treatise stands as a monument of careful theological argumentation, engaging with Scripture, tradition, and contemporary debate in defense of Catholic sacramental doctrine. Its combination of polemical engagement with pastoral concern, of theological rigor with practical application, makes it a significant work of American Catholic theology in the antebellum period.
Inside the Book
The Treatise’s Purpose and Dedication
The volume opens as a theological work assembled by Francis Patrick Kenrick, Bishop of Philadelphia, drawing on the writings of St. Basil the Great. The title page announces a treatise on baptism, an exhortation to receive it, and an appended treatise on confirmation. The epigraph from 1 Corinthians iv. 1 sets the tone of stewardship of divine mysteries. Published in Philadelphia in 1843, the work is dedicated to Right Rev. Benedict Joseph Flaget, Bishop of Louisville, from whom Kenrick had received permission years earlier to publish discourses delivered in Flaget’s Cathedral. Kenrick describes these sermons as the “rude materials” for the present treatise, expressing continued veneration for his former superior despite changed circumstances.
In the preface, Kenrick explains the work’s origin: while a missionary in Kentucky, a Baptist minister challenged him to preach on baptism in the minister’s meeting-house. Kenrick declined but delivered four sermons in the Cathedral of Bardstown, subsequently published. He now presents the material in a new form. His present position in a city with numerous Society of Friends led him to address water-baptism’s institution directly. Dr. Pusey’s tract had established the sacrament’s efficacy, reducing Kenrick’s need for proofs. The chief points concern the necessity of baptism, the lawfulness of infant baptism, and the validity of various modes. Kenrick clarifies that Catholics are not opposed to immersion but maintain the sufficiency of other modes and respect for immemorial local usage. He cites a controversy between Charles Blackwood, an Anabaptist, and Thomas Blake, a Presbyterian, quoting Blake’s observation that “Aquinas was a man zealous for the use of dipping, as is generally the popish party and popishly inclined.” Kenrick notes that Presbyterian sprinkling risks nullity from light performance, while Catholics hold aspersion reasonably deemed an ablution as valid baptism. He acknowledges noticing opposite errors among various sects and individuals, done without respect of persons but with courtesy and charity, perceiving an “awful departure from the ancient and unchangeable principles of faith” among professed ministers of Christ. He subjoins St. Basil’s discourse exhorting against delayed baptism and corrects an error in his earlier work on Justification concerning Mr. Vanbrugh Livingston’s view of justifying faith, which Kenrick had compared to Luther’s. Livingston assured him he rejected Luther’s theories, so Kenrick retracts; Livingston has since “abjured every error opposed to Catholic truth, and has taken refuge in the ark.” Kenrick annexes the Treatise on Confirmation since these sacraments should not be separated, and recommends devout prayer to readers, urging entire acquiescence in divine laws without softening divine teaching.
The Baptism of John
Kenrick begins by considering John’s baptismal rite before treating Christ’s baptism. The “Friends” or “Quakers,” originating from George Fox, an English Anabaptist and shoemaker whose society was founded about 1650, discard external rites, claiming Christ’s baptism is only an interior operation of the Divine Spirit, distinguished from John’s water baptism. The Catholic Church maintains this distinction, anathematizing anyone asserting John’s baptism had the same virtue as Christ’s, but holds that water is used in Christian baptism as in John’s. The canon aimed at Calvin and his adherents, who taught the difference lay in accompanying instruction rather than rites or effects—John taught Christ was to come, while the Christian rite supposes Him manifested. Dr. Miller, an ardent Calvinist, states plainly that “It is certain that John’s baptism was not Christian baptism.” Baptists consider their name identifying them with John the Baptist, yet their confession of faith is silent about John’s baptism, speaking only of baptism as a New Testament ordinance of Jesus Christ. Isaac Taylor Hinton, a recent Baptist writer, regards John’s baptism as “Christian baptism in an incompletely developed state,” glorying that he was baptized with the same baptism Christ personally partook of—likely the general Baptist sentiment.
Whether Jews practiced baptizing before John is disputed. Maimonides and Jewish writers claim it was used in admitting Gentile converts; others say Gentiles merely bathed to express cleansing from idolatry defilements. Mosaic law prescribed purifications with priestly sprinkling of blood or water; whole-body washing was sometimes enjoined but self-performed—a bath rather than baptism as now understood. The only instance of whole-body ablution by another person was Moses washing Aaron and his sons in consecration. John’s baptism was peculiar in being administered on profession of repentance as preparation for the Redeemer’s coming—different from legal purifications and from Christ’s later rite. Malachy spoke of the angel preparing the way, and Zacharias declared John’s preparatory character, giving knowledge of salvation to his people unto the remission of their sins. No sacred writer authorizes considering John’s baptism as Christian baptism.
Distinguishing John’s Baptism from Christ’s
The evidence that John’s baptism differed from Christian baptism is substantial. Those baptized by John were not considered church members until receiving Christ’s baptism. Mark records that all Judea and Jerusalem went to John, confessing sins. Within five years, Peter in Jerusalem addressed a multitude urging them to “Do penance and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ,” though many had likely received John’s baptism; about three thousand were baptized that day. A footnote criticizes Hinton’s “sang froid” in claiming this number included those previously baptized by John or Christ’s disciples.
The author then examines Acts xix. Paul at Ephesus found disciples who had not heard of the Holy Ghost and had received “John’s baptism.” Paul explained that John’s baptism was of penance, pointing to belief in Jesus, and they were then baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Paul’s question “In what then were you baptized?” presupposes that Christian baptism required express belief in and invocation of the Holy Ghost. The Spirit’s descent on Christ at His baptism was not the rite’s effect but the Father’s testimony. The author rejects attempts to read Acts xix.5 as Paul’s words rather than the historian’s, noting Paul’s subsequent imposition of hands identifies the baptized with those receiving hands. Ancient writers confirm this distinction: Tertullian notes those with John’s baptism had not received the Holy Ghost; St. Optatus observes that Paul persuaded them to receive Christ’s baptism; St. Augustin says the second baptism occurred solely because John’s baptism differed from Christ’s. Tertullian calls John’s baptism penance preparing for future remission; St. Jerom says it did not remit sins but was for future remission; St. Athanasius explains that purification was impossible via John’s baptism; St. Basil contrasts John’s introductory baptism with Christian baptism that perfects and unites with God. Calvin confesses the Fathers distinguished the baptisms but rejects their authority. The author appeals to the Fathers not on authority but as witnesses to ancient usage, noting that both baptisms used water, but Christian baptism regenerates through the Spirit in the Trinity’s name, while John’s was a penance and purification symbol without Trinitarian invocation. John’s baptism was preparatory; after Christ’s institution, only Christian baptism was to be sought.
The Friends’ Spiritual Interpretation
The “Friends” hold that Christian baptism is interior purification by God’s Spirit without external ablution. Barclay states their view: one baptism is spiritual—the baptism of Spirit and fire—of which John’s baptism was a figure, commanded temporarily. The author notes the Friends appeal to inward revelations as the formal object of faith, refusing to test them by Scripture, though Barclay admits contrary-to-Scripture claims are “
The Universality of Christ’s Command
The author first confronts the objection that baptism presupposes a conversion from infidelity, a notion he dismisses as a “gratuitous supposition.” Critics argue that since converts from Heathenism or Judaism were baptized as proselytes, lifelong Christians—who have never held opposing worship—need no such change and thus cannot be baptized. The author counters that the Great Commission’s words are as general as conceivable; nothing limits the precept except the nature of the duty itself. Teaching instructs the mind, especially for those ignorant of the Gospel, while baptism, being a washing with water, regards all who are defiled with sin, regardless of their parents’ religion or their own profession. Christians still need apostolic teaching and must be baptized to wash their robes white in the Lamb’s blood and put on Jesus Christ. No argument derives from Jewish proselyte practice, since Christian baptism depends wholly on Christ’s divine authority as a necessary condition for entering his kingdom. Church practice in all ages confirms it applies to believers’ posterity and former infidels alike.
Baptism Distinguished from Jewish and Johannine Rites
The author denies entirely that baptism is a relic of Judaism. Mosaic purifications differed totally: they involved many ablutions versus one; they were self-performed versus performed by another; they lacked solemn invocation versus baptism in the name of the three Divine Persons; and they were types versus an instrument and means of grace. Even if Jews baptized proselytes, their custom cannot be identified with Christ’s divine institution marked by Trinitarian invocation and the Holy Spirit’s sanctifying influence. Nor is it John’s baptism, but that perfect baptism to which John’s yielded. The author quotes St. Chrysostom: Jewish purification freed only from corporal defilements; ours frees from sins, cleanses the soul, and imparts the Spirit. John’s baptism was a bridge between Jewish and Christian baptisms, drawing people from vice to virtue. Baptism is specially commanded by Christ, pointed out by Peter to the Jews for remission of sins, administered to Cornelius despite his having received the Holy Ghost, and enjoined by Ananias on Saul after his miraculous conversion.
The Material Element and Spiritual Grace
Responding to the objection that water ablution is too material for the spiritual dispensation, the author argues we must judge by God’s positive testimony, not abstract ideas. Spiritual worship means homage of mind and affections conforming to revealed principles. External tokens and instruments of grace are not unworthy of God; they excite faith and hope, making us sensible of interior grace. Quoting Chrysostom, since the soul is united with the body, Christ bestows spiritual gifts under sensible forms. Gregory Nazianzen notes purification is twofold—water visibly, Spirit invisibly. Cyril of Jerusalem states water cleanses the body, the Spirit seals the soul. Christ himself used external forms—touching the deaf, dumb, and blind; his garment healing the hemorrhage; the palsied man walking home as evidence of pardon. Rejecting a clearly commanded ordinance through pride of reason is fearful. The author quotes 1 John 1:1 about hearing, seeing, and handling the word of life, answering Barclay’s reproach about preferring shadow to substance by noting the ablution represents and effects invisible purification. Historical witness abounds: the epistle ascribed to Barnabas speaks of water and the cross mystically; Tertullian calls Christians “little fishes” born in water regarding Christ our ΙΧΘΥΣ; a pagan writer of the late second century introduces a Christian saying Christ “renovated us by water.” Heretics denying baptism were few—Quintilla, Manicheans, Seleucians, Bogomili, and Albigenses—while the Apostles continued water baptism and transmitted it in unbroken descent.
Original Sin and Humanity’s Fallen Condition
The author states all men are naturally children of wrath, conceived and born in sin—the foundation for humanity’s need of a Redeemer. Pelagius denied this in the early fifth century; Augustine maintained it; African councils and Popes Innocent and Zosimus proclaimed it. Wall noted many General Baptists were Pelagians regarding original sin. American Baptists’ 1742 confession expresses belief in original sin strongly, and Anglican Article IX describes it as corruption of every man’s nature deserving God’s wrath. Trent’s anathemas declare Adam’s prevarication injured posterity, transfusing sin—the death of the soul—not merely death and corporal afflictions; Adam’s sin is one in origin, transfused by propagation, not imitation. Mohler distinguishes Catholic faith from Calvinistic error: Catholics believe nature is weakened and despoiled, not corrupted; the soul is dead to God through deprivation of grace but can be raised. Man bears within himself evidence of his fallen condition—the miseries of the body, but more especially the disorders of the mind and the evil propensities of the heart. No one would suppose man originally came from his Creator with a clouded mind and violent passions. This moral weakness can only be explained by admitting that although God created man free from moral imperfection, man is now defiled, a defilement traceable to the sin of the parent of the human race.
Albert Barnes and the Apostle’s Testimony
The doctrine of original sin was insidiously attacked by Albert Barnes, a Presbyterian minister, in his Notes on the Epistle to the Romans, which occasioned his suspension from the ministry, though he was later restored. Barnes pretended the Apostle did not intend to deliver any theory but extolled the atonement’s benefit from admitted facts, bending to his own views the testimonies declaring all had sinned and incurred death. He assumed original sin is a metaphysical speculation of later ages. The author argues that by the same rule, every revealed doctrine could be rejected. The Apostle testifies a fact: “By one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned.” If Adam’s sin did not directly induce guilt, there would be no ground for stating death passed upon all men, since a vast portion die before the age of reason without actual sin. Since infants are manifestly incapable of actual sin, they must be sinners in consequence of the first man’s act. The Apostle says death reigned from Adam unto Moses even over those who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression. There must be a sin common to all, of which death is the punishment. The author acknowledges the apparent absurdity of saying those who had no existence sinned, but it is not absurd to say all fell from the unmerited elevation Adam forfeited, all lost through his act the gratuitous gifts bestowed on him as head of his race, and all were estranged from God, children of wrath. A faint image exists in legal enactments subjecting descendants of traitors to penal disabilities. The Apostle’s alternate use of “many” and “all” shows that as Christ died for all, all were dead, and as all sinners are such through Adam’s sin, so all the just owe grace to Christ. If Adam influenced humanity merely by example, then, as Unitarians do, Christ leads men to justice by example rather than actual communication of grace. Rosenmuller, following this rationalistic view, stated the Apostle argued conformably to Jewish prejudices rather than facts. The Apostle affirms all were dead to God, wherefore Christ offered himself for all: “
The Definition of Baptism and Its Limits
The discussion opens by examining how various Christian bodies define baptism. A Baptist definition is quoted, describing baptism as an “ordinance of the New Testament” signifying fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection, engrafting into Him, remission of sins, and newness of life. This definition, the author notes, is borrowed from the Westminster Confession with the word “ordinance” substituted for “sacrament,” and with certain omissions—namely, the solemn admission into the visible church and the continuation of the sacrament until the end of the world. The crucial point is that neither definition ascribes any efficacy to baptism; it is regarded as a mere sign. Presbyterians, for their part, make baptism’s efficacy dependent on divine predestination, with grace offered only to those to whom it belongs according to God’s counsel. In this system, baptism imparts no grace at the moment of administration, and the reprobate receive nothing. The author notes that some Predestinarians even seem to think infants of faithful parents may be reprobated and damned despite baptism, while others, like Hinton, repudiate Calvin’s doctrine of foreordination to everlasting death with disgust. Calvin himself, however, is quoted as saying that whenever we are baptized we are washed and purified for the whole of life, and must recur to remembrance of baptism for assurance of remission of sins.
Alexander Campbell takes a different view, maintaining that immersion is a divine institution designed to put the legitimate subject in actual possession of remission of sins, formally conveying forgiveness to every believing subject. The Anglican article approaches Catholic doctrine but is ambiguously worded, accommodating Calvinistic views, and this ambiguity produced two classes of Anglican divines. Bishop Hopkins says baptism effects external and relative sanctification, while Dr. Pusey admits the Catholic doctrine of baptismal regeneration, presenting Scripture and traditional testimony that this was the doctrine of the universal church in its holiest ages. Bishop Onderdonk distinguishes ecclesiastical regeneration—constituting members of the visible church—from moral regeneration, a change of character independent of baptism. He admits these views are his own reflections, at variance with his earlier impressions and opposed to the Fathers. The American Protestant Episcopal Convention of 1789 retained that a baptized child “is regenerate and grafted into the body of Christ’s church” but expunged passages expressly ascribing regeneration to baptism. The author notes many will dissent from this omission, seeing it as severing a link with Anglicans and effacing Catholic memorials. Catholic belief, by contrast, holds that baptism contains inherent efficacy: it washes original sin and actual sins, regenerates the child of Adam into a child of God, and imparts grace so thoroughly that no cause of condemnation remains if no obstacle is presented. This grace is attached to baptism by divine institution and infallibly imparted unless the receiver’s incredulity obstructs it.
The Argument Against Baptism as Mere Sign
The passage expresses astonishment that some consider baptism merely “a sign and token” despite divine testimonies declaring its virtue. The author references “the Friend” who uses St. Peter’s words to argue against water’s use, while the Baptist uses the same passage to claim that water does not purify the soul—rather, faith does. However, the text itself says baptism saves us, imparting grace unto salvation. The added phrase about “the answer of a good conscience” indicates the necessary disposition to receive this saving grace. The “affected spirituality” of those denying baptism’s divine efficacy was unknown to ancient Fathers, who—as admitted by Taylor, Hinton, and other adversaries of sacramental grace— “did constantly speak of baptism as intrinsecally holy, and as conveying holiness.” Tertullian argues that the very simplicity of the rite marks divine power: “O wretched unbelief! that denies to God his perfections—simplicity and power!” St. Basil tirelessly describes baptism as “the prisoner’s ransom, the debtor’s release, the death of sin, the regeneration of the soul, the splendid garment, the inviolable character, the chariot of heaven, the assurance of the celestial kingdom, the gift of adoption.” Hinton admits that from the third century, regeneration was generally ascribed to baptism, particularly for infants, held by all Fathers from that period.
The author invokes Naaman the Syrian, whom the prophet Eliseus ordered to bathe seven times in the Jordan for leprosy cleansing. Naaman felt indignant at the simple remedy, but his servants persuaded him, and after bathing seven times he was entirely cleansed. Pride and incredulity make men regard baptismal water as inadequate. Ancient witnesses are cited: the epistle ascribed to St. Barnabas says we descend into water full of sins and come up bearing fruit with fear and hope in Jesus through the Spirit. St. Justin the Martyr describes candidates conducted to water, regenerated in the same manner as the faithful. St. Irenaeus says Christ committed to His disciples “the power of regeneration,” commanding baptism in the triune name. St. Chrysostom says even the most defiled sinner, falling into “this vase of water,” emerges “purer than the rays of the sun.” St. Gregory Nazianzen calls illumination (baptism) a help to infirmity, the putting off of flesh, the key of heaven, and “the best and most splendid gift of God.” Dr. Pusey declares the doctrine of baptism is declared as explicitly as Christ’s divinity or the Trinity. The author addresses whether an unbeliever is regenerated through hypocritical baptism: the sacrament’s efficacy remains though individuals deprive themselves of benefit—fire burns though moist substances resist; water cleanses though stains persist. No distinction of two regenerations is needed; the Fathers knew no such distinction.
The Baptism of Infants
The passage turns to a defense of infant baptism, beginning with the Apostle Paul’s teaching on marriage between a Christian and an unbeliever. The Apostle forbade Christians from dissolving such marriages, declaring them lawful and likely to lead to the conversion of the unbelieving spouse. The text quotes 1 Cor. vii. 14: “for the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife… otherwise your children should be unclean; but now they are holy.” This holiness implies the legitimacy of the marriage and the opportunity for sanctification through Christian sacraments and education. The argument then turns to John iii. 5, which states that unless one is born of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. The term used is said to imply any one, regarding every member of the human family. Infants must therefore be capable of baptism unless they are incapable of salvation. The passage cites Christ’s words, “Suffer children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God.” This argument was urged by Peter, Abbot of Cluny, against the followers of Peter de Bruis in the twelfth century. Baptists contend Christ meant persons resembling children in simplicity, but since children were the subject of His observation, they must be comprised in His words. The author argues that Christ’s positive declaration of the necessity of new birth by water and the Spirit forbids promising salvation on other terms.
Scriptural texts speaking of baptism as a washing and renovation of the Holy Spirit warrant infant baptism, as infants must be washed from hereditary defilement and renewed by the Spirit. Dr. Pusey argues that Holy Scripture speaks universally of “the washing of regeneration” and being “born of water and the Spirit,” so infants are not excluded; to say they need no renewal would involve the error of Pelagius.
The Case Against Delaying Baptism
The discussion turns to the motives that led some in the early Church to postpone baptism. The reasons offered—the sacrament’s profound dignity, the need for a pure disposition, the desire to receive its full benefit at the moment of death, and the fear of forfeiting grace by failing to live up to baptismal promises—were all examined and found wanting. The Fathers uniformly condemned such delay as an abuse. The author quotes Jeremy Taylor, who observed that deferred baptism among the ancients often resembled the modern habit of putting off repentance, confession, and communion until life’s end, so that the sacrament might wash away the sins of an entire lifetime in a single stroke.
Cases of Delayed Infant Baptism
Allegations that St. Gregory of Nazianzum was baptized in adulthood despite his father being a bishop are addressed directly. Learned critics maintain that Gregory’s father was not even a Christian at the time of his son’s birth. Similarly, St. Jerome’s reception of “the garment of Christ” at Rome in adulthood was not baptism but ordination. Patricius, St. Augustine’s father, was a heathen, and Augustine’s delayed baptism may have been due first to his father’s opposition and then to his pious mother’s anxiety to preserve him through instruction from forfeiting baptismal grace. In no case was infant baptism delayed out of a belief that infants might not lawfully be baptized; the delays arose solely from parental circumstances or from fear of violating baptismal engagements.
Infant Eucharist and the Evidence for Infant Baptism
Infants were anciently made partakers of Christ’s precious blood and feasted with His divine flesh—but not because this was believed as necessary as baptism itself. It was their privilege because they were baptized; it could not have been thought of had infant baptism not been universal. The Church later withheld it as not essential to salvation, abandoning no principle. The evidence for infant baptism is marshalled across the centuries: fifth-century councils and pontiffs; the universal practice proclaimed by Augustine and admitted by Pelagius; fourth-century practice attested by Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzum, Ambrose, and Basil; sixty African bishops in the third century with Cyprian and Origen; and incidental references from Irenaeus and Justin in the second century. Tertullian was the first to dispute its expediency in particular cases, and Fidus sought conformity with the timing of circumcision. In contemporary practice, infant baptism is observed by Greeks, Armenians, Syrians, Abyssinians, Copts, Nestorians, Eutychians, and most Protestants in Germany, England, and Denmark.
Modes of Baptism: Immersion and Its Advocates
The chapter turns to the modes of baptism, with immersion now the popular Baptist characteristic. The Campbellites, followers of Alexander Campbell, an Irishman originally Presbyterian who separated from the Synod of Ulster, settled in Virginia, and got himself immersed, also practise immersion, as do the Mormons. The Baptist Confession of Faith states that immersion or dipping is necessary. Close-communion Baptists admit only immersed persons to communion, while open-communion Baptists invite all. The author notes that Hinton admits overwhelming by a wave is truly baptism, which the author calls an abandonment of the contest. Catholic principles require the minister’s application of water with the words “I baptize thee.” Early Anabaptists changed the words, some counting “In the Name of the Lord Jesus” as equivalent to the Trinitarian form. The Presbyterian Confession allows pouring or sprinkling. The English Book of Common Prayer directs dipping if the child can endure it, otherwise pouring; dipping has been discontinued since Elizabeth’s days, and the American edition leaves it optional. A Protestant Episcopal Bishop in Kentucky avowed immersion the only proper mode, immersed his infant child, and suggested sending Episcopalians to Greece for immersion from apostolic succession. Methodist discipline allows sprinkling, pouring, or immersion. Protestant carelessness in administration is deplored—some merely fillip a wet finger—and conditional baptism of converts has become customary. Immersion of the head continues in Milan’s Catholic Church; infusion prevails elsewhere; the Roman Ritual allows infusion or immersion per local custom, recognising aspersion.
Scriptural Arguments on Mode
Romans vi. 3–4 is adduced for immersion as burial, but the author notes that Paul also speaks of crucifixion of the old man and being planted with Christ, urging duties rather than mode. St. Thomas Aquinas is quoted: immersion more strikingly exhibits burial, but other modes represent it since the body or part is under water as Christ’s body was under earth. The author rebuts immersion-only arguments with sprinkling texts: Isaias lii. 15 (“He shall sprinkle many nations”), Psalm li. (“Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop”), Ezechiel xxxvi. 25 (“I will pour upon you clean water”), Hebrews x. 22, Titus iii. 5–6, and Ephesians v. 26. A footnote discusses the Hebrew term in Isaias, rejecting Professor Conant’s rendering “astonish” and preferring allusion to Mosaic expiatory sprinkling. The author warns against arguing from figurative expressions, noting the same logic would require finding crucifixion’s image in baptism.
The Apostle’s Intent and the Term “Laver”
The argument against exclusive immersion continues by rejecting the notion that baptism must follow a single mode like “putting on clothes.” Allusions and poetic imagery cannot serve as proof for sacramental practice; evidence must be clear and unequivocal. Received modes sanctioned by ages of usage and church authority cannot be overturned on such slight grounds. The Apostles used different modes according to circumstances, since immersion was sometimes absolutely impracticable. St. Chrysostom is quoted: “the place is no obstacle, whether you baptize here, or in a ship, or on a road: Philip baptized on a road: Paul in prison.” Paul’s baptismal passages aimed not at deriving arguments from mode but at inculcating duties—baptism signifies death to sin, burial and crucifixion with Christ, putting on Christ, resurrection to new life. The author quotes Romans 6:7: “he that is dead is justified from sin.” Paul’s use of “laver” justifies regarding baptism as requiring ablution, but the mode remains undetermined. Christ used the same term for washing feet and for the blind man washing in Siloe, where only hands and eyes were washed. Washing the head, usually practised by Catholics, may properly be called washing the person since the head is the noblest part where the soul seems enthroned.
The Apostolic Canon and Early Church Practice
An ancient Greek canon observes that Jesus did not say “baptize in my death” but “Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” The end was to wash and renovate the soul; immersion presents this strikingly, but infusion is emblematic of the Holy Ghost, and aspersion reminds us of the sprinkling of the blood of Christ. St. Thomas Aquinas is quoted: water signifies interior ablution from sins, and ablution can be made not only by immersion but by aspersion or infusion. Advocates of immersion cite Justin, Tertullian, and others about catechumens descending into water. The author concedes immersion was used in solemn baptism but notes the mode differed—the priest pressed hands on shoulders, plunged the head, or poured water. Severus, patriarch of Alexandria, describes the priest raising water thrice over the candidate.
The Meaning of “Baptize” as Infusion and Washing
The text continues its linguistic investigation by noting that Scripture uniformly presents the communication of the Holy Spirit as an infusion rather than an immersion. Passages such as Acts ii.17, x.44-45, and xix.6 depict the Spirit descending upon believers, with tongues of fire sitting on each disciple as the Spirit entered their hearts. Even when the Spirit is given abundantly, the imagery remains one of pouring or infusing, not of dipping or submerging. The term “baptize,” popularly understood as “to wash or cleanse,” can therefore be applied figuratively, since fire itself cleanses and purifies.
The discussion then turns to whether John the Baptist actually immersed his candidates. The circumstances seem to favor some form of immersion: baptism occurred at or in the river Jordan, and candidates descended into the water and came up to the bank. Enon near Salem was chosen because of its many streams. Yet the sheer scale of the crowds—vast multitudes from Jerusalem and Judea—makes full immersion by John alone implausible, especially since he devoted considerable time to instruction and confession of sins. Legal purifications of large groups were typically performed by aspersion, and it is possible the Precursor followed this mode. A footnote cites Cyril of Alexandria, who observed that John baptized not in the same fountains as Christ but in neighboring ones near Salem, showing in a figure that John’s baptism differed from Christ’s yet prepared the way for the more perfect rite. Another footnote, quoting an 1842 work by Parsons Cooke and Joseph H. Towne, argues that the plural “streams” proves John could not have immersed, since one man cannot immerse in many places at once; the springs at Enon could accommodate thousands at a “camp-meeting.” A further calculation suggests that 500,000 baptisms would require immersion every minute for twelve hours daily for nearly two years, yet John’s ministry lasted only about a year and a half.
Regarding Christ’s own baptism, His descent into the water shows partial immersion by Himself—much of His body under water—but immersion performed by John is not safely inferred. Ancient paintings from the fifth century depict John pouring water on the Saviour already immersed above the waist. The dome of the Baptistery at Ravenna, thought to date from 451 under Archbishop Neon, shows this scene, and Mamachi describes an ancient medal in the Victorian Museum at Rome depicting Christ standing in water while John pours water from a shell. Such plunging by John seemed irreconcilable with the reverence due to Christ’s Divine Person and never occurred to the ancients. The author concedes that those baptized by John may have been immersed—advancing into deep water and being sprinkled or receiving infusion from the Baptist’s hands—but the Old Law did not prescribe washing in any peculiar way; John’s object was to indicate the washing of the soul from sin by repentance.
Patristic Usage of “Washing”
The text then marshals patristic examples to show that the Fathers used “baptize” as equivalent to bathing or washing the body. St. Justin, in his Dialogue with Trypho, asks what use Jewish baptism serves except to cleanse the flesh, urging: “Let your soul be baptized from anger and avarice, envy and hatred, and your body will be pure.” This figurative use confirms the popular meaning of the term. Clement of Alexandria discusses Gentile ablutions before prayer and sacrifice as images of baptism, noting that poets derived the idea from Moses. Penelope, purified by water, approached prayer, and Telemachus washed his hands in the sea before offering vows to Minerva. Jewish usage was similar, with baptism after coition, and the term seems equivalent to bathing. Heathen lustrations included sprinklings and washing of hands, head, or the whole body.
Origen addresses the Pharisees regarding Elias, who when coming would baptize, yet in Achab’s time he did not baptize the wood on the altar—he ordered priests to do it. Pouring water on wood is expressed by “baptizing,” and Basil considers this action a type of baptism uniting us to God. The summary concludes that no stress was placed on the manner of baptism, though the solemn mode included representative burial with Christ and entire nudity symbolizing spoliation of earthly attachments. The Hebrew term originally meant “to dip slightly before aspersion,” secondarily “to bathe,” and the Greek term similarly came to mean “washing.” When Christ ordered the Apostles to baptize, He enjoined washing with water without stressing manner. The Christian institution cannot be more formal than the Mosaic, which left the mode of ablution undetermined. Plunging has no necessary connection with internal purity. Leaving a Christian rite to individual interpretation of a Greek word is absurd; Christ appointed ministers and guaranteed their acts, imposing the duty to receive baptism from their hands.
Apostolic Precedents and the Commission
The argument continues by examining New Testament baptismal accounts, concluding that none prove immersion was essential. The jailor’s baptism in Acts xvi.32 occurred at night in his own house, “doubtless immediately connected with the prison,” making immersion unlikely. Paul and Silas spoke the word of the Lord to him and all in his house; he washed their wounds and was baptized “presently” with all his family. Cornelius and his family were baptized after Peter’s instruction, but the mode is left to conjecture; Peter’s language—”Can any man forbid water?”—does not suggest immersion. The Ephesian disciples in Acts xix.5 were baptized immediately after Paul’s instruction, followed by imposition of hands, with no delay for immersion. Saul’s baptism by Ananias occurred while Saul was blind, in a private house. The only instance favoring immersion is the eunuch baptized by Philip, where water occurred by the roadside; tradition identifies a spring near Bethsoron whose waters are immediately absorbed by the earth. No scriptural instance shows a river or stream being sought for baptism. While the Lord’s descent into the water, the eunuch’s descent, and the term “baptize” create presumptions of immersion, “candour should admit that there is no conclusive proof.” The strongest argument for immersion is that the Apostles’ successors used it, presumably following their example, giving “a high degree of probability” about ordinary practice without disproving the validity of less solemn modes.
Christ’s words—”behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world”—warrant the integrity of baptism. “I am with you” expresses God’s effectual assistance. If Christ assists ministers in baptizing, they cannot pervert the institution. The promise embraces the Apostolic ministry as a body through succession, not each individual separately. Christ is “surety” that sacraments are properly administered. The faithful need not determine baptism’s nature through “literary investigations” or Greek etymology, since the term may have changed meaning from pagan to Christian usage. The ministry alone is constituted instructor; their sentence on baptism’s nature, manner, and effects must be final.
Dispositions Required for Baptism
Chapter XIII addresses the dispositions necessary for baptism. Infants are cleansed from original sin by God’s mercy without personal disposition. Luther’s paradox that infants are divinely enlightened to conceive justifying faith is rejected; St. Augustin notes that infants “crying and screaming” cannot believe with the heart, yet no Christian would say they are baptized in vain. Bishop Onderdonk says they are “not subjects for the moral change,” but Scripture and Fathers affirm their capacity for grace.
The Call to Immediate Baptism
The exhortation continues with a direct appeal to those who delay baptism. To the young, the author urges the securing of youth against vice through the restraint that baptism provides, while the aged are warned against neglecting the necessary provision for their journey and treating the eleventh hour as if it were the first, since even one beginning life should keep death before his eyes. He employs the analogy of a physician who could restore youth, noting that one would eagerly desire such a day, yet baptism promises to restore the soul—brought to decrepitude, wrinkles, and defilements by iniquities—to her pristine vigor, and the sinner despises this benefactor.
Baptism is then defined through a series of titles: the ransom of captives, the remission of debts, the death of sin, the regeneration of the soul, the robe of light, the seal which cannot be broken, the chariot to heaven, the means to attain the kingdom, and the gift of adoption. The author identifies the cause of delay despite all pretexts: the sinner’s inner cry is to use the flesh for shameful enjoyments, to wallow in pleasure’s mire, to imbrue hands in blood, to plunder, deceive, perjure, and lie—receiving baptism only when ceasing from sin. He argues that if sin is hurtful, one should not continue in it; no one wishing to rid himself of bile increases it by intemperance. A ship stays afloat only while bearing its cargo, but overloading sinks it, so excessive sins may cause shipwreck before reaching the hoped-for haven.
The Folly of Delay
God sees all and perceives secret thoughts, yet the sinner wrongly thinks God is like him. The author notes that one seeking a mortal man’s friendship entices him with kind offices, yet wishing to be united with God and adopted as a son, one does things hateful to God and expects friendship through what offends Him. God is not mocked, and grace must not be trafficked away. Pleasure is described as the devil’s hook and the mother of sin, while sin is the centre of death; pleasure feeds the everlasting worm, its enjoyment fleeting, its fruits bitterer than gall. Delay effectively says: Let sin first reign in me, afterwards the Lord shall reign. This resembles Cain offering inferior sacrifices while reserving the best for himself. The strong waste their youth in sin, offering worn-out limbs to God only when incapacity prevents indulgence; continence in old age is not continence but incapacity. A dead man is not crowned, and no one is just merely because unable to commit wrong. Virtue consists in declining from evil and doing good; cessation from evil through infirmity deserves no praise. No one has marked life’s limit or is surety for the future, as infants and adults are snatched away alike. The author asks why one waits for baptism to be brought by a fever, when illness may prevent uttering the saving words, hearing distinctly, raising hands, standing, kneeling, receiving instruction, confessing accurately, entering covenant, renouncing the enemy, or following the sacred minister—bystanders may doubt whether one even perceives the grace; and even receiving it consciously, one has the talent without the increase.
The Eunuch as Model
The author urges imitation of the eunuch, who found an instructor on the road and did not spurn instruction. Though rich, he had the poor man mount his chariot; a grand courtier placed a contemptible private individual beside him. Learning the gospel of the kingdom, he embraced faith and delayed not to receive the seal of the Spirit. Approaching a stream, he said, “Behold, here is water.” Where the will is ready, no obstacle exists—the caller loves mankind, the minister is at hand, and grace is abundant. Only one hinders us, blocking salvation’s path, but prudence overcomes him. He suggests sin today and defers justice till tomorrow; the Lord says, “To-day, if you hear my voice”—today for God, not tomorrow. The enemy does not dare counsel utter abandonment of God but uses fraudulent stratagems, stealing today and leaving hope of tomorrow, perpetually taking us by surprise through pleasure’s bait.
The Bird Stratagem and the Call to Enrollment
The author recounts witnessing a bird throwing herself before fowlers as ready prey, fluttering in view, neither caught nor leaving them without hope, deluding their expectations while her young escaped, then flying away—a warning against preferring uncertain hope to certain present good. He urges coming at once, devoting oneself entirely to the Lord, giving one’s name, and being enrolled in the church’s list as soldier, champion, and naturalized citizen aspiring to heavenly citizenship. One must learn evangelical discipline: restraint of eyes, government of tongue, subduing the body, lowliness of mind, purity of heart, annihilation of pride. When constrained, add cheerfully; when despoiled, avoid litigation; repay hatred with love; when persecuted, forbear; when insulted, entreat. Be dead to sin and crucified with Christ. These things are difficult, but no good thing is easy; no one raised a trophy asleep or won valor’s crowns in luxury. Through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of heaven, and hell’s sorrows follow sin’s labors. Even the devil’s works require toil; the voluptuous are exhausted by indulgence, and sleepless nights come to those wakeful for iniquity through fear of detection and anxiety for indulgence. Fleeing the narrow path for the broad way of sin risks coming to an inn suitable to the road.
Aids to Vigilance and the Defense of Confirmation
To the claim that the treasure is hard to guard, the author recommends vigilance with aids, beginning with prayer as a night sentinel. The text then shifts to a theological defense of the sacrament of confirmation, arguing for its divine institution, its distinction from baptism, and its continued necessity in the Church. The passage discusses predecessors who were divided on the practice of laying on of hands after baptism: some wholly omitted and rejected it as lacking Scriptural foundation for continuation, while others accounted it necessary, with some making it an order that none be admitted to Holy Communion until confirmed. This difference necessarily led to a breach of communion between the two parties.
The Samaritan and Ephesian Confirmations
The narrative turns to the conversion of the Samaritans by Philip’s preaching and miracles, which gave joy to the Apostles at Jerusalem and occasioned the visit of Peter and John to confirm the converts. They prayed for the Samaritans to receive the Holy Ghost, who had not yet come upon them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. This prayer, accompanied by imposition of hands, obtained the Holy Ghost for the new Christians. Evidence of His presence was so clear that Simon the Magician offered money to the Apostles to gain the same power to communicate the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church believes this rite is a sacrament instituted by Christ, always to continue, so that the Holy Ghost is still imparted through imposition of hands and prayer. It is called confirmation because the Holy Spirit confirms and strengthens us in faith.
Direct proof of Christ’s institution cannot be given, but indirect evidence is deemed perfectly satisfactory. From St. Luke’s narrative, Peter and John expressly journeyed to Samaria to impart the Holy Ghost, imposed hands, prayed, and the Holy Ghost was communicated. The inference is that they were empowered to do this by the rite, and that baptized converts needed this additional grace. Since Christ attaches grace to external rites, the Apostles must have acted by His express authority.
