06 Immersion Essential to Christian Baptism

Immersion Essential to Christian Baptism By Rev. Henry S. Burrage, Portland, Maine

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world” Matthew 28:10; Matthew 28:20.

“And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Mark 16:15-16.

“And Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Acts 2:38. In these passages of the Gospels by Matthew and Mark, we have what is called the Great Commission. Beginning at Jerusalem, the disciples were to go into all the earth and preach the gospel to every creature. As messengers of Christ they were to make prominent in their preaching the saving truths which they had received from their Master’s lips. Yet this was not all. Having done this, having made disciples by their divine message, they were to baptize these disciples. “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” The words in Mark’s gospel are of like import, although the form of expression is different. “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” First, as we see, there was to be instruction leading to discipleship, then baptism as the profession of discipleship. That the apostles so understood the Saviour’s words is evident from the New Testament records. Peter’s injunction, on the day of Pentecost, is an illustration. When the multitude, moved by the apostle’s preaching, cried out, “Men and brethren what shall we do?” Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized.” It was as if he had recalled the very words of the Great Commission,—” teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you “—or those other words of Christ, which bring before us the Saviour’s test of true discipleship,—” Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.” The Saviour, however, was addressing not merely the little company gathered around him on that hillside in Galilee, but all who should believe on him, in all the ages of the Christian Church. In one comprehensive glance, as it were, he took in the work of converting the nations; and he added words which show that in his injunction concerning the work of evangelization, and the administration of the ordinance of baptism, his followers were to find a perpetual obligation,—” Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” But while it is generally conceded that baptism is an ordinance divinely instituted, and of perpetual obligation, there are many who profess and call themselves Christians, who deny that immersion is essential to Christian baptism. They will admit, especially if they are familiar with the recent literature of the subject, that immersion was the primitive act. The references to the administration of the ordinance which we find in the New Testament, they say, make this plain. Thus, John baptized the multitudes “in the Jordan,” (Matthew 3:6); “in the river Jordan,” (Mark 1:5); while the Saviour he baptized “into the Jordan,” (Mark 1:10.) Moreover, in those passages in our English version where we find the words “with water,” as in Matthew 3:11, “I indeed baptize you with water,” the Greek has “in water.” Stanley thus recognizes the requirements of the Scripture narrative, when, referring to those who were baptized in Jordan, he says, “John plunged them under the rapid torrent.” ^{[1] [1]} Sinni and Palestine, p. 306

We are also told in the New Testament, they add, that leaving the Jordan, John baptized at “Ænon near to Salim,” and the reason given is “because there was much water there,” (John 3:23); from which it is certainly a fair inference that, had there not been “much water” there, the Baptist himself would not have been there. Condor, of the British Royal Engineers and officer in charge of the Survey Expedition of the Palestine Exploration Fund, recognizes this fact in his Tent-work in Palestine, ^[2] when, referring to the probable site of Ænon in the valley near Shechem, he says: “The valley is open in most parts of its course, and we find the two requisites for the scene of the baptism of a huge multitude—an open space and abundance of water.”

[2] Vol. I., p. 98. In the Acts of the Apostles also, in the case of the eunuch, the primitive act is very clearly indicated. Having been instructed by Philip in reference to the great facts concerning salvation by Christ, and the way in which the disciple confesses his faith in Christ, the eunuch exclaims, “See, hero is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized?” Philip replies, “If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest.” And having answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,” the eunuch commanded the chariot to stand still, “and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.” It has been said by some that the words here translated “into the water” may be translated “unto the water,” and they picture the eunuch standing by “an evanescent roadside rain-pool.” while Philip, with a few drops of water upon the tips of his fingers, administers the sacred rite. But though it is true that the Greek preposition here used may sometimes mean “unto,” it will be seen that in this passage it stands opposed to another preposition in the following verse, which can only be understood “out of;” so that Philip and the eunuch must have gone down into the water in order to come up out of the water. As Prof. Plumptre, in Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers, in which are embodied the results of recent scholarship, says: “The eunuch would lay aside his garments, descend chest deep into the water, and be plunged under it ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus.’” ^{[3] [3]} Note onActs 8:38. And with this view, that immersion was the primitive act of baptism, the best church histories are in agreement. Kurtz says, “Baptism was administered by complete immersion in the name of Christ, or else the Triune God. (Matthew 28:19).”^[4]Pressense says: “Baptism, which was the sign of admission into the church, was administered by immersion. The convert was plunged beneath the water, and as he rose from it he received the laying on of hands.” ^[5] Stanley says: “There can be no question that the original form of baptism, the very meaning of the word, was complete immersion in the deep baptismal waters, and that for at least four centuries any other form was either unknown or regarded, unless in the case of dangerous illness, as an exceptional, almost a monstrous case The Latin church has wholly altered the mode, and, with the two exceptions of the Cathedral of Milan and the sect of the Baptists, a few drops of water are now the western substitute for the three-fold plunge into the running rivers or the wide baptisteries of the East.”^[6] These testimonies might be greatly multiplied, but those we have given are sufficient to show that the evidence is clear and decisive that immersion was the primitive act of baptism, and that scholars of every name agree in accepting it.

[4] Church History, p. 70.

[5] Early years of Christianity, p. 374.

[6] History of the Eastern Church, p. 117

There are many, however, as we have already remarked, who, though they admit that baptism in the primitive church was administered by immersion, nevertheless deny that immersion is essential to the proper administration of the rite. They say: “We find nothing in the original institution, or in the nature or uses of the rite, requiring it to be administered in one precise mode.”^[7] According to Dean Stanley there is in this matter such a thing as “a wise exercise of Christian freedom,” ^[8] or “the triumph of common sense and convenience over the bondage of form and custom,” ^[9] and so by him, and many others who agree with him, immersion, this “singular and interesting relic of primitive and apostolic times” is politely discarded in deference to the supposed requirements of the age in which we live and the circumstances by which we are surrounded; an illustration, adds Stanley, showing” how the spirit which lives and moves in human society can override even the most sacred ordinances.” It is this position in reference to baptism, which just now, as Baptists, we are compelled to meet. Indeed, for the most part, from the other positions which have been taken—like the one to which we have already referred, that immersion was not primitive baptism—those who have defended them have one after another quietly withdrawn. But we are persuaded that this position is as indefensible as the others, and purpose in this discourse accordingly to present the grounds for our belief that immersion is essential to Christian baptism.

[7]Christian Mirror,April 16. 1879 [8] Sinai and Palestine, p. 307 [9] Article on Baptism, inNineteenth Centuryfor Oct. 1879.

1. And first, we say, immersion alone meets the requirements of the divine command. When the Saviour said to his disciples, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, immersing them,” we have every reason to believe that he meant just what he said. But the objection will be urged, That is your interpretation of the Saviour’s words. Not at all. It is not an interpretation, but a translation. The word which we find in the Great Commission, and which is used throughout the New Testament wherever mention is made of baptism, is baptizein, and the evidence is abundant and conclusive that this word, which we say means to immerse, to submerge, has this signification, and this signification only. Not a passage has been found, in sacred or profane literature, in which baptizein means either to sprinkle or to pour. Its place in the Greek language is precisely that of the verb to immerse, in our own language. We cannot, of course, give this evidence here, but it will be found in Conant’s “Meaning and Use of Baptizein,” which is “an exhaustive examination of examples of the lexical and grammatical use of the word, drawn from writers in almost every department of literature and science,” belonging to different countries, and living in different ages of the world’s history. But we shall he told that the Greek-English Lexicon of Liddell and Scott, which is in use in all of our classical schools and colleges, defines baptizein to dip repeatedly, dip under, to bathe, to wet, to pour upon, drench, to dip a vessel, to draw water. This is true of their first edition. Under what influences some of these words were introduced into that edition we cannot say. But their introduction was challenged—challenged, too, by scholars not Baptists—on the ground that the passages cited in support of these definitions could not be forced to yield such a support; and in the second edition the words to steep, wet, pour upon, drench, were omitted as without authority, and have never reappeared. But the second edition of Liddell and Scott retained the definition to dip repeatedly, and the question has been asked by partisan objectors, “Do our Baptist friends practice immersion in accordance with this definition?” It happens that Liddell and Scott have found it necessary to continue the work of revision, and in the sixth London edition of their, Lexicon— which is the last, instead of to dip repeatedly we have to dip in or under water, while to the definition to draw, for example to draw wine from bowls in cups, they have added in parenthesis, as if to prevent all possible misapprehension or misrepresentation, the significant words, “of course by dipping them.” The history of these changes in the definition of baptizein in the successive editions of this standard lexicon is a very significant one, and furnishes the most striking proof of the correctness of the conclusions reached by Dr. Conant in his learned and exhaustive work. But it may be said that this is the classical use of the word—that many words in common use among the Greeks were taken up by the sacred writers, who gave to them a signification which they did not have before. So far as baptizein is concerned the statement cannot be sustained. One of the first Greek scholars in this country is Prof. E. A. Sophocles of Harvard University. He is a Greek by birth, and is familiar with the use of baptizein by classic and sacred writers. In his Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, he says: “There is no evidence that Luke and Paul, and the other writers of the New Testament, put upon this verb meanings not recognized by the Greeks.” And with him agree the best New Testament lexicographers of our day. Wilke’s Lexicon of New Testament ‘Greek, revised and edited by C. L. W. Grimm, 1858, and now in process of translation by Prof. J. Henry Thayer, of Andover Theological Seminary, defines baptizein, 1, to immerse repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge; 2, to bathe, Inre, cleanse with water by immersion or submersion.

Crerner, in his Biblico-Theological Lexicon of the New Testament Greek, defines baptisein, to immerse, submerge, and adds that the New Testament use of the word denotes “immersion, submersion for a religious purpose.” And with these lexicographers agree the most prominent exegetical scholars of every name,—Tholuck, Meyer, DeWette, Olshausen, Lange, Fritsche, Light foot, Ellicott, Plumptre, Godet, and a host of others. Of even the passage in Mark 7:4, where, by so many controversialists, it has been maintained that baptizein cannot mean to immerse, Meyer, in his Critical and Exegetical Commentary, says: “Except they wash is not to be understood of washing the hands, but of immersion, which the word in classic Greek and in the Now Testament everywhere means, i. e. here, according to the context, to take a bath.”

There can be only one meaning, therefore, to the command, “Be baptized.” With the New Testament records lying open before us, it is worse than vain to suggest such frivolous objections as the impossibility of immersing three thousand converts on the day of Pentecost; the insufficiency of water in Jerusalem for the immersion of such a multitude; and other objections even less worthy of notice. The Saviour commanded the apostles to immerse those who should believe on Him through their word; and the several writers tell us that they obeyed the divine injunction. They seem never to have asked whether under any circumstances something less than immersion would not answer. They evidently deemed it enough that Christ had fixed the solemn rite, and they insisted upon immersion as alone fulfilling the words of the Saviour, “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” It will be remembered that Jesus at his baptism by John, in Jordan, said, “Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.” (Matthew 3:15), that is, as Meyer interprets the words, “all which as duty it is obligatory on us to do.” But there is a duty in this matter which rests upon the disciple as well as upon his Lord, and that duty is made plain. It was in obedience to the Saviour’s words, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, immersing them,” that Peter, on the day of Pentecost, exclaimed, “Repent and be immersed.” It is in obedience to the same injunction that as Baptists we insist on immersion as essential to Christian baptism. Immersion alone meets the requirements of the divine command.

II. But again, immersion is essential to Christian baptism in order to preserve the symbolical signification of the ordinance as presented in the New Testament.

1. In the first place baptism is there referred to as a symbol of the believer’s purification from the defilement of sin. When the devout Ananias came to Saul at Damascus with the divine message that God had chosen him to be his witness unto all men of what he had seen and heard, Ananias added, “And now why tarriest thou? Arise and wash away thy sins.” (Acts 22:16). The thought is precisely that of Peter on the day of Pentecost, when he said, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins.” This is not baptismal regeneration. As the Scriptures plainly show, we are not saved in or by baptism. But sin is a defilement, and the removal of this moral uncleanness is secured by repentance and faith, which are the conditions of salvation. But how is this grout doctrine of the New Testament symbolical? By baptism, that is by immersion. The so-called Epistle of Barnabas, which is believed to have been written before A. D. 119, the date to which it is commonly assigned, says: “We go down into the water full of sins and pollutions, but come up out again bringing fresh fruit, having in our heart the fear and hope which are in Jesus by the Spirit.” How expressive, then, the command, “Wash away thy sins,” and what else except immersion, especially to a Jew, could fittingly symbolize the great truth to which this command has reference! Says Maimonides, a Jewish writer, “Wherever, in the Law, washing of the flesh or of the clothes is mentioned, it means nothing else than the dipping of the whole body in a laver: for if any man dip himself all over, except the tip of his little finger, he is still in his uncleanness.” Only immersion, therefore, is the proper symbol of this spiritual cleaning, which baptism expresses.^[10]

^[10] “There was one form of this idea which continued far down into the middle uges, long after it had been dissociated from baptism, but may be given as an illustration of the same idea represented by the same form. The order of knighthood in England, of which the banners hang in King Henry the Seventh’s Chapel in Westminster Abbey, and which is distinguished from all the other orders as the ‘most honorable,’ is called the order of the Bath. Why is this? It is because in the early days of chivalry the Knights, those who were enlisted in defence of right against wrong, truth against falsehood, honor against dishonor, on the evening before they were admitted to the order, were laid in a bath, and thoroughly washed, in order to show how bright and pure ought to be the lives of those who engage In noble enterprises.”—Stanley’s article on Baptism, inNineteenth Century,for Oct., 1879

2. But baptism is also a symbol of the believer’s death to sin and of his rising to a new life. In his Epistle to the Romans (Romans 6:2; Romans 6:4), Paul says: “Then shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” ^[11] A like thought Paul expresses in Colossians 2:12. Here also, then, a great Scripture truth is presented. The old man no longer lives, but is buried, and in his place is the new man in Christ Jesus. In baptism, as the crowning act of repentance and faith, these two facts are symbolically set forth. Buried in the baptismal waters, the old man with his sinful nature disappears, but, in the emergence from the watery grave, he rises to the new life in Christ. And this great truth, immersion, and immersion alone, fitly symbolizes.

[11] Says Meyer, in his comment on the passage, the very form of the Inquiry “presupposes an acquaintance with the moral nature of baptism “; and he adds, “it must in fact have been an experimental acquaintance.”

3. Baptism is also a symbol of the believer’s participation in the death and resurrection of Christ. Says Paul in his epistle to the Romans 6:5, “For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.” That is, as in that most intimate union of being, which subsists between the believer and his Lord, ours is that moral death to sin in which spiritual communion in death with Christ consists, so shall we share in the glory of his resurrection.

There is a fellowship of death, and there is a fellowship of immortality. And of this sublime teaching of Scripture, immersion, “in the disappearance beneath the water and the emergence from the water,” is not only the appropriate symbol, bat a most expressive one.

Baptism, then, is something more than a rite, it is a symbol which expresses the grandest, sublimest truth of our evangelical faith. But let immersion give place to sprinkling or pouring, and the symbolical significance of this divine ordinance is at once destroyed. As Stanley says: “It is a greater change even than that which the Roman Catholic Church has made in administering the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper in the bread without the wine. For that was a change which did not affect the thing that was signified: whereas the change from immersion to sprinkling has set aside the larger part of the apostolic language regarding baptism.” By some this is regarded as a matter of slight importance. But is it? Who instituted this ordinance, in which such great truths are so impressively set forth? Was it not our King, who just before he entered the swiftly flowing stream, addressing the hesitating John, exclaimed, “So it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness?” As I write these lines, on the other side of the globe, in the mountain fastnesses of Afghanistan, English troops are standing in battle array. A sacred silence rests upon the long lines—the solemn hush which precedes the deadly charge, and now the colors are unfurled. Beautifully they wave in the soft breeze of the early morning. Strong hands grasp the staff. Soon the order to advance is given, and the troops are in motion. The roar of artillery follows, and then, as the assailants near the enemy’s works, the crack of musketry. The color-bearer falls. A comrade seizes the flag, and it is borne on with the advancing lines. Again and again it falls, but again and again it is caught up by those who love it, and are ready to die for it. But why this devotion to the flag? Is it not seen that it draws from the enemy his deadliest fire. ^[12] Let it then be furled, or substitute something for it! It is only a symbol? A symbol? Yes, and because it is a symbol, these men reply, we cherish it. It is our country’s flag, and was placed in our hands by our gracious queen as a sacred trust. Nothing else can take its place. And on they go. What though the ranks are thinned by every successive volley! There is something worse than death to such men; and as we follow them with straining eyes, our hearts are stirred as in the battle front, dimly seen through the smoke of the conflict, moves the flag which they faithfully bear.

[12] Article on Baptism, inNineteenth Centuryfor Oct., 1879 So it is with baptism. It is only a symbol, some tell us. Yes, but it was committed to our care by our heavenly King, with the promise of his presence and aid in the conflict in which we are engaged. To uphold it courage may at times be required; but a true soldier will have courage. And when the order is given, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, immersing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” he will neither furl his flag nor cast it aside; but with a desire to be true to his sovereign, bearing aloft the sacred symbol of the sacramental host of God’s elect, he will press forward conquering and to conquer.

Upon these two facts, therefore, that immersion alone meets the requirements of the divine command in reference to baptism, and alone preserves the symbolical significance attributed to the ordinance in the New Testament, we rest in maintaining our position that immersion is essential to Christian baptism. When, therefore, it is said, that there is nothing in the original institution or in the nature and uses of the rite of baptism “requiring it to be administered in one precise mode,” it is evident that those who use these words have failed to consider the testimony which the New Testament furnishes in reference to this ordinance.

What, then, is the answer that is made to facts like these which we have now presented? Dean Stanley, ^[13] admitting that there can be no question but that the original form of baptism was complete immersion in the deep baptismal waters, and alluding to the fact that “To this form the Eastern Church still rigidly adheres; and 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,” adds; “The Latin Church, on the other hand, doubtless in deference to the requirements of a northern climate, to the change of manners, to the convenience of custom, has wholly altered the mode, preferring, as it would fairly say, mercy to sacrifice.” And this altered mode, introduced by the Church of Rome, Stanley himself defends as “a wise exercise of Christian freedom” and “a striking example of the triumph of common sense and convenience over the bondage of form and custom.” It is defended, on the same ground, by its advocates in this country. Says the editor of a Congregational journal: ^[14]“We feel warranted by the principles of Christian liberty in such cases, while we reverently cherish the ordinance itself, to consult in its mode of administration those considerations of health, of delicacy, and even convenience, which seem to us more fitting in the times and circumstances in which we live.”

[13] Eastern Church, p. 11 [14]Christian Mirror,April 12, 1879 The answer, then, is this: The Saviour indeed said, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, immersing them,” but there are considerations of health, delicacy and convenience which warrant us in wholly altering the mode. As to the first of these considerations there are doubtless, in rare instances, those who would gladly obey the divine command were they not denied the privilege on account of ill-health. Others are prevented by the circumstances in which they find themselves. The dying robber on the cross could not be buried with Christ in baptism. But Christ does not ask of his disciples i service which they cannot render, nor does he suggest, in case immersion is impossible, an abridgement of the rite. Indeed, they certainly make too much of baptism, who wholly alter the mode in order that in these exceptional cases there may be an appearance of conformity to the divine command. But what shall be said of the second consideration, that immersion is indelicate? Did it ever occur to those who take this position that in so doing they impute to the Saviour a lack of wisdom, and even of the finer feelings, in instituting a rite, designed to be perpetual, which should in any age, and among any people, be an offense to the moral sense of those who witness it or participate in it?

Equally frivolous, as it seems to us, is the consideration of convenience which is presented as an additional reason for the adoption of a “wholly altered mode.” Convenience! Certainly immersion is no more inconvenient now than in the New Testament times; and yet neither in the Acts nor in the Epistles do we anywhere read that the Apostles wholly altered the mode for the sake of convenience! Their Master had not said, Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, immersing them if it is convenient, but immersing them; and how faithfully they obeyed the divine injunction the inspired record clearly shows.

Indeed, the position of those who, on the ground of these considerations, discard immersion, is precisely that which Ralph Waldo Emerson, a half century ago, took in reference to the Lord’s Supper. He was pastor of the Second Unitarian Church in Boston. In a sermon on the Lord’s Supper he said to his people: “The use of the elements, however suitable to the people and the modes of thought in the East where it originated, is foreign and unsuited to us. Most men find the bread and wine no aid to devotion, and to some it is a painful impediment.” And he added: “This mode of commemorating Christ is not suitable. That is reason enough why I should abandon it. If I believed that it was enjoined by Jesus or his disciples, and that he ever contemplated making permanent this mode of commemoration, every way agreeable to an Eastern mind, and yet, on trial, it was disagreeable to my own feelings, I would not adopt it.” And so he urged the members of his church to abandon the ordinance as hitherto observed, and “suggested a mode in which a meeting for the same purpose might be held free of objection.” It is understood that his suggestion was that the bread and wine should remain on the table at the communion season, and as the German philosopher told his students to;’ think the wall,” the members of Mr. Emerson’s church were to think the Lord’s Supper. But they were unwilling to conform to Mr. Emerson’s suggestion. It seemed to them that this would be an unwarrantable violation of the plain commandment of the Saviour, “Take, eat-drink;” “This do in remembrance of me;” and so, rather than yield cherished convictions of duty, they accepted the pastor’s resignation, and Mr. Emerson’s ministry suddenly came to an end. That the position of those who discard immersion is the same, is evident. In reference to the Lord’s Supper the command is, “Take, eat.” No, says Emerson, the ordinance is foreign and unsuited to us; indeed it is disagreeable to my feelings. In reference to baptism the command is, “Be immersed.” No, reply the advocates of Christian liberty, immersion is inconvenient, not suited to the times and circumstances in which we live, and is an offense to the finer feelings of our nature. And so, in place of the one baptism, we have another which takes its place as a substitute. Surely, when Mr. Emerson announced his position in reference to the Lord’s Supper half a century ago, and the members of the church which he served as pastor were willing to let him go rather than abandon a plain commandment of the Lord, he could little have imagined that in so short a time this very doctrine of Christian liberty would be urged even in evangelical circles, in advocating changes as radical in reference to the ordinance of baptism as he had recommended in reference to the Lord’s Supper.

It is sometimes said that the cry of the Baptists is “Water, water!” Dr. Landels, of London, was right, when, at a meeting of the Baptist Union in England not long ago, he replied, “No! The cry of the Baptists is not ‘Water, water!’ but’ Obedience, obedience!’” As a denomination, Christian liberty is very dear to us. At a great price, as all men know, obtained we this liberty. We glory in it, and like our fathers, as we trust, we are ready to die if need be in maintaining it. But there are some things which are no less sacred to us than Christian liberty, and among these we cheerfully give to the commands of Christ an abiding place.