ABJ Vol VI Iss III.indb - Ancient Baptist Journal

Transcription

The Ancient Baptist Journal is a quarterly publication of the
Ancient Baptist Press - a local church ministry. This ground-level work is
dedicated to the advancement of Baptist principles and biblical preaching.
Please help support this ministry through your subscription and gifts.
One Year Subscription $30.00USD
One Year International Subscription $50.00USD
Please send notice of any change in address. Send all inquiries and correspondence to:
Ancient Baptist Press • 137 W. Edgewood St. • Sidney, OH. 45365
www.ancientbaptist.com
Printed May 2015
i
EDITORS:
James Alter is pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Sidney, OH:
www.gracebaptistsidney.com. Dolton Robertson is a church planter having founded
the Temple Baptist Church of Cullman, AL. He was also pastor of Liberty Baptist
Church in Callahan, FL., for over 15 years. He is now pastor of Parkway Baptist
Church in Trinity, AL. They are co-authors of the book Why Baptist?, and founders
of the Ancient Baptist Press. For more information please visit www.ancientbaptist.com
Patrick D. Kennedy, M.Div., for almost 20 years pastored congregations in Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ontario. He is currently archivist of the Troy-Miami
County Public Library’s Local History Library in Troy, Ohio. He is Managing Editor
of the Ancient Baptist Journal.
CONTRIBUTORS:
Jeff Faggart is pastor of Harvest Baptist Church in Rockwell, N.C. He is also
the founder of the Baptist History Preservation Society. The Baptist History
Preservation Society is a local church ministry dedicated to preserving the rich
heritage of Baptists through procurement of literary works of Baptist authors,
and restoration of historically significant sites. For more information visit www.
baptisthistorypreservation.com
Michael D. Scott, Ph.D., is co-pastor of Charity Baptist Fellowship in Jonesboro, GA.
He is author of the book, He Opened the Book… He Closed the Book: Jesus, Isaiah, & The
Panoramic View of the Bible. He is also assistant editor of the Ancient Baptist Journal.
Laurence M. Vance, Ph.D., is an author, a publisher, a freelance writer, the editor
of the Classic Reprints series, and the director of the Francis Wayland Institute. He
holds degrees in history, theology, accounting, and economics. The author of twentyfour books, he regularly contributes articles and book reviews to both secular and
religious periodicals. For more information visit www.vancepublications.com.
James W. Knox is pastor of The Bible Baptist Church of DeLand, Florida. His church
prayerfully distributes recorded sermons and Bible studies to 182 countries, with over
3 million units having been sent out since 1988. Pastor Knox has also written dozens
of books, many of which have been translated into numerous languages. His ministry
is an encouragement to untold numbers around the world. For more information visit
www.jameswknox.org
Adam Pierce is pastor of Liberty Baptist Church in Callahan, FL.
www.lbccallahan.com
Nathan Breinich: Layout and Assistant Editor
ii
T  C
Introduction
by Patrick Kennedy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The Reformation In Light Of Baptist History
by James A. Alter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
The Reformation From A Baptist Point Of View
by Albert Henry Newman LL. D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
L. H. Shuck
by William Cathcart, D.D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Survivals Of Popery In Modern Protestantism
by L. H. Shuck, D.D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Prof. Norman Fox
The Rise Of The Use Of Pouring And Sprinkling
For Baptism
by Prof. Norman Fox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
W. H. H. Marsh
Infant Baptism And A Regener ated Church
Membership Irreconcilable
by W. H. H. Marsh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Obadiah Holmes Memorial
by Jeff Faggart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
iii
Our High Priest
by James W. Knox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Baptists And “Baptized For The Dead”
by Laurence M. Vance, Ph. D., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
The Making Of The King James Bible—
New Testament
by Laurence M. Vance, Ph. D., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
iv
I
By Patrick Kennedy
I
n today’s Christian culture, including churches, educational
institutions, etc., there is a pervasive belief that the Protestant
Reformation of the 16th century was a great and positive event in the
history of Christianity. Even those who would be among conservative,
Bible-believing Christians often view the Reformation as a very positive
movement and honor the reformers, such as Martin Luther, John Calvin
and Ulrich Zwingli.
While we maintain that there were positive elements and some
good teaching which did come out of the events of the Reformation,
it should be recognized that it was not a good period for those who
were New Testament Christians. Anyone who diverged from the
teachings held by Roman Catholics, Luther, Zwingli or Calvin were
often excoriated, persecuted and even put to death (See our previous
issue, Volume 6 Issue 2, on Baptist Martyrs for more on some of the
individuals who have been willing to die for Baptist beliefs).
Baptists in Germany, Switzerland, England, Scotland and
wherever the Reformation ideals took root have been persecuted because
1
The Ancient Baptist Journal • Vol. VI Issue III
they would not conform to the leading doctrines of the Reformers.
Anyone who dared to stand against the prevailing teaching was
considered an outlaw and a heretic. Such were our Baptist brethren in
these lands.
Why in 2015, almost 500 years after Martin Luther first nailed
his 95 Theses to the door of the Wittenberg Church, is it important for
us to discuss the Protestant Reformation? First, as it was mentioned
in the beginning of this introduction, most Christians would consider
it a positive event and movement in history. On that count they are
incorrect. Second, the Reformation had a nation-altering, indeed, a
world-changing impact on history and needs to be understood in its
proper context. Third, as is our purpose with the Ancient Baptist
Journal , we promote Baptist principles and Biblical preaching.
We begin this issue with two overview articles which help
to give context to the discussion. First, an original piece by editor
James Alter begins by building a foundation of a Baptist view of the
Reformation. In addition, lest anyone think this is just an Independent
Baptist point of view or a creation of recent years, we present an
article by Professor A.H. Newman (who would have been no friend
to conservative, independent baptists of today) from 1884, who, using
different criteria, demonstrated why the Reformation was not a
great success.
The issue then moves into a more doctrinal examination of
issues, as three articles are presented concerning topics which came
out of the Reformation and are still discussed in the present. The
first article in this group is a reprinting of an 1891 article by Baptist
2
Introduction
pastor L.H. Shuck concerning how several Roman Catholic teachings
continued (and continue) to be a part of many Protestant churches.
Next is a piece by Norman Fox regarding the rise and use of
pouring and sprinkling in history, which assists us in seeing how it was
easily transferred to many Protestants during the Reformation.
We finish this section with an article of why Infant Baptism
cannot be linked to membership of a New Testament church.
The issue concludes with two vital pieces from Dr. Laurence
Vance. The first explaining one of the most difficult passages in the
Bible, 1 Corinthians 15:29, “Else what shall they do which are baptized
for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for
the dead?” The second is an abbreviated introduction to Dr. Vance’s
new book The Making of the King James Bible—New Testament. This
book will revolutionize our understanding of the history of the King
James Bible.
We at the Ancient Baptist Journal trust this issue will be
informative, enlightening and encouraging to you.
Patrick Kennedy
Sidney, OH.
3
T R
I L O
B H
By James A. Alter
H
ow should Baptists view the Reformation? The simple answer
is—Biblically. Our heavenly Father has promised to give us
biblical sight. “I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way which thou
shalt go: I will guide thee with mine eye.”1 We follow this guidance as
the Holy Spirit of God guides us into all truth.2 This truth is found in
only one place, the changeless Word of God. “Sanctify them through thy
truth: thy word is truth.”3 Abraham Booth (1734-1806), long time pastor
of the Prescott Street Baptist Church verbalized the heart of the Baptist:
This divine book, this heavenly volume, I accept with humility
and gratitude from the hand of my adored Creator, as a gift of
inestimable value; and, considering it as the grand charter of my
eternal salvation, I cannot but esteem it as my indispensable duty
implicitly to submit to its sacred dictates, in every affair of religious
concernment.”4
1
Psalm 32:8
“Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not
speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to
come.” (John 16:13)
3
John 17:17
4
Abraham Booth, Posthumous Essays, “A Confession of Faith, Delivered by Mr. Abraham
Booth at his ordination over the church of Christ in Little Prescot Street, Goodmans Fields,
February 16, 1769,” (London: W. Button, 1808), 94.
2
5
For the Bible-believer, any subject, approached and viewed
through biblical lenses, becomes clearer. Emotion is removed from the
decision making process. Un-biblical thought processes5 are cast down,
unscriptural allegiances6 are renounced, and heretical endorsements,7
(intentional or unintentional) are confessed as sin, repented of and
forsaken. We must remember that the Reformers remained Catholic
in many key areas such as, infant baptism, unregenerate church
membership, denial of individual soul liberty, the marriage of church
and state, denied the autonomy of the local church and remained
Catholic in too many other areas to here mention. The key problem
with the Reformation becomes clear when we simply apply Scripture to
our examination. The Catholic “Church” did not need to be reformed,
it needed to be rejected! “A man that is an heretick after the first and
second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted,
and sinneth, being condemned of himself.”8
Another important consideration is the fact that Baptists are
not Protestants. If Baptists are Protestants, Christ had no ecclesiastical
expression or genuine gospel witness for 1300 years. If Baptists are
Protestants, then the church, God’s chosen vehicle of expression in
this age, traces its heritage through an institution that systematically
killed millions of people who disagreed with its heresies. If Baptists are
5
II Corinthians 10:5 “Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself
against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of
Christ;”
6
Romans 16:17 “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences
contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.”
7
Isaiah 5:20 “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and
light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”
8
Titus 3:10-11
6
The Reformation In Light Of Baptist History
Protestants, then the Donatists, Waldensians, Albigenses, Paulicians,
Cathari and others were simply heretics. If this is the case, we may
in good conscience, discard distinctives such as a born-again church
membership, autonomy of the local church, individual soul liberty,
believer’s baptism, and our non-sacramental view of the ordinances.
If Baptists are Protestants, then let us proudly tear down the walls of
ecclesiastical separation and join again our siblings from our mother, the
“Holy Catholic Church”. But Baptists are not Protestants. We trace our
distinct doctrines all the way back to the early church and the Apostles.
“Remove not the old landmark; and enter not into the fields of
the fatherless:”9 The old landmarks were property markers identifying
the boundaries of family lands. In biblical times a man’s reputation,
wealth and standing in the community were based on his family’s
God-given land. For us as Bible-believing Baptists, our landmarks are
not man-made institutions or regulations. Our old landmarks are the
doctrines of the Word of the living God. When we remove these or
diminish the significance of any one of them we enter into the fields
of the fatherless, with no heritage to claim, no doctrinal authority on
which to stand, and no model of a New Testament Church on which to
base our ministries—anything goes.
One significant difficulty is encountered immediately as
one enters into this discussion. Most of us, who were educated in
fundamentalist institutions, were taught courses in “Church History”
or “The History of Christianity”. In most cases these courses were
taught by godly men who had been taught the same material by a
9
Proverbs 23:10
7
previous generation. Rarely were the textbooks written by Baptists.
Rarely were the doctrines discussed in these histories distinctively
Baptist. Even more rarely were the individuals discussed, Baptist men.
Consequently, we have adopted, (at least philosophically), a spiritual
family tree from which we were not descended and we are almost
completely ignorant of our own true and Christ-honoring heritage.
It is interesting to note, from a biblical perspective, that the
historians, who wrote the books on the history of Christianity, seemed
unaware of the fact that a Christian is one who has placed their faith
and trust in Christ alone for the
The historians, who wrote
on Church history, were
not to be bothered with a
clear definition of what a
church actually is.
forgiveness of sin and eternal life.
The historians, who wrote on
Church history, were not to be
bothered with a clear definition
of what a church actually is. We end up with the history of “Christians”
who were not born-again and the history of a “church” that was never a
church. It is no wonder there is such confusion!
Thankfully, in the last ten years or so, this has begun to change.
Many of our independent Baptist Colleges are now teaching Baptist
History and Distinctives courses. I fear however that we have in some
cases, simply placed our Baptist History alongside the former “Church
History”—as if they are somehow compatible.
At this point an inevitable question arises, “Do you believe that
God only used Baptists?” No, we do not believe that God has only used
Baptists. God can use anyone He chooses to use. God used King Cyrus.
“For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee
8
T R
F A B
P O V
By Albert Henry Newman, LL.D.
(1852-1933)
T
he Reformation of the sixteenth century, like any other great
historical movement, may be approached in three ways. We may
go back into the remote past and trace minutely the course of events
that has here and now found its culmination; we may show that the
seed-sowing and the soil being as they were, the harvest is precisely what
might have been expected. Or, we may take the movement as we find
it, analyze it into its constituent elements, trace the motives and aims
of leaders and led, trace the immediate and remote moral and spiritual
effects, test every thing by the eternal principles of right and truth, as
determined by conscience and the written Word. Or, again, we may
view the movement as a link in the chain of the accomplishment of the
divine purposes, knowing that the Almighty is able to make evil forces
to co-operate with good thereunto. This last process we ought always to
apply, so essential is it to the proper understanding of the ways of God
to men. But we must beware of supposing that this process in any way
precludes the first or the second process suggested. The knowledge that
divine Providence has overruled a particular course of events for the
21
accomplishment of beneficent ends by no means bars criticism of the
actors; no more does it affect the fact that this series of events is itself the
product of antecedent evil commingled with antecedent good.
And here we must remember that the cause of God on earth
progresses not in straight lines like a railroad train across yonder prairie,
but like yonder tossing ship on yonder surging ocean. It makes progress
from age to age, but, owing to the perversity of men, not clear and
constant progress. Sometimes it seems to lose ground; but, after all, the
apparent loss is transmuted by divine alchemy into means of future gain.
Further, it is not enough that the actors in any great movement
be shown to have been sincere. We are to judge according to the eternal
principles of right and truth, not according to the conceptions of
right and truth that may have been in the minds of such actors. My
abhorrence of Moloch worship is not diminished, but rather increased,
by my belief that parents often threw their children into the red-hot
arms of the image conscientiously. The Inquisition is rendered none the
less sickening by the certainty that many of its agents felt that in acting
the part of incarnate devils they were doing God service.
And here, also, let me warn the reader against a tendency
which Baptists share with others, but which in Baptists is more
stultifying than in others, towards a blind hero-worship of certain
religious teachers of the sixteenth century. Why, it is no uncommon
thing to hear Baptist orators descant upon the virtues of these leaders
in language which, nominibus mutatis, might properly be applied
to the apostles! and that, too, when these very men would not have
hesitated to urge our extermination by fire, sword, or water, if we had
22
The Reformation From A Baptist Point Of View
been their contemporaries, as they did urge the extermination of our
brethren in Christ, and some of whose moral teachings were more
Mormon than Christian. Let us test the titles of popular religious
heroes to our adoration. In so far as they apprehended the Spirit of
Christ and manifested this Spirit in their words and in their deeds,
let us honor them. If, however, we find contemporaries who more
perfectly apprehended Christ, and who more perfectly manifested his
Spirit in word and in deed, let us not hesitate to make these our heroes,
although they may not have drawn to the support of their cause the
unregenerate mighty of this world, and although they may have been
hunted down like wild beasts by the men who, on the theory that might
makes right, are generally regarded as the great champions of the truth.
Christ did not convert men by nations, neither did Paul. Mohammed
and Charlemagne did. Hübmaier did not make Protestants by nations.
Luther did. Christ made individual, earnest Christians. Charlemagne
made hypocrites and cringing slaves to external forms. Hübmaier made,
with divine help, self-sacrificing Christians. Luther made self-indulgent
Protestants!
We need not apply at length this third method of considering
our subject. All the world recognizes the fact that the Protestant
revolution of the sixteenth century forms a most important factor
in the working out of our modern civilization and enlightenment,
with its freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of the press,
with its spiritual religion as opposed to a religion of dead forms, with
its apostolic missionary endeavor as opposed to medieval religious
conquest. This we never weary of rejoicing in and thanking God for.
23
Nay, I maintain that the fundamental principle of the Protestant
revolution was the emancipation of the human mind from human
authority, far as this was from being consciously recognized by the
Protestant leaders. This is my unwavering conviction. Just so I believe
that the capture of Christian Constantinople by the Turks was a factor
that can not be estimated too highly in the working out of the divine
plan of Christian liberty and enlightenment. No thanks to the Turk.
No thanks a priori to the leaders of the Protestant revolution. We are
thus, I trust, in a position to put a fair estimate upon each individual,
in accordance with historical facts, and we shall not be tempted
to reverence an individual for the sole reason that he sustained an
important relation to a movement which has, on the whole, resulted
in good.
To understand the Reformation we must know wherein the
need for reform lay. To appreciate this need we must have in mind, in
broad outline at least, the course of events that led to the ecclesiastical
rottenness of the sixteenth century, and that made the Protestant
revolution possible.
From the close of the apostolic age onwards Christianity,
the universal and absolute religion, soon conscious of its destined
universality and absoluteness, shrank not from the stupendous task of
realizing this universality and vindicating this absoluteness. Though
it sprang up in the midst of Judaism, Christianity was not Judaism,
still less did it have in common with paganism. Paganism and Judaism
alike must be transformed, must be Christianized. Erelong it is
perfectly evident that Christianity is absorbing paganism and Judaism
24
L. H. S, ..
By William Cathcart, D.D.
(1826-1908)
S
huck, L. H., D.D., was born at Singapore, on the Malay Peninsula,
while his parents were on their way to China as missionaries, in
1836. After the death of his mother, in 1844, he was sent back to his
grandfather, Rev. Addison Hall, in Virginia, where he was prepared for
college. He graduated at Wake Forest College, in N.C., from which he
received degrees of A.B., A.M., and D.D.
After his graduation he spent a year as professor in the Oxford
Female College, N.C., and then became principal of the Beulah Male
Institute, in the same State.
On the death of his father, Rev. J. L. Shuck, the son took his
place as pastor of several churches in Barnwell Co., S.C. He was next
chosen pastor of the Baptist church at Barnwell Court-House, and from
it he removed to Charleston, and took the pastoral care of the old First
church, in 1869, which position he now holds.1
1
Editor’s Note: He also ministered as pastor at Long Branch Baptist Church, Steel Creek
Baptist Church, Madison Baptist Church (NC) and the Cheraw Baptist Church (SC).
Rev. Lewis H. Shuck died in Cheraw, SC on July 12, 1911.
47
S O
P I M
P
By L. H. Shuck, D.D.
(1836-1911)
T
he design of this article, as may be inferred from the title, is to
show that, notwithstanding the many religious reforms which
have characterized the various religious movements of modern times,
there still exists among Protestants, both in doctrine and practice,
much of the spirit of Popery. Between Protestants and Papists there are,
it is true, many important differences, but there is really no thorough,
absolute antagonism between the two, simply because many of the
errors which have existed for centuries in the papal hierarchy, still
survive in modern Protestantism. It may be necessary to state at the
outset, that Baptists are not properly to be included among Protestants.
While Baptists hold many doctrines in common with Protestant
denominations, still they are essentially distinct from all Christian
sects and lay no claim whatever to the appellation—Protestant. Just
in this connection it may be well to refresh our friends with a few
historical facts.
“The term Protestants originated in Germany in 1529. At a
diet held at Spire during that year, the power which had been given to
49
princes of managing ecclesiastical affairs until the meeting of a general
council, was revoked by a majority of votes, and every change declared
unlawful that should be made in the established religion, before the
determination of the approaching Council was known. After many
ineffectual arguments, six princes of the empire and thirteen imperial
cities protested against this decision. Hence arose the denomination of
Protestants; a term, at first only applicable to the Lutherans, but now
common to all who have separated from the Church of Rome.”1
Another statement substantially the same, is given elsewhere:
“Against this decree, five princes, the Elector of Saxony, the Margrave
of Brandenburg, the Landgrave of Hesse, the Prince of Anhalt, and the
Duke of Lundenburg, met on April 25th, 1529, and drew up a solemn
protest, and on the same day fourteen towns of the empire joined them,
and Philip of Hesse and the Elector of Saxony had it printed. This
protest caused the name of protestants to be given to the reformers.
It contained the fundamental declaration, that religious belief could
not be controlled by human power, and that the Bible alone should
furnish a standard of belief, thus protesting against the Catholic mode of
interpreting the Scriptures.”2
The learned historian Mosheim, after giving a statement of the
above facts says: “Hence arose the denomination of Protestants, given
from this period to those who renounce the superstitious communion of
the Church of Rome.”3
That there were many professed Christians outside of the Papal
1
2
3
Evans’ Hist. Christian Sects: pp. 74-75
Dew’s Digest Anc. And Mod. Hist.: p. 444
Eccles. Hist.: p. 402.
50
Survivals Of Popery In Modern Protestantism
Communion, before the Reformation, is a fact too well established to
require argument, and this article is based upon such fact.
Mosheim states that: “Before the rise of Luther and Calvin,
there lay concealed, in almost all the countries of Europe, particularly
in Bohemia, Moravia, Switzerland, and Germany, many persons who
adhered tenaciously to the following doctrine, which the Waldenses,
Wickliffites, and Hussites had maintained, some in a more disguised,
and others in a more open and public manner, namely, ‘that the
Kingdom of Christ, or the visible Church which He established upon
earth, was an assembly of true and real saints, etc.’ ”4
Of course these persons and their ancestors were in doctrine and
practice distinct from the Church of Rome, and were in existence before
the name Protestant was employed or introduced. The name properly
applies to those who renounced the Papal authority and inaugurated
the work of the Reformation, together with those denominations of
Christians which were produced by the Reformation. The Protestant
denominations of the present day may be traced either directly or
indirectly to that period when they severed themselves from the Church
of Rome. It is a matter of history that the Church of England broke off
from the Romish Church in the time of Henry VIII., when Luther had
already inaugurated the Reformation in Germany. Some historical facts
concerning Henry VIII. are well known. He was at one time, an ardent
papist, and even wrote in defense of the seven sacraments so zealously,
that the Pope honored him with the title of “Defender of the Faith.”
After falling out with the Pope, he took the government of ecclesiastical
4
Eccles. Hist.: p. 491.
51
affairs in his own hands, and styled himself the “Supreme Head of the
Church.”5
In regard to the “thirty-nine” articles, Dr. Evans, the author
just quoted, states that: “A great similarity in thought and expression,
may be traced between many of these articles and the language of the
Augsburg Confession.” The concession of a modern Churchman will be
appropriate just here: “It was by these men, in the Convocation of 1531,
that the Church of England cast off from her neck the fatal incubus of
the Papal supremacy. Regretfully and hesitatingly the important step
was taken.”6
The religious system of Luther, although a protest against
Romanism, in some respects approaches nearer to it than any of the
Reformed churches. In America, the number of Lutherans is small,
compared with the number in Europe, where it embraces twenty-seven
millions of people, including seventeen reigning princes. (Evans, p. 77.)
It is doubtless with reference to Lutheranism in Europe, that a
learned writer of the Church of England writes:
“Respecting the sacraments, the Lutheran belief differs little
from that of the Catholic Church. It acknowledges the necessity
and efficacy of baptism as also the competency of infants for it; and
anathematizes all Anabaptists, that is, those who, denying the validity of
infant baptism, repeat it on adults.” 7
Presbyterianism, under the direction of Calvin in Geneva,
and John Knox in Scotland, gradually but surely advanced, and after
5
6
7
Evans’ Hist. Relig. Sects: p. 97.
Bampton Lecture, 1871, p. 189.
Blunt’s Dict. Doctr. and Histor. Theol., p. 435.
52
P. N F
(1826-1908)
F
ox, Prof. Norman, son of the Rev. Norman Fox, a distinguished
Baptist minister of New York, who died in 1863, and grandson
of Rev. Jehiel Fox, another honored minister of our denomination.
Norman Fox received his literary education at Rochester University, and
his theological training at its well-known seminary. He was ordained
at Whitehall, N.Y. Afterwards he was associate editor of the Central
Baptist, St. Louis, Mo. Subsequently he was Professor of History in
William Jewell College, Mo. At present he resides in New York, and he
devotes himself chiefly to denominational literature, writing for many
religious journals.
Prof. Fox has read very extensively; his attainments in this
respect are great. He has a mind of unusual clearness and power, he has
the happy faculty of using the most fitting words to express important
thoughts. He has a large heart. With the grace of God which he
possesses he is a mighty power in the Baptist denomination, the force of
65
which we trust will be long spared to us. Those who know him only by
his writings, or by personal relations, admire and love him.1
1
Editor’s Note: He also served as chaplain of the 77th Reg’t of NY volunteers during the
Civil War. Served as mayor of Morristown, NJ, 1900-1902. He died June 23, 1907 in NYC.
66
T R O T U
O P A
S F B
By Prof. Norman Fox
(1836-1907)
I
n the Roman Catholic Church the ordinary act of baptism is a
pouring of water upon the head of the candidate. In the Greek
Church, on the other hand, it is immersion; and, in his “Lectures on
the Eastern Church,” Dean Stanley declares that “the most illustrious
and venerable portion of it, that of the Byzantine Empire, absolutely
repudiates and ignores any other mode of administration as essentially
invalid.” To the student of history these facts suggest the question,
Whence arose this difference between the Eastern Church and the
Church of Rome? If immersion was not practiced in the primitive
Church, when and how did it come into use? If the apostolic Churches
used pouring and sprinkling, together with immersion, when and why
did the Eastern Church come to deny their validity? On the other hand,
if we say that pouring was unknown to apostolic practice, we must ask:
1. When did it make its appearance in the Church?
2. For what reason was it introduced?
3. By what means has it become able, in the Western Church, to
supplant immersion almost entirely?
67
The date of the first use of pouring is fi xed with tolerable
precision by the epistle of Cyprian to Magnus, in which we find the
oldest extant argument for the recognition of affusion as baptism. This
epistle is the most ancient document in the voluminous literature of “the
baptismal controversy.” Cyprian says:
You have also inquired, dearest son, what I think concerning those
who, in sickness and debility, have laid hold on the grace of God,
whether they are to be regarded as Christians in regular standing,
seeing they have not been immersed in the water of salvation, but it
has merely been poured upon them.
So far as my poor ability comprehends the matter, I consider that
in the sacraments which pertain to salvation, when the case is one
of strict necessity and God grants his indulgence, divine simpler
methods confer the whole benefit upon believers.
And it should not disturb any that the sick are only sprinkled
or poured upon, since the Holy Scripture says [Here he quotes
Ezekiel xxxvi, 25: “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you,” and
certain passages in Numbers about the sprinkling of the water of
purification]. Whence it appears that the sprinkling of water has
equal efficacy with the full bath of salvation.
But he finally says:
If any think they have not obtained the blessing, since they have
merely been poured upon with the saving water, they must not be
ensnared; and so, if they escape the ills of their sickness and recover,
let them be baptized. But if they can not be baptized after they
have been sanctified by ecclesiastical baptism, why should they be
troubled as to their own faith or the mercy of the Lord?
I have answered your letter, dearest son, so far as my poor and small
ability is capable of doing, and so far as in me lies I have shown
what I think; prescribing, however, to no officer that he go contrary
to what he considers right, for each must give account of his own
conduct to the Lord.
The first thing shown by this letter of Cyprian, and it is shown
beyond any possibility of denial, is that when this epistle was written
68
The Rise Of The Use Of Pouring And Sprinkling
For Baptism
(that is, in the middle of the third century), the ordinary baptism was
immersion. What called forth the letter was a denial of the “good and
regular standing” of certain persons who, converted in sickness, when
immersion was impossible, had merely been poured upon. How could
such a denial have arisen had not immersion been the regular practice?
The standing of these persons is challenged on the ground that they
have merely received pouring. Does not this prove conclusively that
pouring was only an exceptional usage? And, regarding affusion or
aspersion, all that Cyprian asks is that it be not condemned in the case
of the sick, in cases where immersion is absolutely out of the question.
He does not even intimate that the use of pouring would be proper in
ordinary cases. He proceeds on the assumption that when immersion
is practicable, the convert is, of course, to be immersed. The use of
affusion, in cases other than that
His elaborate argument,
that aff usion might be
used in extraordinary cases,
is proof positive that in
ordinary cases it was
never employed.
of necessity, is plainly something
which was never thought of by
any one at that day. His elaborate
argument, that affusion might be
used in extraordinary cases, is proof positive that in ordinary cases it was
never employed. To prove, then, that the baptism of the early Church
was immersion, we need cite merely this one document. This epistle of
Cyprian to Magnus settles the matter beyond any question.
But other passages, to the same effect, may be cited in
abundance from the writings of the second and third centuries.
That ancient document, called The Epistle of Barnabas, one of
the earliest writings of the post-apostolic Church, speaks of baptism as
69
a descent into and emersion from the water; and this form of speech is
used by many of the Fathers.
The Shepherd of Hermas, in fanciful imagery, represents
baptism by the rolling into the water of the stones of which the tower,
representing the Church, is to be built.
Clemens Alexandrinus speaks of baptism as a birth from water
as from a mother.
Irenreus compares baptism to the dipping of Naaman in the
Jordan.
Tertullian describes it by the word mergitamur. He compares it
to the bringing forth of living creatures by the waters at the creation; to
the lame man’s dipping in the pool which was troubled by the angel; to
the purging by the deluge of the iniquity of the ancient world; nay, he
even finds a suggestion of it in the text, “another flesh of fishes.”
Cyprian repeatedly speaks of baptism as a dipping and says that
“in the laver of saving water the fire of Gehenna is extinguished.”
The ancient writers repeatedly compare baptism to the burial
of the Lord. The baptism of Jesus is compared by Tertullian to Moses’
casting the tree into the waters, and in the Clementine Homilies, to the
taking of Moses from the water.
Hippolytus, in florid rhetoric, says of Jesus’ baptism: “O things
strange beyond compare! How should the boundless river that makes
glad the city of God have been dipped in a little water! The illimitable
spring that bears life to all men, and has no end, was covered by poor
and temporary waters!”
Gregory Thaumaturgus says of the same: “Once of old, O river
70
W. H. H. M
(1826-1908)
M
arsh, Rev. W. H. H., was born in Chester Co., Pa., July 14,
1836. He received a liberal education, which he has continually
extended until he has become one of the best-informed men in the
denomination. He was ordained when twenty-one years of age. After
supplying the Bethesda and Caernarvon churches in Chester, Co., Pa.,
he took charge of the Lower Providence church, Montgomery Co., and
remained there four years; then settled with the Blockley church, West
Philadelphia, where he exercised his ministry until, in 1865, he accepted
a pressing call to the Second church of Wilmington, Del. During his six
years’ pastorate at Wilmington an oppressive debt was paid, the church
edifice was greatly improved, an organ purchased, and a lot for a mission
secured, upon which the Bethany church now stands. Mr. Marsh
removed from Wilmington to take the oversight of the Central church
of Salem, Mass., where he labored for eight years. In December, 1880,
he settled in New Brunswick, N.J., as pastor of the young and vigorous
107
Remsen Avenue church. In his pastorates Mr. Marsh has always been
successful.
He is a diligent student, an extensive reader, and a large-hearted
brother. His intellectual powers are of a high order, and his sermons are
distinguished by deep thought and gospel truth.
He has written extensively for the Baptist Quarterly, the
Bibliotheca Sacra, and the denominational papers. The Publication
Society has issued his “Modern Sunday-School.” He has also the
manuscript of a work upon which he has been long engaged, and which
he expects to publish soon.
Mr. Marsh is regarded with affection wherever he is known, and
his labors have been a blessing to the churches and the world.
108
I B
A A R  C
M I
By W. H. H. Marsh
(1836-1922)
T
wo remarkable Articles on the subject of Infant Church
membership appeared during the past year—the first, in the
“Methodist Quarterly Review” for January, from the pen of the late
Rev. B. H. Nadal, D.D., Professor in the Drew Theological Seminary,
New Jersey, entitled, “The Logic of Infant Church-membership”;
and the second in the Bibliotheca Sacra for April, written by the Rev.
Lewis Grout, formerly missionary of the A.B.C.F.M., entitled, “The
Church-membership of Baptized Children.” The appearance of these
two Articles on the same topic, in two prominent and widely circulated
quarterlies, written by men (members of large, influential, and growing
denominations) who, in all probability, knew nothing of each other’s
views on the subject, and who reached their conclusions by independent
investigation, is, we say, remarkable. The coincidence in time, in
argument, and in the main conclusion, is striking.
We are aware that Dr. Nadal and Mr. Grout do not speak for
the denomination they respectively represent. We do not believe the
majority, nor even a large minority, of the Methodists would accept
109
Dr. Nadal’s conclusion. In fact, the editor of the Methodist Quarterly
Review, in a foot-note at the close of his Article, says: “We insert
the above Article in cordial respect for the eminent character of the
lamented writer, and not from any coincidence with his views.” As for
our Congregational brethren, neither do we think a large proportion
of them are prepared to accept the position stated and defended by Mr.
Grout. Yet we cannot but regard the nearly simultaneous appearance of
these two Articles,—one in January, and the other in April of the same
year,—as a most significant fact. They appear as the views of individuals,
it is true, and their authors alone are responsible for the presentation
and advocacy of those views before the religious public; still, we regard
their authors as representative of a class, more or less numerous, among
our Paedobaptist brethren, who are thinking deeply on the question
relative to the status of baptized children, and who are not satisfied with
the present indefiniteness. The significance, therefore, we attribute to
the Articles we have referred to is, that they indicate most decidedly
a state of uncertainty, and hence of unrest and dissatisfaction, in the
minds of many Paedobaptists on the relation of baptized children to the
church. That there exists this feeling of indefiniteness on the subject,
Mr. Grout concedes at the outset, and evidently he designs his Article
to be a contribution toward the solution of this pressing and perplexing
problem.1 He finds the opinions of many of the “clergy and laity vague
1
Mr. Douglass, an English Paedobaptist Non-conformist, in his racy, and eminently
suggestive volume, entitled, “The Pastor and his People,” in the chapter on “Uses of Infant
Baptism,” corroborates what Mr. Grout asserts. Mr. Douglass, it should be noticed, speaks for
England, and Mr. Grout for America. They state the same fact: “Not one in a hundred can
tell you any thing about the matter. They comply with the custom; may consider it decorous,
respectable and religions, but that is all” (p. 164). Again, in the same chapter, he says:
“Generally speaking, the members of our churches cannot see that infant baptism is of any
110
Infant Baptism And A Regenerated
Church Membership Irreconcilable
and diversified” respecting it. He says: “Some will admit that they
belong to the church, yet seem to doubt or deny that the church belongs
at all to them; that is, the church has a claim upon the children and an
interest in them, but the children have as yet no interest or place in the
church. Some hold that they are in the church, yet not of it; as though
to be in it in any sense worthy of the name is not to be of it. Not a few
seem to regard them as neither in it nor out of it, but as occupying some
sort of middle ground; as though this were either scriptural or tenable.”
He continues: “On this point [the relation of baptized children to the
church] our Congregational churches, many of them,— at least many
members in most of them,—have departed from the teachings of the
divine word, from the faith and practice of the primitive church, from
the faith and practice of the Puritan fathers, and from the faith, at least,
of other branches of the catholic church of the present age; the Baptists
alone excepted.”
To what extent this vagueness of conception of which Mr.
Grout complains exists among Congregationalists, and others
as well, we have no means of determining; but evidently among
Congregationalists it must be considerable; for he says: “Inquiring of
one and another as to their thoughts on this subject, what they believe
to be the proper ecclesiastical standing of baptized children,—whether
they belong to the church, are in it and of it, or out of it, or where they
are,—the writer has been somewhat surprised at the variety of views
that prevail, even among those who are supposed to be of the same
general faith in respect to the duty and import of infant baptism.”
use whatever. They comply with it from custom, but not one in a thousand can tell you the cui
bono of the matter.”
111
Evidently, he regards it as somewhat wide-spread, and that his opinion
might not be conjectural, he made inquiry, in order that he might form
an intelligent judgment. We most naturally infer that Mr. Grout did
not make inquiry of the masses, but rather of pastors of churches, of the
more prominent and intelligent laymen, and of professors in colleges
and theological seminaries, with whom, as a “returned missionary,” he
would be most frequently brought in contact. If, then, as we suppose, in
such circles be found a variety of views prevailing,—signs of hesitancy
and want of definiteness,—it is highly probable those of the masses
are not more definite. As for ourselves, we have long been satisfied that
what Mr. Grout affirms of Congregationalists is more or less true of our
evangelical Paedobaptist brethren generally. We have encountered the
same thing when conversing with ministers and laymen among them
on this subject. The question of the relationship of baptized children
to the church, and the suggestion of difficulties that must arise in any
attempt to reconcile the retention of infant baptism with the doctrine
of a regenerated church-membership, has always been perplexing. This,
as is well known, is persistently pressed by Baptists, and we believe
our Paedobaptist brethren must feel its force more and more. It has
been repeatedly said, infant baptism is declining. Mr. Grout makes
a reference to this opinion, in the early portion of his Article, and
attributes it to the “doubts, errors, and haziness of sentiment” prevailing
as to the relation which infants sustain to the church. How far infant
baptism may have declined, we do not know; but statistics,2 and the
passage occasionally of a resolution by an ecclesiastical body, censuring
2
See footnote in Madison Avenue Lectures, p. 181.
112
Infant Baptism And A Regenerated
Church Membership Irreconcilable
its neglect, and urging its observance, indicate its decline. As a Baptist,
however, I have never regarded this decline as arising so much from the
spread of the conviction among our Paedobaptist brethren that infant
baptism is unscriptural (though there is something of this, and it is
increasing), as from a want of clearness of definition of its significancy,
and the relation the baptized child sustains to the church. The neglect,
so far as it exists, arises, we believe, more from difficulties felt within, than
from the pressure of Baptists from without. The reasons urged in defence
of the retention of infant baptism are not uniform; one author denying
what another affirms; and the two Articles we now have before us afford
sufficient proof of the existence of conflicting views respecting the
relation of baptized children to the visible church. Such being the fact,
it is not strange that Mr. Grout found, as the result of his inquiries, a
“variety of views” that surprised him, or that Baptists should discover in
statistics evidence of the decline of infant baptism. If such “haziness of
sentiment” as Mr. Grout asserts exist, the neglect of infant baptism must
follow as a necessity.
Believing, therefore, that among evangelical Paedobaptists
the baptism of infants is being neglected in consequence of “haziness
of vision” as to its reasons and significancy, we have thought the time
nearing when they must re-examine the whole question, and make
either more or less of it—state its utility, and define the relation of
the baptized child to the church, or else reject the baptism of children
altogether, and accept the Baptists’ position as to the proper subject
of the ordinance as the exponent of the theory and fact of the New
Testament. Mr. Grout has reached the same conclusion, and is glad
113
O H P
By James W. Knox
A
ll those sound in the faith recognize the Lord Jesus Christ as the
great high priest, but few have given sufficient attention to this
blessed ministry which He undertakes on behalf of His redeemed.
Let us begin with the Biblical explanation of the office of high
priest set forth in Hebrews 5:1-4. For every high priest taken from
among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he
may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: Who can have compassion on
the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself
also is compassed with infirmity. And by reason hereof he ought, as for
the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. And no man taketh this
honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.
There are ten particulars which define every high priest—
1. taken from among men
2. is ordained for men
3. in things pertaining to God,
4. that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
5. Who can have compassion on the ignorant,
163
6. and on them that are out of the way;
7. for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.
8. And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for
himself, to offer for sins.
9. And no man taketh this honour unto himself,
10. but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.
These are all self-explanatory. They describe a member of the
human family, selected not by self-will or by man but by God. His duty
will be to represent men in the presence of God by means of gifts and
sacrifices. He treats the problem of man’s sins as well as their infirmities
with a compassionate heart.
What arrests our attention are the words in verses 5-7; So also
Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that
said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. As he
saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of
Melchisedec.
The phrase so also Christ requires us to review the ten points
given above to see how our Lord fulfills each of them.
1. taken from among men
Thus, the Word had to be made flesh before we could have a
high priest. Israel had a high priest on earth; but the church has some
better thing provided for them, a high priest in heaven. He became
a man, He ascended as a man, and this man ministers in the high
priestly office.
2. is ordained for men
Jesus does not sit at the Father’s right hand to benefit Himself
164
Our High Priest
or to obtain anything for Himself. He is there to aid and represent
His own.
3. in things pertaining to God,
Though He appears for men He is not at the throne to gratify
their lusts or meet their demands. The needs of man which benefit
their relationship to God are His concern. He is not there to answer
our requests for wealth, power, ease, etc. but to bring us into the full
enjoyment of redemption life.
4. that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
The gift and sacrifice He offered to pay for our sins was His
broken body and shed blood. But the High Priest is a different office
than that of Savior. Israel had no high priest until after they were
redeemed by the blood of the Lamb. Before the Exodus there is no such
office. The offerings and intercession of their high priest was for the
maintenance of the nation’s relationship to God, not the establishment
thereof. Likewise, Jesus’ high priestly ministry is for treatment of sins
committed by the saints.
5. Who can have compassion on the ignorant,
An ignorant person is one untaught or uniformed, one
unlettered or unskilled. The moment one trusts Jesus Christ as savior,
they are a new-born child of God. They are saved, but as regards the
Christian life each of them matches every point in the definition of
ignorant. Yet our Lord deals with us in a gentle, longsuffering fashion,
compassionately ministering to us in our weakness.
6. and on them that are out of the way;
One need only read the parable of the good shepherd to know
165
B A
“B F
T D”
By Laurence M. Vance, Ph.D.
“Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the
dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?”
(1 Cor. 15:29)
B
aptists are uniquely qualified to comment on biblical references
to baptism. Protestants and others who allow sprinkling or
pouring to be baptism, consider baptism to be a sign of the covenant, a
replacement for circumcision, or a sacrament, practice infant baptism,
hold to baptismal regeneration, or believe that baptism contributes in
some way to salvation generally cannot be trusted to properly explain a
text that refers to baptism.
It should also be noted that just because some group practices
adult baptism by immersion doesn’t mean that it understands the proper
significance of baptism. Followers of Alexander Campbell immerse
adults, but believe the plan of salvation to be repent, believe, confess,
and be baptized.
The group with the most perverted understanding of baptism
179
has got to be the Mormons because of their practice of both “ordinary”
baptism (ordinary to them) and “proxy” baptism (based on the reference
to “baptized for the dead” in 1 Corinthians 15:29). In proxy baptism,
Mormons believe in a vicarious baptism for their dead ancestors who
were not Mormons. Those who have died and received a proxy baptism
have the opportunity, so they say, to accept or reject what was done on
their behalf. This teaching is found, not in The Book of Mormon (1830),
but in their Doctrine and Covenants (1835).
This reference to “baptized for the dead” in 1 Corinthians
has defied interpreters and perplexed commentators for centuries.
There are thought to be about forty opinions on the meaning of the
phrase in question. The commentator Adam Clarke has well said:
“This is certainly the most difficult verse in the New Testament; for,
notwithstanding the greatest and wisest men have labored to explain
it, there are to this day nearly as many different interpretations of it as
there are interpreters.” And as the Baptist A. C. Kendrick described
it: “A passage which has been the occasion perhaps of more perplexity
to commentators, of more varying opinions, and of more abundant
discussion, than any other of equal brevity in the entire Scriptures.”
Although it is true that Baptists alone have the right perspective
on baptism, this does not mean that they profess to understand
everything about every verse in the Bible that mentions baptism. This is
certainly the case with “baptized for the dead” in 1 Corinthians 15:29.
The views of an eclectic historical mix of Baptist preachers,
writers, and commentators follow. Not only are no viewpoints exactly
alike, most are in fact quite different.
180
The prince of Baptist commentators, John Gill, has much to say
in his Exposition of the New Testament (1746-48):
Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead,… The
apostle here returns to his subject, and makes use of new arguments
to prove the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, and reasons
for it from the baptism of some persons; but what is his sense, is not
easy to be understood, or what rite and custom, or thing, or action
he refers to; which must, be either Jewish baptism, or Christian
baptism literally taken, or baptism in a figurative and metaphorical
sense.
After discussing some theories as to what the passage means,
Gill says:
Those seem to be nearer the truth of the matter, who suppose that the
apostle has respect to the original practice of making a confession
of faith before baptism, and among the rest of the articles of it, the
doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, upon the belief of which
being baptized, they might be said to be baptized for the dead; that
is, for, or upon, or in the faith and profession of the resurrection of
the dead, and therefore must either hold this doctrine, or renounce
their baptism administered upon it; to which may be added another
sense of the words, which is, that baptism performed by immersion,
as it was universally in those early times, was a lively emblem and
representation of the resurrection of Christ from the dead, and also
both of the spiritual and corporeal resurrection of the saints. Now
if there is no resurrection, why is such a symbol used? ’tis useless and
insignificant.
I see nothing of moment to be objected to these two last senses,
which may be easily put together, but this; that the apostle seems to
point out something that was done or endured by some Christians
only; whereas baptism, upon a profession of faith in Christ, and
the resurrection from the dead, and performed by immersion,
as an emblem of it, was common to all; and therefore he would
rather have said, what shall we do, or we all do, who are baptized
for the dead? I am therefore rather inclined to think that baptism
is used here in a figurative and metaphorical sense, for afflictions,
sufferings, and martyrdom, as in Matt. xx. 22, 23. and it was for the
belief, profession, and preaching of the doctrine of the resurrection
of the dead, both of Christ and of the saints, that the apostles and
181
followers of Christ endured so much as they did; the first instance
of persecution after our Lord’s ascension was on this account.
The Apostles Peter and John, were laid hold on and put in prison for
preaching this doctrine; the reproach and insult the Apostle Paul
met with at Athens were by reason of it; and it was for this that
he was called in question and accused of the Jews; nor was there
anyone doctrine of Christianity more hateful and contemptible
among the Heathens than this was. Now the apostle’s argument
stands thus, what is, or will become of those persons who have been
as it were baptized or overwhelmed in afflictions and sufferings,
who have endured so many and such great injuries and indignities,
and have even lost their lives for asserting this doctrine, if the dead
rise not at all? how sadly mistaken must such have been! why are
they then baptized for the dead? how imprudently have they acted!
and what a weak and foolish part do they also act, who continue to
follow them! in what a silly manner do they expose themselves to
danger, and throw away their lives, if this doctrine is not true!
Writing in the Christian Review in 1852, S. W. Whitney says
that if we keep in mind that one object of Christian baptism is to
express the idea that a Christian is “one who is a living sacrifice—one
who has given up his hold on this life, and stands ready for Christ’s
sake to undergo, at any moment, all things, even death itself,” then “we
shall see clearly the apostle’s meaning and the force of his argument.”
He holds that that “the dead” is a reference to just “a particular class
of mankind—viz., Christians.” He maintains that all Christians are
baptized “for dead”; that is, “set apart as belonging to those who have
renounced their hold on this life” or “set over by their baptism on the
side of those who have given up this life.”
The prince of preachers, Charles Spurgeon, in a sermon on the
resurrection of the dead in Acts 24:15 delivered in 1856, mentions our
text and says:
182
This text has had thirty or forty explanations. Doddridge and a
great many more think it refers to the practice, when a martyr died,
for another person to come forward and fi ll the offices which he
held, and so to be “baptized for the dead;” but the meaning I like
best is: What shall they do who are baptized with the certainty that
they are not baptized to live a long while, but that immediately after
baptism they will be dragged away to die—baptized in the very
teeth of death? For as soon as any one was baptised, the Romans
would be looking after him, to drag him away to death. Thus they
were many of them baptised as if they were being washed for their
burial, and dedicating themselves to the grave. They came forward
and said, “O Lord, I give myself unto they service—not to serve
thee here below, for that the enemy will not let me do, but since I
must die, I will be baptized and brave it all; I will be baptized even
for death itself.” Well, what shall these do who are not baptized in
the certain prospect of death if the dead rise not? “Why are they
then baptized for the dead?”
An anonymous writer in the Christian Review in 1855
concludes: “If a figurative interpretation of the phrase, immersed over the
dead, can be made out, it will probably be found to refer to afflictions,
some such afflictions as the sufferings unto death which Christ and his
followers underwent, from the hands of those who sought to extirpate
his religion.” He believes that “a figurative interpretation” accords “with
the apostle’s design.” It “illustrates the absurdity of persevering in the
Christian profession, in the face of danger and death, if there is no hope
of a future life.”
In an article by A. C. Kendrick in the Christian Review in
1862, he says that “the phrase ‘baptized for the dead,’ ought, it should
seem, in its place, to refer in some way to those sufferings and woes to
which Christianity subjects its votaries.” He maintains that “Nothing
but this fits into the context.” Kendrick considers the explanation,
“often adopted,” of “baptized for [the resurrection of] the dead” to be
“inappropriate.” He contrasts this with his opinion of the passage:
183
T M O T
K J B
N T
By Laurence M. Vance, Ph.D.
The following is a greatly abridged version of Part I, Introduction,
in the new book by Laurence M. Vance, The Making of the King James
Bible—New Testament (Orlando, Vance Publications, 2015),
288 pgs., $16.95, paperback.
T
he King James, or Authorized, version of the Bible was first
proposed at the Hampton Court Conference in early 1604. In
July of 1604, King James could write to Bishop Richard Bancroft, the
“chiefe overseer” of the work, that he had “appointed certain learned
men, to the number of four and fift y, for the translating of the Bible.”
The first of the fifteen rules given for the guidance of the translators
stated that they were to follow the Bishops’ Bible: “The ordinary Bible
read in the church, commonly called the Bishops’ Bible, to be followed,
and as little altered as the truth of the original will permit.” To this
end, the king’s printer, Robert Barker, supplied forty unbound copies
of the Bishops’ Bible to the translators. This means that the making of
the King James Bible is intimately connected with the making of the
Bishops’ Bible.
199
The Bishops’ Bible, first published in 1568, was, as its name
implies, the product of the bishops of the Church of England. Although
bishops had existed in the English Church for centuries, it was not
until the English Reformation, culminating in the “Act of Supremacy”
in 1534, that there could be said to be bishops of the Church of
England. The theme of Bibles and bishops is an important one in
English ecclesiastical history. Two things should be noted at the outset.
One, there was an intimate connection of the bishops of the Church
of England—for good or ill—with English Bible translating and
translations. And two, the publication of the Bishops’ Bible was not the
first time the bishops themselves attempted to undertake such a task.
In May of 1530, King Henry VIII commanded his bishops “that
thei calling to theim the best learned men of the universities should
cause a new translacion to be made, so that the people should not be
ignoraunte in the law of god.”1 But of this command, “the bishopes did
nothing at all to set furth a new translacion, which caused the people
to stody Tindalles translacion.”2 In June of 1530, the king issued a
proclamation forbidding the purchase or possession of the Bible in
English “except suche persones as be appoynted by the kinges highnes
and the bishops of this his realme, for the correction or amendinge of
the sayd translacion.”
Late in 1534, the upper house of the Convocation of
Canterbury (the legislative assembly of the clergy of the southern
1
Alfred W. Pollard, ed., Records of the English Bible: The Documents Relating to the
Translation and Publication of the Bible in English, 1525-1611 (London: Oxford University
Press, 1911), 162-163.
2
Ibid., 163.
200
The Making Of The King James Bible
New Testament
province of the English Church) resolved that the Archbishop of
Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, should petition the king “that the holy
scripture shall be translated into the vulgar English tongue by certain
upright and learned men to be named by the said most illustrious king
and be meted out and delivered to the people for their instruction.”
Soon after this, Cranmer and Thomas Cromwell, the king’s principal
secretary, collaborated on just such a project. However, the Bible
was to be a revision rather than a new translation. According to
Cranmer’s secretary:
My lorde Cranmer, mynding to have the New Testament
thoroughlie corrected, devided the same into ix or x partes, and
caused it to be written at large in paper bokes and sent unto the best
lernyd bishopps, and other lernyd men, to th’ intent they sholde
make a perfect correction therof, and when thei hadd done to sende
them unto hym at Lambeth by a day lymyted for that purpose.3
In 1542 the printer Richard Grafton mentioned in a letter
to Cromwell that “it is now seven years, since the Bishops promised
to translate, and set forth the Bible, and as yet they have no leisure.”4
Nothing ever became of the translation project.
In a 1537 letter from Cranmer to Cromwell about the merits
of the Matthew Bible, there is still mentioned the idea of the bishops
undertaking a translation, although Cranmer acknowledges that
he thinks the bishops won’t complete it “till a day after domesday.”
Although the “day after domesday” came in 1568 with the publication
of the Bishops’ Bible, there was yet one more attempt by the bishops
3
John Gough Nichols, ed., Narratives of the Days of the Reformation (London: Printed for the
Camden Society, 1859), 277.
4
Quoted in David Daniell, The Bible in English: Its History and Influence (New Haven and
London: Yale University Press, 2003), 173.
201
to translate the Bible into English made before then. In 1542 it was
decided to revise the Great Bible “according to that Bible which is
usually read in the English Church.” That is, the Vulgate, which was
read in the Lessons during the time of divine service.
The first Bible produced under the auspices of the English
Church was the Great Bible of 1539. The second edition dated April of
1540 was the first to read on its title page: “This is the Byble apoynted
to the use of the churches.” The fourth and sixth editions referred on
their title pages to the role of two bishops in their preparation. After
the death of Cromwell, “great complaint was made to the king of the
translation of the bible and of the preface of the same: and then was
the sale of the bible commanded to be stayed, the bishops promising to
amend and correct it, but never performing the same.”
In the second session of the Convocation of Canterbury of
1542, Archbishop Cranmer directed the assembly to address themselves
to the errors in the English translation of the Old and New Testament.
Joint committees of bishops and others “skilled in Hebrew, Greek,
Latin and English” were then set up to examine each Testament. A few
days later, the king expressed his approval of the revision and promised
to print it at his own expense. But then later Cranmer informed the
assembly that “it was the king’s will and pleasure, that the translation
both of the Old and New Testament should be examined by both
universities” instead of the bishops. However, nothing ever came of any
revision of the Great Bible, either by the universities or the bishops.
The earliest reference to what would become the Bishops’ Bible
is apparently a 1562 letter from Richard Cox, bishop of Ely, to William
202

ABJ Vol VI Iss III.indb - Ancient Baptist Journal

Transcription

Similar documents

VBS 2015

the first word - First Baptist Church, Bristol, Virginia

Baptism invitation 6

the first word - First Baptist Church, Bristol, Virginia

January 2015 Beacon - New Boston`s First Baptist Church

the Charles City County Visitor Map

July - First Baptist Church

EXPLANATORY NOTE The purpose of the Bill is set out in the

20th Anniversary Invite Letter

File - Bartholomew Baptist Association