01.010. The Action of Baptism
The Action of Baptism.
"For the first thirteen centuries the almost universal practice of Baptism was that of which we read in the New Testament, and which is the very meaning of the word ’baptize’--that those who were baptized were plunged, submerged, immersed, into the water."--DEAN Stanley, in Christian Institutions.
"Without doubt the perfect idea of baptism is realized when one who has come to the years of discretion makes himself his own profession of faith in the Lord, knowing what he has done and having counted the cost, and then is immersed in the waters of baptism."--JOHN Watson ("Ian Maclaren"), in The Doctrines of Grace. The only reason why any believer in Christ should wish to submit to baptism is that the Lord Jesus commanded it. Save as an act of obedience and surrender to the authority of Christ, the act is unmeaning. It is because this element of obedience comes in that we plead for the immersion of penitent believers. We ought to let the Lord decide as to what he wishes us to do. If he commanded sprinkling or pouring, then we wish to have water poured or sprinkled upon us. Our immersion will not do, if the Lord commanded something which is not immersion. Similarly, if our Saviour asked for immersion, we shall not say that sprinkling or pouring will do as well; for, just as pouring is different from sprinkling, so are sprinkling and pouring both different from immersion. The foregoing words may show how unfair it is for Mr. Madsen to write that "the amount of water to be used in baptism is essentially the basis of the controversy." This is by no means the case. If sprinkling is baptism, we do not care whether Mr. Madsen sprinkles ten drops of water or a billion drops. If pouring is baptism, he may pour a cupful or a bucketful. If immersion is baptism, we care not whether the immersion takes place in a baptistery, a pond, a river, a lake, or an ocean. What we ask is that in each case the thing be done which the Lord asked to be done.
We wish to call attention to the fact that no one denies that the person who is immersed is baptized. No debate takes place on this question. Mr. Madsen admits that "baptism may be validly administered by immersion." Ministers of nearly all the churches which practice sprinkling will on occasion immerse rather than lose their flock. The Anglican Church has more than sanctioned immersion, for its Prayer Book explicitly states that the priest shall take the child (if it may well endure it) and "dip it in the water, discreetly and warily." The recent erection of a baptistery in St. Paul’s Cathedral, Melbourne, witnesses to the belief of a great church in immersion. The only disputed question is as to whether sprinkling or pouring are also baptism. Many Pedobaptists, as Dean Stanley, who admit that immersion was the primitive church custom, justify departure therefrom on the grounds of expediency, as in cold climates, and of propriety. Some, as Mr. Madsen, believe that from the beginning sprinkling and pouring were to be found.
We may say that when a scholar reading the classical writings of Greece, comes across the word transliterated in the New Testament "baptize," he never translates it by "sprinkle" or "pour." The Greeks had a word which specifically meant "sprinkle" (rantizo, see Hebrews 9:13; Hebrews 9:19; Hebrews 9:21; Lev, 6:27, etc., Septuagint). They possessed a word meaning "pouf’ (cheo, Ezekiel 20:33-34, etc., Sept.; ek-cheo, "pour out," occurs in Acts 2:17-18; Revelation 16:1-4; Revelation 16:6; Revelation 16:8; Revelation 16:10; Revelation 16:12; Revelation 16:17). Not once is baptizo translated by "sprinkle" or "pour," and never is either cheo or rantizo used of the ordinance of baptism.
LEXICONS.
Greek lexicons agree that the primary meaning of baptizo is to dip, immerse, plunge, submerge. In the figurative uses of the word given in the lexicons, dip is the basis of the figure. Not one is quoted by our Pedobaptists friends which gives "sprinkle" or "pour" as either a primary or secondary meaning. We quote from a few lexicons.
LIDDELL & SCOTT.--I. To dip in or under water. Of ships, to sink them. Passive, to bathe. Metaphorically: soaked in wine, over head and ears in debt; drowned with questions. II. To draw wine from bowls in cups (of course by dipping them). III. to baptize, N.T., Eccl.
DONNEGAN.--To immerse repeatedly into a liquid; to submerge, sink (ships).
SOPHOCLES.--To dip, to immerse; to sink. Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (146 B.C. to 1100 A.D.).
MALTBY (Bishop of Durham).--To plunge; to immerse.
SCHREVELIUS.--To baptize, dip, immerse, wash, cleanse.
BAGSTER.--"Pr. to dip, immerse; to cleanse or purify by washing; to administer the rite of baptism; to baptize."
CREMER.--.6apt/zo, "to immerse, to submerge." He says: "The peculiar N.T. and Christian use of the word to denote immersion, submersion for a religious purpose--to baptize, John 1:25. .. may be pretty clearly traced back to the Levitical washings" (Leviticus 14:8-9, etc.). On p. 46 of The Question of Baptism, Mr. Madsen referred to "’the very highest authority on Greek and Greek usage’--Grimm’s Wilke’s Lexicon of N.T. Greek." I very much regret that by a singular omission this "very highest authority" is not directly quoted from in the chapter in which
Mr. Madsen seeks to instruct his brethren as to the Scriptural "Mode of Baptism." Mr. Madsen summarizes Bannerman’s summary of lexicons, and says: "Grimm does not give ’immersion’ as one of the meanings at all. The word he translates as immersion is ’baptisma.’"--p. 101.
Now it is true that Grimm translates baptisma as "immersion." When we remember that baptisma is used in Romans 6:4; Ephesians 4:5; 1 Peter 2:21, of the ordinance of Christian baptism, the careful reader will be at no loss to understand to what extent Mr. Madsen helps the cause of sprinkling or pouring by quoting Grimm as translating baptisma by "immersion." We give a statement as to Grimm’s treatment of baptizo.
Grimm’S Lexicon (edited by Thayer)--I. 1. Prop., to dip repeatedly, to immerge, submerge. 2. to cleanse by dipping, wash, bathe. 3. Metaphorically, to overwhelm." II. In the N.T. it is used particularly of the rite of sacred ablution, first instituted by John the Baptist, afterwards by christ’s command received by christians and adjusted to the contents and nature of their religion, viz., an immersion in water, performed as a sign of the removal of sin, and administered to those who, impelled by a desire for salvation, sought admission to the benefits of the Messiah’s kingdom."
BULLINGER.—Baptizo (in form a frequentative of bapto, dip or dye). Baptizo to make a thing dipped or dyed. To immerse for a religious purpose, may be traced back to the Levitical washings, see Leviticus 14:8-9, etc. (out of which arose the baptism of proselytes), which were connected with the purification which followed on and completed the expiation from sin."
We give also some quotations from well-known Pedobaptists authorities—dictionary writers, historians, etc.
DICTIONARIES AND ENCYCLOPEDIAS.
Hastings’ Dictionary of the BIBLE.--The rite is nowhere described in detail; but the element was always water, and the mode of using it was commonly immersion. The symbolism of the ordinance required this. It was an act of purification and hence the need of water. A death to sin was expressed by the plunge beneath the water, and a rising again to a life of righteousness by the return to light and air; and hence the appropriateness of immersion."-- Article on "Baptism," by A. Plummer. lBID.--"The ritual of baptism consisted of an immersion of the baptized person in water (Matthew 3:16, Mark 1:10, Acts 8:38)."--Article on "Church," by S. C. Gayford.
Hastings’ encyclopedia of religion and ethics.-- "Immersion seems to have been the practice of the Apostolic age; in continuity with Jewish proselyte baptism; and it is implied in Paul’s language, especially in his figure of baptism as spiritual burial and resurrection (Romans 6:3-5, Colossians 2:12). But the form was not held essential; and when conditions presented practical difficulties--whether local, climatic, or due to physical weakness-- it came to be modified (cf. Didache, 7). The most usual form, of which we have evidence from the 2nd. cent. onwards, as regards adults, was that of standing semi-immersed in water, up to knees or waist, combined with threefold pouring over the head (triune affusion)," "Baptism," by J. V. Bartlet.
We call attention to the apostolic practice of the first sentence, and the later modifications thereof referred to in the last two sentences.
HASTINGS’ DICTIONARY OF CHRIST AND THE GOSPELS.--Baptism: "A rite wherein by immersion in water the participant symbolizes and signalizes his transition from an impure to a pure life, his death to a past he abandons, and his new birth to a future he desires." "That the normal mode was by immersion of the whole body may be inferred from the meaning of baptizo, which is the intensive or frequentative form of bapto, ’I dip,’ and denotes to immerse or submerge. --Article by the late Marcus Dods.
There are no works of reference in more common use or in higher esteem than these three. The fact that the writers of the articles were Pedobaptists gives force to their admissions.
PROTESTANT DICTIONARY.--"Baptism.--This word is Greek, and signifies prop. dipping, a ceremonial washing with water, and is the name of one of the two sacraments ordained by Christ."
CATHOLIC DICTIONARY.--"In Apostolic times the body of the baptized person was immersed, for St. Paul looks on this immersion as typifying burial with Christ, and speaks of baptism as a bath."
CHURCH HISTORIANS, ETC.
MOSHEIM.--"In this century [i.e., the first century] baptism was administered in convenient places not in the public assemblies, and by immersing the candidates wholly in water."
NEANDER.--’The usual form of submersion at baptism, practiced by the Jews, was transferred to the Gentile Christians. Indeed, this form was the most suitable to signify that which Christ intended to render in object of contemplation by such a symbol; the immersion of the whole man in the spirit of a new life"--History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church by the Apostles.
KURTZ.--"Baptism was administered by complete immersion (Acts 8:38) in the name of Christ or of the Trinity (Matthew 28:19)."
SCHAFF.--"The usual form of baptism was immersion. This is inferred from the original meaning of the Greek baptizein and baptismos; from the analogy of John’s baptism in the Jordan; from the apostles’ comparison of the sacred rite with the miraculous passage of the Red Sea, with the escape of the ark from the flood, with a cleansing and refreshing bath, and with burial and resurrection; finally, from the general custom of the ancient church, which prevails in the East to this day."--History of the Church: Apostolic Christianity, A.D. 1-100.
GWATKIN.--"Immersion was the rule. The Jews were very strict, holding that even a ring on a woman’s finger prevented complete immersion; and though the Christians were not likely to be so pedantic, the whole symbolism of Baptism requires immersion, and so St. Paul explains it" (Romans 6:3-5).--Early Church History to A.D. 313.
FISHER.--"The ordinary mode of baptism was by immersion."--The History of the Church, Period I., "The Apostolic Age."
DOLLINGER.--"At first Christian Baptism commonly took place in the Jordan; of course as the Church spread more widely, in private houses also. Like that of St. John, it was by immersion of the whole person, which is the only meaning of the New Testament word. A mere pouring or sprinkling was never thought of. St. Paul made this immersion a symbol of burial with Christ, and the emerging a sign of resurrection with him to a new life: Baptism is a ’bath.’ Of the Ethiopian’s baptism it is said, that both he and Philip went down into the water and so the Evangelist baptized him."
ROBERTSON.--"Baptism was administered by immersion, except in cases of sickness, where affusion or sprinkling was used"--History of the Christian Church, Book I., 64-313 A.D.
BINGHAM refers to immersion or dipping as "the original apostolical practice," and quotes Romans 6:4. and Colossians 2:12 as passages "which plainly refer to this custom."--Antiquities of the Christian Church.
HARNACK.--"The ceremony of the individual’s immersion and emergence from the water served as a guarantee that old things were now washed away and gone, leaving him a new man.--The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries.
LAMBERT does not think "that the mode was ever treated as an absolute ceremonial necessity which could yield neither to time, place, nor circumstances," yet has the following: "The view that immersion was the original mode of baptism finds a very strong support in a figure which Paul uses both in Romans and Colossians in connection with a doctrinal reference to the sacrament (Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2:12). He speaks of baptism as a burial with Christ into death, and a rising again with him from the grave. Undoubtedly this shows that immersion was the usual mode of administering the rite as known to Paul."--The Sacraments in the New Testament.
ALLEN.--"The rite of baptism has undergone many changes in the lapse of time; immersion which was the prevailing mode in the ancient church, has given place to sprinkling or pouring."-- Christian Institutions.
MC GIFFERT.--"The ordinary mode of baptism in the apostolic age was immersion."--History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age.
E. TYRRELL GREEN.--"It is probable that S. John the Baptist immersed in Jordan those who came to him for baptism, and immersion of converts was, so far as we can gather, the regular practice of the Church in Apostolic times. The example of the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch by Philip the deacon would seem to be a clear case in point. There can be no doubt, too, that baptism by immersion was the normal practice of the Primitive Church."-- The Church of Christ.
SECONDARY MEANING OF
It will be noticed that lexicons from which we have quoted give various secondary meanings of baptizo, as to sink (ships), and to draw (wine). Liddell & Scott refer to its metaphorical usage by persons soaked in wine, over head and ears in debt, drowned with questions. Grimm adds to overwhelm.
Now, accepting all these secondary meanings, who is there so dull that he cannot see that not one of them is out of harmony with "dip," "immerse," "submerge," which the lexicons give as the primary meaning? And not one of them could ever have been the secondary meaning of a word meaning "sprinkle" or "pour." Mr. Madsen quotes Axtell as saying: "The drinking of wine, the buying of goods which brings debt upon one, the listening to hard questions, and such acts have no likeness to the act of dipping." When the Greeks used baptizo in connection with such things, it was never when the wine, the debts, or the questions were present in such scanty quantities as is the water at a Methodist "christening." There was a superabundance of wine, debt or questioning. In each case the man was metaphorically "overwhelmed." As Liddell & Scott say, he was ’soaked in wine,’ drowned with questions, over head and ears in debt. So it is with all the other secondary meanings. If baptizo be used in the sense of to draw wine from bowls in cups, then Liddell & Scott carefully explain that this was "of course by dipping them."
Consider this word from The Question of Baptism:
"Through 30 pages Dr. Axtell expounds and illustrates the usage of the word in Scripture and classical literature, and maintains:--(i) That baptizo, when used to express the idea of putting an object into a liquid meant not simply to dip, but to sink or drown."
Neither Axtell nor Madsen could prove that to save themselves from the penalty of baptism or drowning. But now let us ask, How could baptizo come to be used of the sinking of ships? What do ships do when they sink? Do they suffer the sprinkling of rain upon their decks in some way comparable to the sprinkling which Pedobaptists administer to infants? Or is it not the case that we say ships sink when they so go under the water as to be immersed or submerged?
About that drowning (which no lexicon that I have seen gives as a literal meaning of baptizo) Even if we were to accept the rendering, how would that favor a controversialist who is desperately anxious to prove sprinkling or pouring as valid baptism? If immersion be prolonged for a few minutes, the result may be drowning; there is thus no violent breach between the primary and this alleged meaning of baptizo. But suppose sprinkling were continued upon one--the quantity and rate of, say, Methodist sprinkling being maintained--what would be the result in that case? The poor man might die of cold, of exposure, of starvation, of old age, or even of ennui; but I venture to say that the last thing we could expect him to die of would be drowning. This is perhaps enough on this part. of the question, until Mr. Madsen will produce the reputable lexicons which tell us that baptizo means to drown. We would have thought that Josephus, who lived from 37 to 95 A.D., and who wrote in Greek, might have understood the Greek language and its meaning as well as Axtell. Josephus wrote of the murder of Aristobulus: "Continually pressing down and immersing [baptizing] him while swimming, as if in sport, they did not desist till they had entirely suffocated him."--Antiquities XV., 3, 3.
Again:--
"The child was sent by night to Jericho, and was there dipped [baptized] by the Galls, at Herod’s command, in a pool till he was drowned."--Wars XXII., 22, 2. That was no sprinkling, though Josephus calls it a baptizing. These passages also prove that while yet the drowning came as a result of the baptizing, the word baptizo did not for Josephus mean "drown." No one speaks of drowning a person till he is drowned or suffocated.
We are not sure whether amazement or amusement will predominate in the case of those who witness the extraordinary defenses of their position which men will put forth in their hour of need. We have just noted the attempt to get baptizo mean to drown, though how that would benefit anybody whose only warrant for the ordinance is the commission, which includes the word baptizo, is not very clear. The Spectator, the organ, of the Methodist Church in Victoria, in its issue of October 25, 1912, has the yet more audacious statement:--"Most of the authorities hold that to immerse is to drown."
We have asked for the authority which proves that the Greek word baptizo means "to drown." Now, we shall request that some authority--other than The Spectator,--be given for the position that "to immerse is to drown." Our friends need not give us "most of the authorities"; one will do to begin with. Some folk believe that the immersion of hundreds of people during the Scoville mission was not unconnected with the concern now manifested in Pedobaptists ranks. We are glad to reassure the editor of The Spectator by saying that no homicide was committed by any baptizer; not one of the hundreds immersed was drowned. John Wesley wrote on Romans 6:4. "We are buried with him.--Alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion." It is pathetic to consider what nonsense Dr. Axtell, Mr. Madsen and The Spectator (who between them declare that both "baptize" and "immerse" mean "drown") would make the honored founder of Methodism write. Yet, I am loth to believe that John Wesley meant (nay, at the risk of rashness I shall confidently declare he did not mean) "the ancient manner of drowning by drowning." In several places Mr. Madsen refers to the admission of Dr. Carson, who pleaded that baptizo "always signifies to dip," that all the commentators and lexicographers were against him in this opinion. We would call attention to the fact that Carson appealed to the lexicons as supporting his contention with reference to the primary meaning. He said: "I should consider it the most unreasonable skepticism, to deny that a word has a meaning, which all lexicons give as its primary meaning. On this point, I have no quarrel with the lexicons. There is the most complete harmony among them, in representing dip as the primary meaning of bapto and baptize." But Carson denied that the lexicographers made out their case so far as the alleged secondary meanings were concerned. In our treatment, we have not entered into this question; supposing the secondary meanings to be granted, it is still true that dip, and not sprinkle or pour, is at the basis of all the secondary and figurative meanings. No lexicon is quoted by our Pedobaptists friends as giving either "sprinkle" or "pour" even as a secondary meaning. Why we take the trouble to mention this matter at all is that Mr. Madsen harps on all the lexicons being admittedly against Dr. Carson to such an extent that the unwary reader who does not know a word of Greek might suppose that our Methodist friend had got an admission from a Baptist author that the lexicons somehow favored pouring or sprinkling; than which nothing could be more unfounded.
LUTHER AND CALVIN.
We revere the names of these men, but cannot recognize their authority. Our Lord’s command remains the same, whatever Calvin and Luther said of it. In the statement of Dr. Antell’s position (which the author of The Question of Baptism; evidently adopts, else his elaborate summary is superfluous) is the following: "The Bible doctrine and mode were restored at the Reformation. Luther favored sprinkling. Calvin preferred pouring."--p. 118.
Axtell is quoted by Mr. Madsen as holding that in the centuries after the apostolic age, an unscriptural mode, viz., dipping, became the general rule. The fact that all the church historians already quoted are against him on this point of course matters not to this Pedobaptists apologist. As to the rest of the above paragraph concerning the Reformation and the reformers, we invite a reading of the following from Dr. Philip Schaff, at once one of the most strenuous Pedobaptists advocates and a leading church historian: "The mode of baptism was no point of dispute between Anabaptists and Pedobaptists in the sixteenth century. The Roman Church provides for immersion and pouring as equally valid. Luther preferred immersion, and prescribed it in his baptismal service. In England immersion was the normal mode down to the middle of the seventeenth century."--Schaffs History of the Church; "Swiss Reformation," Vol. I., p. 8. In a footnote, Schaff says:--"Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth were immersed, according to the rubric of the English Prayer Book. Erasmus says, ’With us’ (on the Continent) ’infants have the water poured on them; in England they are dipped."
Schaff quotes Luther’s own words when he wishes to set forth Luther’s doctrine, a practice I would venture to commend to the author of The Question of Baptism, when a second edition is contemplated. "’Baptism,’ he says, ’is that dipping into water whence it takes its name. For, in Greek to baptize signifies to dip, and baptism is a dipping.’ ’Baptism signifies two things,--death and resurrection, that is, full and complete justification. When the minister dips the child into the water, this signifies death; when he draws him out again, this signifies life. Thus Paul explains the mattes (Romans 6:4). .. I could wish that the baptized should be totally immersed, according to the meaning of the word and the signification of the mystery; not that I think it necessary to do so, but that it would be well that so complete and perfect a thing as baptism should also be completely and perfectly expressed in the sign."--Reformation, A.D. 1517-1530, I., pp. 218, 219. In Wace and Bucheim’s translation of "On the Babylonish Captivity of the Church," in their book First Principles of the Reformation, the closing sentence given by Schaff is rendered thus: "it would be well that so complete and perfect a thing as baptism should have its sign also in completeness and perfection, even as it was doubtless instituted by Christ." We leave the unprejudiced reader to form his own conclusion as to whether the position of the greatest of the reformers is adequately represented in the three words given to it in Mr. Madsen’s book: "Luther favored sprinkling."
Schaff refers to and quotes from John Calvin: "Calvin regarded immersion as the primitive form of baptism, but pouring or sprinkling as equally valid." "He says, Instit. IV. ch. xv., Sec. 19:’Whether the person who is baptized be wholly immersed, and whether thrice or once, or whether water be only poured or sprinkled upon him, is of no importance; churches ought to be left at liberty in this respect to act according to the difference of countries. The very word baptize, however, signifies to immerse; and it is certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient church.’"--"Swiss Reformation," II., p. 373.
John Calvin was a great and learned man, and we would rather listen to him than to some modern Pedobaptists; but yet he was not a great enough man for us to follow when he calmly says it "is of no importance" whether or not we adhere to what was the primitive practice and the very meaning of the word given by our Lord.
NEW TESTAMENT TEACHING.
Doctrines of men may interest us, views of great reformers may well merit attention, and statements of church historians as to postapostolic practice may not be unimportant; but after all the believer in Jesus Christ will seek for guidance as to the action of baptism in the Scriptures. He will want to know whether the dipping, immersion, submersion, which lexicons agree to be the primary meaning of the ward baptizo are in harmony with the New Testament teaching and practice. Such a reader will soon find that there is complete harmony here.
We may appropriately begin with the baptism of Jesus, our great Exemplar. In Mark 1:9, we are told Jesus "was baptized of John in the Jordan." Matthew 3:16 and Mark 1:10 represent the Saviour after baptism as "coming up out of the water." The Greek preposition in Mark 1:9 (see R.V., margin) is "into"; Mark says the baptism was "into the Jordan."
It is common to try to break the force of this by saying that John baptized so many people that it was a physical impossibility for him to immerse them all. Mr. Madsen (p. 110) has the usual objection, referring to a number "estimated as ranging from 300,000 to two millions, and within a period of six months." When our friends give us a scriptural statement as to the numbers baptized by John personally and the time within which the baptism took place, we may be willing to do a sum in proportion; but it is idle to try our arithmetic on guesses. The Scripture passage supposed to contain the difficulty is Matthew 2:5-6 : "Then went out unto him Jerusalem, and all Jordan, and all the region round about Jordan; and they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins." There is one way of testing whether sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, constituted the baptism here. If "baptize" means "sprinkle" or "pour," then the word it means may be substituted for it in the above passage. The reader is invited to make this substitution, and see if he thinks the result is in harmony with what happened. "Were immersed of him in the river Jordan" at least makes sense. "Poured in" or "sprinkled in" does not.
Again, it might not be quite superfluous to point out that the average time taken up in a Pedobaptists sprinkling is no less than that in the average immersion. Would Mr. Madsen seek to get rid of the difficulty in John’s baptism by accepting and defending John Wesley’s solution:
"It seems, therefore, that they stood in ranks on the edge of the river; and that John, passing along before them, cast water on their faces, by which means he might baptize many thousands in a day"? Of course, Wesley, though picturesque, was wrong; for it is the Word of God which says John baptized "in the river Jordan" and "into the Jordan." Candidates came "up out of the water," so that they must have been down into it.
We have already cited Pedobaptists scholars--Gayford in Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, Schaff, Dellinger, and Green--as holding that John immersed people; Stanley, Geikie, Edersheim, Meyer, may be added.
E. H. Plumptre says emphatically: "Immersion had clearly been practiced by John, and was involved in the original meaning of the word."
The Ethiopian Eunuch. The account of the baptism of Jesus agrees with the record in Acts 8:36-39 of the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch. There was a going "down into the water" and a coming "up out of the water." It has been held by some that the "into" of verse 38 may only denote close proximity to; but Luke before said (v. 36) they came "unto" the water, and now says that as a subsequent act they went "down into" it. If an endeavor be made to break the force of this by saying that, even if they were in the water, still sprinkling could be the act performed, we reply (a) that the very reason which now generally keeps those who practice sprinkling or pouring from going down into the water (since there is no need for such a cumbrous method) would have kept Philip from doing such a superfluous thing; while the reason which now makes a candidate for immersion go "down into" the water would sufficiently explain why the eunuch went down; (b) we learn from Romans 6:4 that baptism is a burial. So, after the eunuch went down into the water, he was there buried in baptism, and subsequently came up out of the water. We could trust any unprejudiced person who desired simply to follow Bible teaching and example to read these passages and learn from them his duty. In The Question of Baptism there appears the following passage: "The Rev. Isaac Rooney, F.R.G.S., who has been through the Holy Land, writes from personal observation: ’Ain Jala, on the road to Gaza, where the Ethiopian Eunuch was baptized, is not a well or pool, but a little stream flowing from a spring.’ To immerse a man in it is out of the question." That is perhaps the funniest word in a book whose author has preserved it from insipidity by the insertion of many curious statements. We have not the honor of the acquaintance of "the Rev. Isaac Rooney, F.R.G.S.," which of course is not surprising when it is considered that "from personal observation" he can tell us of the eunuch’s baptism and its location! As a fact, the scene of the eunuch’s baptism is still keenly debated by scholars. Robinson refers to Wady-el-Hasy. Thomson, in The Land and the Bible, has another suggestion: " There is a fine stream of water, called Murubbah, deep enough even in June to satisfy the utmost wishes of our Baptist friends." While we do not know the site, we have the authority of the Word of God for the statement that there was water enough for two men to go down into it, and for the one there to baptize the other; baptism being a "burial." Not all Pedobaptists are unable to see that immersion harmonizes, as sprinkling does not, with the record of the eunuch’s baptism. "The context," writes R. J. Knowling in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, "indicates that the baptism was by immersion, and there can be no doubt that this was the custom in the early church."
Baptism a Burial. From Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12 we learn that the early Christians were buried with Christ in baptism. In sprinkling, or pouring, there is no enveloping, no covering up, such as is implied in the word "buried"; in immersion there is. Some Pedobaptists endeavor to destroy the argument from Romans 6:4 by saying that Jewish, Greek, or Roman burials were not as ours. But different modes of burial do not conflict with the fact that in burial, however performed, there is a covering up which harmonizes with what takes place in immersion, and which fails to harmonize with the act performed when a minister sprinkles water on the head or face of a child. In the Methodist tract, Does Scripture Teach Immersion? published by the Spectator Co., this argument occurs: "Burial, amongst the Greeks was regarded as having been officially performed when a little dust was sprinkled over the body. See the Antigone of Sophocles, p. 27, Donaldson’s edition, ’Someone has just now Entombed the body and is gone; that is, He has sprinkled thirsty dust over the corpse, And done what else religious fear requires.’ The second example is in Virgil’s ^neid, 6:365, Bowen’s Edition. Here again the same thing, i.e., a body, lying unburied, is described, and the dead hero is made to say: ’Save me from these great sorrows my hero Over me pour Earth as in truth thou canst, And return to the Velin shore.’" This part of the tract must have been written in the hope that the reader would not look up the passages referred to. We shall give a line or two more from "Antigone," and, since Donaldson’s is the translation selected by the Spectator Company, we use this. The tract referred to lines 245-247; in lines 255, 256, the same sentinel is represented as saying:
"For he Was out of sight, not closed within a tomb, But lightly overheapt with sprinkled dust, As when some passer-by will shun the curse." Of course the Greek word baptizo does not appear in the above passage; and it is clear that, if the dust were sprinkled in such abundance as to overheap the body and put it "out of sight," then there must be a very strained analogy between it and a Pedobaptists sprinkling.
Regarding the quotation from the ^neid: some readers may need to be reminded that this was written in Latin, not in Greek. There is no light thrown by the passage on Paul’s words, "buried with him in baptism." Why did the author of the tract use Bowen’s edition? Because the word "pour" in it is suggestive of the pouring--which the tract writer calls baptism. But the Latin word for "pour" is not in the original at all. For the reader who know even the rudiments of Latin, it will be a sufficient refutal of the attempted argument to say that the words which Bowers renders "pour earth" are terram iniice." Inicio means throw or cast in, on, or over. J. W. Mackail renders Virgil’s words: "Either do, then, for thou canst, cast earth over me." John Conington, once Corpus Professor of Latin in Oxford University, translates:
"And either heap, as well as you can, Some earth upon a wretched man."
It is a most unworthy thing to try to get the ignorant to believe that somehow Virgil, the great Latin poet, has settled it that a little pouring is equivalent to burial, and this with a view to keep men from going down into the water and being buried with their Saviour in baptism. If the same effort were put forth to lead people to obey as is being spent in ingenious attempts to keep them from obedience, it would be well. It must not, however, be supposed that all Pedobaptists waiters descend to such argumentation as that to which we have just replied. Many of the ablest and most scholarly Pedobaptists advocates candidly allow, that Rom, 6:4 and Colossians 2:12 imply immersion. Already we have referred to J. V. Bartlet (Hastings’ Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics), Gwatkin, Dollinger, Bingham and Lambert, and John Wesley as holding this view. In addition we beg to quote the following striking admissions: "We are buried with Him (in the act of immersion) through that baptism into His death."--James Denney on Romans 6:4 in Expositor’s Greek Testament.
"The rite of baptism, in which the person baptized was first buried beneath the water, and then raised from it, typified to Paul the burial and resurrection of the believer with Christ."--A. S. Peake on Colossians 2:12 in Expositor’s Greek Testament.
"Baptism has three parts--descent into, burial under, and ascent out of, the water."
"Paul’s statement assumes that baptism is by immersion."--A. E. Garvie, in The Century Bible.
"Immersion is implied in Romans 6:4, and Colossians 2:12."--A. Plummer, in Hastings’ Bible Dictionary.
"The figure was naturally suggested by the immersion in baptism, which St. Paul interprets as symbolical of burial, the emersion similarly symbolizing the rising again to newness of life."--T. K. Abbott, on Colossians 2:12, in International Critical Commentary.
"Baptism is the grave of the old man, and the birth of the new. As he sinks beneath the baptismal waters, the believer buries there all his corrupt affections and past sins; as he emerges thence, he rises regenerate, quickened to new hopes and a new life. This it is, because it is not only the crowning act of his own faith but also the seal of God’s adoption and the earnest of God’s Spirit. Thus baptism is an image of his participation both in the death and in the resurrection of Christ."--LiGHTFooT on Colossians 2:12.
"This passage cannot be understood unless it be borne in mind that the primitive baptism was by immersion."--CONYBEARE & Howson on Romans 6:4.
"The original meaning of the word baptism is immersion, and though we regard it as a point of indifferency, whether the ordinance so named be performed in this way or by sprinkling--yet we doubt not, that the prevalent style of the administration in the apostle’s days was by an actual submerging of the whole body under water. We advert to this, for the purpose of throwing light on the analogy that is instituted in these verses."--CHALMERS on Romans 6:3-4.
"Baptism has a double function. (1) It brings the Christian into personal contact with Christ, so close that it may be fitly described as union with Him. (2) It expresses symbolically a series of acts corresponding to the redeeming acts of Christ.
Immersion = Death.
Submersion = Burial (the ratification of Death).
Emergence = Resurrection."
"When we descended into the baptismal water, that meant that we died with Christ--to sin. When the water closed over our heads, that meant that we lay buried with him, in proof that our death to sin, like His death, was real. But this carries with it the third step in the process. As Christ was raised from among the dead by a majestic exercise of Divine power, so we also must from henceforth conduct ourselves as men in whom has been implanted a new principle of life." Sanday & Headlam, in International Critical Commentary. In The Spectator of September 20, in "Current Topics," under the initials "A.M.", appeared the following remarks on the present subject:
"If our Lord had died by drowning instead of by crucifixion, then these passages would support the meaning for which the writer [of a note to A.M.] contends. The passages are: ’Buried with Him by baptism into death;’ ’Planted together in the likeness of His death.’ These refer to the ’likeness’ of Christ’s death. Our Saviour was lifted up on the Cross, not plunged down into a submerging method of death. How can dipping under water correspond to the ’likeness of His death?’"
Extra publicity is perhaps sufficient punishment for the above. It is in harmony with the emphatic reminder in The Question of Baptism that we are buried, "’by baptism into His death, not by baptism into His grave." In reply we give two quotations from Pedobaptists authorities. The first is from the leading commentary on Romans: "But why is baptism said to be specially ’into Christ’s death’? The reason is because it is owing primarily to the death of Christ that the condition into which the Christian enters at his baptism is such a changed condition."--SANDAY & Headlam. The second is from Dummelow’s Commentary, quoted from by Mr. Madsen, and so admired by the Methodist Church of Victoria that it is a text book at Queen’s College: "Our baptism implied such a breaking-away from the old sinful life as may be compared to death." "Our baptism signified an identification of our hearts and wills with Christ which amounted to a real union with Him, so that, while we look to His death as the ground of our acceptance, we also identify ourselves with that alienation from the sin of the world which crucified Him, of which His death was the final stage." "Therefore, our immersion beneath the waters of baptism signified death and burial with Christ from the sinful life of the world. But it is not only His death that is ours. We come up out of the water, as He rose from the dead, that we might begin to live in a new condition animated by His risen life." The number of Pedobaptists scholars of the front rank who have been cited as holding that "burial with him in baptism" refers to immersion most effectually gets rid of the suggestion of the author of The Question of Baptism, that this is a special Baptist interpretation. A word in passing may be spared in reply to Mr. Madsen’s criticism that immersionists present a "conflicting symbolism of baptism," when they speak of the believer being born of water and yet as being in baptism buried with Christ. The quotations given above from Peake, Abbott, and Sanday & Headlam, remove the apparent conflict. Mr. Madsen might have reflected, though, that he could with precisely the same degree of relevancy--or irrelevancy--have found fault with the Scriptural reference to Christ’s emergence from the grave in which he was buried; Christ is "the first-born from the dead" (Colossians 1:18).
"John also was baptizing in ^non near to Salim, because there was much water there." So says the inspired apostle. That "because" does not suit sprinkling or pouring. Mr. Madsen refers to the people’s needs or the requirements of the "beasts of burden," as being the reason of the choice of location. The "beasts of burden" here are as imaginary as we saw that the infants were in the baptism texts and the baptism in the infant texts. The apostle says John baptized at ^non, because there was much water there. As usual, we prefer the Bible statement to Mr. Madsen’s gratuitous imagination. Mr. Madsen baptizes nowhere because of much water: he does not need it. Dr. Marcus Dods thus answers the contention of his less famous Pedobaptists brothers: "’Because many waters were there,’ or ’much water; and therefore even in summer baptism by immersion could be continued. It is not the people’s refreshment’ that is in view. Why mention this any more than where they got their food?"--.Expositor’s Greek Testament.
Baptism of Suffering.
We read of Jesus’ "baptism" of suffering in Mark 10:38 and Luke 12:50. Why is this metaphorical language employed? Clearly because the Saviour’s suffering was so great, so intense, that he seemed to be enveloped, overwhelmed, by it. To liken his suffering to a sprinkling would be abhorrent to every believer. So the Oxford "Helps to the Study of the Bible" says: "The original mode of baptism was immersion. Hence the metaphorical use of the word of an overwhelming sorrow." So also Principal Salmond calls it "another figure for suffering, overwhelming suffering in which one is immersed or submerged."
Baptism in the Holy Spirit. In several places in the New Testament we have mention of baptism in the Holy Spirit (e.g., Matthew 2:11; Acts 1:5; Acts 11:16). This language is figurative. Whether baptism is sprinkling, pouring or immersion, no one believes either that people were literally sprinkled, poured or immersed in the Spirit, or that the Holy Spirit was literally poured or sprinkled upon them. The baptism in the Holy Spirit is only explicable on the view that the Spirit so took possession of those who were recipients of it that they might fitly be said to be enveloped in or overwhelmed by it. Neander says: "In respect to the form of baptism, it was in conformity with the original institution and the original import of the symbol, performed by immersion, as a sign of entire baptism into the Holy Spirit, of being entirely penetrated by the same."--Church History, I., p. 422. When the Scriptures describe the action of God in sending the Spirit in such abundant measure upon men that the result could be called a baptism, they use such expressions as these: "On the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 10:45). "He hath shed [R.V., poured] forth this" (Acts s: 33). In the Methodist tract, Does Scripture Teach Immersion? we have a reference to such texts under the heading, "How God Baptized"; the writer stating: "No jugglery with words can get away from God’s plain definition given in this passage. Baptism means pouring, and by that method the true baptism, that of the Spirit, was given on Pentecost."
Let us examine this. (i) If because the Holy Spirit is stated to have been poured out, we may therefore say pouring is baptism, what about the text, "The Holy Spirit fell on them" (Acts 11:15)? Will some brilliant exegete found a new sect with "falling" as the Scriptural mode of baptism? (2) We call attention to the fact that our Pedobaptists friends confuse two things, viz., the act of God in sending the Spirit, and the resultant effect on the disciples. That effect was such that the disciples, as it were, were overwhelmed by, immersed in, the Spirit. Plumptre, the well-known Church of England commentator, thus refers to this baptism of the apostles: "Their spirits were to be so fully baptized, i.e., plunged, into the power of the Divine Spirit, as their bodies had been plunged in the waters of the Jordan" (on Acts 1:5). (3) We wish to emphasize this, that if "baptism means pouring," then the thing poured is the thing baptized, and vice versa. If the Holy Spirit was poured, and if pouring is baptism, then it was the Holy Spirit that was baptized! "No jugglery with words" can disprove that. Similarly if the disciples were baptized, and if baptism is pouring, then the disciples were poured! But the Holy Spirit was not baptized, nor were the disciples poured: the Bible teaching is that God poured out the Spirit in such profusion that as a result the disciples were baptized. (4) When the Bible says the Holy Spirit was poured or shed (Acts 2:17-18; Acts 2:33; Acts 10:45), it has to be borne in mind that the word thus translated is ekcheo, not baptizo. Nobody disputes that the former word means pour out, but we ask in vain for a shred of evidence that baptizo has this meaning.
Amongst the passages which Mr. Madsen thinks definitely exclude immersion is the above. Paul says:--"Our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." It is plain that the chief point of the comparison made by Paul between the Israelites and the Christians to whom he was writing was that as the "fathers" were baptized into a new relationship to Moses, so were the Christians baptized into a new relation to Christ. As Prof. Findlay in The Expositor’s Greek Testament puts it: "’They all received their baptism unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea,’ since in this act they committed themselves to the guidance of Moses, entering through him into acknowledged fellowship with God." Does Paul’s allusion show that baptism is not necessarily immersion?
Mr. Madsen says: "The baptism of the cloud was probably by rain drops, and of the sea by flying spray. But it was the glory of the passage through the sea that not a man of Israel’s pilgrim people was immersed. When Pharaoh’s host attempted the passage, they received immersion, with disastrous consequences."
Briefly we may reply: (1) The baptism of 1 Corinthians 10:1-2 must surely be interpreted in harmony with what the same writer said in Romans 6:4 of baptism as a burial. (2) Mr. Madsen seems to imply that there was a baptism "of the cloud" and a baptism "of the sea." Now Paul gives no hint that there was a baptism in the cloud, or in the sea, separately; but "in the cloud and in the sea." "The cloud was over the upraised and congealed walls, and the people passed through this sea-cloud channel." (3) Mr. Madsen’s rain-drops are imaginary ones; a reference to Exodus 12:21-22 will show that the cloud is not represented as a watery cloud, but that which led the people as a pillar of fire by night and as a cloud by day. (4) The alleged baptism by flying spray of the sea is out of harmony with two Biblical facts: (i) the waters were congealed (Exodus 15:8); (ii.) the Israelites passed over by dry ground (Exodus 14:29). This forbids the sprinkling of rain as the baptism. Again, if spray had been blown across a channel wide enough to allow a company containing six hundred thousand men, besides children and cattle (Exodus 12:37), to cross in a single night, let the reader judge how "dry" the ground on the one side must have been! (5) Yes, the "Egyptians were immersed, and more than immersed; they were drowned; but the Israelites were simply baptized." Not all Pedobaptists are inclined to cavil at 1 Corinthians 10:1-2. Schaff would infer immersion from this very passage. So would Prof. Knowling. Plummer gives it as his opinion that: "Being under the cloud points to submersion, while passing through the sea may signify emersion."--Article on "Baptism," in Hastings’ Bible Dictionary.
Meyer, on 1 Corinthians 10:2, says of the preposition en, "in," that it is local, "’indicating the element in which, by immersion and emergence, the baptism was effected."
Alford comments: "’Received baptism to Moses;’ entered by the act of such immersion into a solemn covenant with God." "The allegory is obviously not to be pressed minutely: for neither did they enter the cloud nor were they wetted by the waters of the sea; but they passed under both, as the baptized passes under the water."-- Commentary on 1 Corinthians 10:2.
Peter says: "While the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water: which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism." Whereupon Mr. Madsen remarks: "These eight souls--saved through water--were not immersed; that was reserved for the people who remained outside the ark."
How does this help a man who says sprinkling or pouring is baptism? We thought the pouring also was reserved for the disobedient outsiders! It was not a little sprinkling that either saved Noah’s company or drowned the others! Peter says that Noah was saved by water; he also says that in a sense water (in the antitype, baptism) saves the Christians. There is nothing here inconsistent with the thought of immersion. Prof. Knowling, E. H. Plumptre and other Pedobaptists believe that the type of the Flood presupposes immersion as baptism.
Baptism of Three Thousand. From Acts 2:41 is inferred the baptism of three thousand persons in one day. Mr. Madsen says that "to assert that these were all immersed is to defy probability." He quotes Mr. Rooney as saying that such immersion "was a physical and geographical impossibility. Jerusalem is on a hill, and there is no pool of water in which people could be immersed."
There were acres of water within easy distance, including the following pools: Bethesda, Solomon’s Pool, Siloam, Old Pool, Pool of Hezekiah, Upper and Lower Gihon. Josephus mentions places of bathing in the Tower of Antonia.
Mr. Madsen brings in the usual objection that the Jews would not allow their waters to be polluted. From John 5:1-4; John 9:7-11, we learn that such objection does not lie against Siloam and Bethesda. But it has been further objected that these pools were in the charge of the apostles’ enemies; and so the use would be withheld. Mr. Madsen hints at this when he remarks on the improbability of water being available "for the sake of Christian baptism in the city which crucified Jesus Christ." It is wonderful how often the Scriptures contain answers to modern objectors: Luke annihilates the above objection when he says that the disciples had "favor with all the people" (Acts 2:47). but Mr. Rooney says it was a physical impossibility! How many qualified baptizers were there? We know not; there were twelve apostles, but numbers besides, for the company of disciples amounted to one hundred and twenty (Acts 1:15), and it was long before the days when clerical hands alone were supposed to validate the sacraments. But suppose only the twelve apostles officiated. If Peter spoke for three hours (he began about 9 a.m.; see Acts 2:15), then baptizing could begin at noon. A man can easily immerse another in a minute; twelve could baptize twelve in a minute, seven hundred and twenty in an hour, and three thousand in four hours and ten minutes. So the apostles could have done it all themselves in an afternoon, with time enough to take a rest for one hour and three quarters in the middle of their work. Still, someone may say: You cannot do baptizing according to the rule of three; theoretically it could be done, but, practically, not so. Well, in the Telugu country in India, on July 3rd, 1878, there were 24 baptized in one day. At six o’clock in the morning two native preachers took their place in the river. When these two became tired, two others took their places, and they in turn were relieved by still other two. At eleven the work stopped for the usual midday meal and rest. It was resumed at two, and about five o’clock the converts had been "buried with Christ in baptism" by six men, only two of them officiating at the same time. Not all Pedobaptists write foolishly about "a physical and geographical impossibility." E. H. Plumptre, in Ellicott’s New Testament Commentary, says of the baptism of the three thousand: "(1) Immersion had clearly been practiced by John, and was involved in the original meaning of the word, and it is not likely that the rite would have been curtailed of its full proportions at the very outset. (2) The symbolic meaning of the act required immersion in order that it might be clearly manifested, and Romans 6:4 and 1 Peter 2:21, seem almost of necessity to imply the more complete mode. The pools or swimming-baths of Bethesda and Siloam (see John 5:7; John 9:7), or the so-called Pool of the Virgin, near the Temple enclosure, or the bathing-places within the Tower of Antony (Jos. Wars, V. 5, section 8), may well have helped to make the process easy." What of Rev. Rooney’s "no pool" and "geographical impossibility after this?
Baptism of the Samaritans. Of the baptisms recorded in Acts 8:12, Mr. Madsen writes: "A similar difficulty as to the water supply has to be met in conceiving the Samaritan revival, with the subsequent baptism of multitudes, as being by immersion. If this transpired in the capital city, it would appear that Jacob’s Well was its reservoir. Upon that supposition, it is to be remembered that, in Christ’s time a woman of the city came out to the well to draw water. It is scarcely thinkable that the well could be used for immersing the converts, since the woman of Samaria knew of no other place where water could be had" (p. 111). No passage in The Question of Baptism shows more confusion or inaccuracy than this. Nobody ever suggested, in spite of Mr. Madsen’s implication, that "the Samaritan revival" was "by immersion"! Mr. Madsen calmly takes it for granted that "the capital city" was the city from which the woman of Samaria referred to in John 4:1-54 came to draw water at Jacob’s Well. John 4:3 definitely tells us that Sychar was the city to which Jesus came. Now Sychar was not "the capital city." The capital city was of old called Samaria, and since the time of Herod the Great Sebaste; it was miles away from Jacob’s Well.
Nobody with knowledge of Palestinian geography fancies that the people of "the capital pity" were dependent upon Jacob’s Well for drinking or baptizing. The city of Sebaste had plenty of water of its own. Josephus says Hyrcanus "brought streams to drown it"; while this could only refer to the lower part of the city, it is clear that there was water enough nearby. Sir Charles Wilson refers to "two fine springs" in the vicinity of the modern village, "from which small streams flow for a short distance." I may add that while it used to be debated whether Luke in Acts 8:5 referred to "a city of Samaria," or to the capital city, the revisers, because of the weight of manuscript authority, have adopted the reading "the city of Samaria." This means "the capital city." Further, when Mr. Madsen says "the woman of Samaria knew of no other place where water could be had," he pens what he must know he could not prove if his life depended upon it.
We must express our sorrow at having to answer such an argument as that which we have quoted above from The Question of Baptism. Whether it was due to the lamentable ignorance of the author thereof, or to his unbounded confidence in the ignorance of those he would be likely to succeed in keeping from baptism, we do not know.
Ezekiel 36:25. The Methodist tract previously referred to cites Ezekiel 36:25 as deciding by "word of prophecy" that sprinkling is baptism. It says: "How perfectly the change of heart in His people is described. Dr. Guthrie called it ’the Gospel in Ezekiel.’ And God symbolizes it by the sprinkling of water. ’Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean. From all your filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse you.’ Is anything more beautiful than that?"
No; nothing is more beautiful than that; and nothing is more gratuitous or incapable of proof than that the prophecy refers to baptism. There is no such identification in Scripture. The tract writer refers to Dr. Guthrie. Guthrie in his book, The Gospel in Ezekiel, correctly describes the "clean water" referred to by Ezekiel. He calls our attention to Numbers 19:1-22, where the "water of separation" or purification is described. Guthrie writes: "The water is such as the Jews understood by clean water--not free from impurity, and in itself clean, but that maketh clean--in the words of the ceremonial law, ’water of purifying.’ This was prepared according to a divinely appointed ritual. Look how it was prepared, and you shall see it reddening and changing into blood" (p. 244).’
After alluding to Numbers 19:1-22 and the ashes of the red heifer therein referred to, Guthrie says: "These [the ashes], being carefully collected, are mixed with pure water in a pure vessel--and that water is the clean water of my text" (p. 245).
Guthrie rightly finds such water typical of something higher even than baptism. A century ago the challenge was made by Alexander Campbell that anyone would show where sprinkling or pouring mere water on any person for any moral, ceremonial or religious use, was ever done by the authority of God since the world began. The challenge is not met by referring to Ezekiel 36:25; for illustrious Pedobaptists confess that that "clean water" was not water by itself. The sprinkling of Ezekiel 36:25, moreover, was done by God; baptism in water has been committed to Christ’s disciples as their work, and for the performance of that there is a going down into the water, a burial therein, and a coming up out of the water.