02.2. CHAPTER 2. BAPTISTS CONSIDER THE IMMERSION IN WATER OP A BELIEVER IN CHRIST ESSENTIAL. ...

CHAPTER 2. BAPTISTS CONSIDER THE IMMERSION IN WATER OP A BELIEVER IN CHRIST ESSENTIAL. TO BAPTISM SO ESSENTIAL THAT WITHOUT IT THERE IS NO BAPTISM.

SECTION I.

Greek lexicons give “immerse,” “dip” or “plunge”
as the primary, ordinary, and literal meaning of “baptizo.” IN the common version of the Scriptures baptizo and baptisma are Anglicized, but not translated. This is invariably true of the latter term, and it is true of the former whenever the ordinance of baptism is referred to. Baptismos is used four times. In three instances it has no reference to the baptismal ordinance, and is translated “washing;” which washing was evidently the result of immersion. In the other instance it is Anglicized. Bapto, from which baptizo is derived, is employed in the Greek New Testament three times, and emBapto three times. Both are translated “dip” in the common version. There is no more difference in their meaning than there is between the word “dip” and the phrase “dip in.”

These verbs are never used in connection with baptism as a religious ordinance; baptizo is the verb always used.

I have referred to baptizo and baptisma as Anglicized words. By this it is meant that their termination is made to correspond with the termination of English words. In baptizo the final letter is changed into e, and in baptisma the last letter is dropped altogether. To make this matter of Anglicism perfectly plain, it is only necessary to say that if the Greek rantizo, meaning “sprinkle,” had been Anglicized, we should have “rantize” in the New Testament wherever we now have “sprinkle.” The version of the Bible now in common use was made by order of King James I. of England, and was first published in the year 1611. The king gave a number of rules for the guidance of his translators, and the third rule virtually forbids the translation of “baptize” and “baptism.” This third rule is as follows: “The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, as the word ‘church’ not to be translated ‘congregation.’” It is absurd to say that this rule had exclusive reference to the term “church,” for this term is manifestly given as a specimen of “old ecclesiastical words;” and why should “words” be mentioned if the rule was to be applied to but one word? The question, then, is, Are “baptism” and “baptize” “old ecclesiastical words”? They were words when the Bible was translated, or they would not be found in it. They had been used by church historians and by writers on ecclesiastical law, and were, therefore, ecclesiastical. They had been in use a long time, and were, consequently, old. They were “old ecclesiastical words,” such words as the king commanded “to be kept” “not to be translated.” It is worthy of notice, too, that the Bishop of London, at the king’s instance, wrote to the translators, reminding them that His Majesty wished his “third and fourth rule” to be specially observed. [Note: See Lewis’s History of Translations, pp. 317, 319.] This circumstance must have called particular attention to the rule under consideration. In view of these facts, it may surely be said that the translators knew what were “old ecclesiastical words.” Let their testimony, then, be adduced. In their “Preface to the Reader” they say that they had, “on the one side, avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who left the old ecclesiastical words and betook them to other, as when they put washing ‘for’ baptism ‘and’ congregation ‘for’ church; and, on the other hand, had shunned the obscurity of the Papists.” Is not this enough? Here there is not only an admission that “baptism” was included in the “old ecclesiastical words,” but this admission is made by the translators themselves made most cheerfully, for it was made in condemnation of the Puritans and in commendation of themselves. The position that King James virtually forbade the translation of “baptize” and “baptism” is established by the foregoing considerations; but to give it additional strength I refer to the king’s fourth rule, as follows: “When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most eminent Fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place and the analogy of faith. Suppose I were to admit, for argument’s sake, what some Pedobaptists insist on namely, that baptizo has divers significations. What then? Every man of intelligence knows that from the days of the apostles to the reign of King James “immerse” was its commonly-received meaning. Was not immersion ordinarily practised for thirteen hundred years Dr. Whitby, Dr. Wall, Professor Moses Stuart, and I know not how many other Pedobaptists of distinction, make this concession. Far be it from me to say that baptizo is a word of “divers significations” but even if it were, the king’s translators, if they had translated it at all, would have been compelled to render it “immerse,” for it was “most commonly used” in this sense by “the most eminent Fathers.” But it will be seen that the king’s third rule makes inoperative his fourth, so far as “old ecclesiastical words” are concerned. Whether such words have one meaning or a thousand meanings they are “to be kept” “not to be translated.” The translators were not at liberty to refer to the signification immemorially attached by the Greeks to baptizo a signification which received the cordial endorsement of “the most eminent Fathers.” They might have examined the endorsement if the royal decree had not said, “Hitherto, but no farther” “the old ecclesiastical words to be kept.” The fact that “baptize” is an Anglicized, and not a translated, word makes an appeal to Greek lexicons necessary to ascertain its meaning. Lexicons, it is true, do not constitute the ultimate authority, but their testimony is highly important. I have made it a point to examine all the lexicons I have seen (and they have been many) concerning the import of baptizo. There is among them a remarkable unanimity in representing “immerse,” or its equivalent, as the primary and ordinary meaning of the word. According to lexicographers, it is a word of definite import as much so as any other. It is as specific as rantizo, and it might be argued just as plausibly that rantizo means “to immerse” as that baptizo means “to sprinkle.” I have seen no lexicon that gives “sprinkle” as a meaning of baptizo, and but one that makes “to pour upon” one of its significations. In the first edition of Liddell & Scott’s Greek-and-English lexicon “to pour upon” is given as the seventh meaning of baptizo. It is a significant fact, however, that, while passages in classic Greek authors are referred to as illustrative of the ordinary meaning of the word, there is no mention of any passage that sustains the definition “to pour upon.”

It is worthy of special remark that the second edition of Liddell & Scott does not contain the phrase “to pour upon.” This is an important fact, of which Baptists may avail themselves. It has been well said by a scholar now dead: [Note: Rev. W. C. Duncan, D. D.] “When it is remembered that the definition ‘pour upon’ was assigned to baptizo in the first English edition, on the authority of Francis Passow, whose German work forms the basis of that of Liddell & Scott, this change in the second English edition is an admission as gratifying to Baptists as it is unwelcome to their opponents. Messrs. Liddell & Scott, who cannot be charged with a leaning to Baptist sentiments, have deliberately, after due examination, withdrawn their authority in favor of ‘pour upon’ as a signification of the verb baptizo, and now define the word just as Baptist scholars have defined it after a careful study of the passages in which it occurs in the Greek authors. Of such a concession Baptists know well how to take advantage.”

I now repeat that there is among lexicons a perfect concurrence in assigning “immerse” or its equivalent as the primary and ordinary meaning of baptizo. This ought to settle the baptismal controversy. For what says Blackstone, who is almost the idol of the legal profession? “Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar as their general and popular use.” [Note: Sharswood’s Blackstone, vol., 1: p. 58.] “Immerse” was the “usual and most known signification” of baptizo among the Greeks. It was its “general and popular use,” as we shall see in the proper place. To return to the argument derived from lexicons: All English dictionaries give “immerse” or its equivalent as the ordinary meaning of “dip.” It would, therefore, be very unreasonable to deny that “dip” ordinarily means “to immerse.” Greek lexicons give “immerse” as the ordinary meaning of baptizo. Is it not, then, just as unreasonable to deny that baptizo ordinarily means “to immerse” as it would be to deny that “dip” has this signification? Indeed, there is no argument employed by Pedobaptists to divest baptizo of its usual meaning which may not as plausibly be employed to divest “dip” of its ordinary import; for, though “dip “is a definite and specific word, baptizo is more so. We speak of “the dip of the magnetic needle” and of “the dip of a stratum in geology,” while Pope uses the expression “dipping into a volume of history.” If Pedobaptists could find baptizo in such connections, there would be rejoicing from Dan to Beersheba. The man who would attempt to prove that “dip” means “to sprinkle” or “pour” would probably be laughed at; but he could make a more plausible effort in adducing his proof than if he were to attempt to prove the same thing concerning baptizo. Let us see: Such a man might say that Johnson, Webster, and Worcester in their large dictionaries give “moisten” and “wet” as meanings of “dip,” and refer as authority to Milton, who uses the following words: “A cold shuddering dew dips me all over.” Talking with himself, such a reasoner might say, “It is a fixed fact that ‘dip’ means ‘to moisten’ and ‘wet.’ Who will dispute what Johnson, Webster, and Worcester say, sustained as they are by the ‘prince of British poets’? Very well. ‘Dip’ means to ‘moisten’ and ‘wet’. Everybody knows that a thing can be moistened or made wet by having water poured or sprinkled on it. Therefore, ‘dip’ means ‘to pour’ and ‘sprinkle’. Now, I affirm that this argument is more plausible than any I ever heard from a Pedobaptist to prove that baptizo means “pour’’ and “sprinkle;” yet it is replete with sophistry. It assumes as true the fallacy that if a process can be accomplished in two different ways, the two verbs employed to denote those two ways mean the same thing. An object may be moistened by being dipped in water, but “moisten” and “dip” are not synonymous. The same object may be moistened by having water sprinkled or poured on it, but neither “moisten and sprinkle,” nor “moisten and pour,” are identical in import. Though the moistening may result from the dipping, sprinkling, or pouring, the three acts are clearly distinguishable, and definite terms are used to express them.

It is proper to say of the Greek lexicons to which I have referred that they were all made by men who had no partialities for Baptists. A regard for truth, therefore, and no desire to give currency to the practice of immersion, elicited from them the definition they have given of baptizo. Baptists may well felicitate themselves that their opponents bear this strong testimony.

SECTION II.

Distinguished Pedobaptist scholars and theologians admit that “baptizo” means “to immerse.”

Here I shall probably be told that it is unfair to take advantage of Pedobaptist concessions. There is, however, nothing unfair in such a course. No one can say that there is without calling in question the propriety of what Paul did in his great discourse at Athens; for he availed himself of the declaration of a Greek poet, and made the poetic statement a part of his argument. I shall aim to do nothing that is not justified by the example of the great apostle. Pedobaptist concessions are of great value, for it may be said, in the language of another on a different matter, “This testimony of theirs, to me, is worth a thousand others, seeing it comes from such as, in my opinion, are evidently interested to speak quite otherwise” The reader’s earnest attention is called to the following extracts.

I begin with John Calvin, a learned Presbyterian, who lived more than three hundred years ago. He was very decided in his opposition to Baptists, or “Anabaptists,” as he contemptuously styled them. He wrote in Latin, and I avail myself of the translation of John Allen, published by the Presbyterian Board of Publication, Philadelphia. In his Institutes (vol. 2, book 4, chap. 15, paragraph 19, p. 491) he says, “But 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.”

It will be seen that Calvin expresses two opinions and states two facts. The opinions are that it is of no importance how water is used, and that churches should be free to decide as they please; the facts are that “baptize” means “to immerse” and that immersion was the practice of the ancient church. With Calvin’s opinions I have nothing to do, but his facts claim attention. What “baptize” means is a question of fact, and must be decided by testimony. So of the practice of the ancient church. Calvin gave his verdict on the testimony establishing the facts. The reader will observe the distinction between opinions and facts.

Dr. George Campbell, a learned Presbyterian of Scotland, who lived about a hundred years ago, in his notes on Matthew 3:11, says, “The word baptizein” (infinitive mode, present tense, of baptizo), “both in sacred authors and in classical, signifies ‘to dip,’ ‘to plunge,’ ‘to immerse,’ and was rendered by Tertullian, the oldest of the Latin Fathers, tingere—the term used for dyeing cloth, which was by immersion. It is always construed suitably to this meaning.’’ In his Lectures on Systematic Theology and Pulpit Eloquence he expresses himself, in Lecture X., as follows: “Another error in disputation which is by far too common is when one will admit nothing in the plea or arguments of an adversary to be of the smallest weight ... I have heard a disputant of this stamp, in defiance of etymology and use, maintain that the word rendered in the New Testament ‘baptize’ means, more properly, ‘to sprinkle’ than ‘to plunge’ and, in defiance of all antiquity, that the former method was the earliest, and for many centuries the most general, practice in baptizing. One who argues in this manner never fails, with persons of knowledge, to betray the cause he would defend; and though, with respect to the vulgar, bold assertions generally succeed as well as arguments sometimes better yet a candid mind will disdain to take the help of a falsehood even in support of the truth.”

Dr. Thomas Chalmers, for many years regarded by all as the greatest Presbyterian theologian of Scotland, and by some as the greatest theologian of the world in his day, uses the following language: “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 apostles’ 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 on these verses. Jesus Christ, by death, underwent this sort of baptism even immersion under the surface of the ground, whence he soon emerged again by his resurrection We, by being baptized into his death, are conceived to have made a similar translation.” [Note: Lectures on Romans, Lecture XXX., on chap. 6: 3-7.]

Professor Moses Stuart, the most renowned Congregationalist of his day, and the ornament of the Theological Seminary of Andover, Massachusetts, in his treatise on the Mode of Baptism (p. 14), says: [Note: This is a reprint from the Biblical Repository, vol. 3, No. 11.] “Bapto and baptizo mean ‘to dip,’ ‘plunge’ or ‘immerge’ into anything liquid. All lexicographers and critics of any note are agreed in this. My proof of this position, then, need not necessarily be protracted; but for the sake of ample confirmation I must beg the reader’s patience while I lay before him, as briefly as may be, the results of an investigation which seems to leave no room for doubt.”

I will also give the testimony of an eminent man who has recently died. Dean Stanley, in an article on “Baptism” in the Nineteenth Century for October, 1879, says: “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.” But why proceed farther with the testimony of distinguished Pedobaptist scholars and theologians?

What I have adduced is surely sufficient. These witnesses testify that baptizo means “to immerse;” nor do they say that it means “to sprinkle” and “pour.” True it is that Calvin thought immersion or sprinkling a matter of “no importance,” and Chalmers regarded it as a “point of iudifferency;” but they are both clear as to what the word baptizo means. This is all I want their testimony as to the meaning of the word. Their opinion as to the admissibility of sprinkling I reject, for it is utterly gratuitous unless baptizo means “to sprinkle.” This they did not say, and could not say. The distinction between a fact and an opinion deserves special notice. He who, acquainted with the usus loquendi of a term, testifies that it means a certain thing, bears witness to &fact; but if he says that it is not important to adhere to the meaning established by the usus loquendi, he expresses an opinion.

It may be asked why those Pedobaptist scholars who concede that baptizo means “to immerse” have not become practical immersionists. This is a question difficult to answer. That they ought to have shown their faith by their works does not admit a doubt. Some, perhaps, have failed to do so on account of early predilections; others have not felt willing to disturb their denominational relations; and others still have had a horror of the charge of fickleness. Probably, however, the greater number, like Professor Stuart, have persuaded themselves that, as the Christian Dispensation is eminently spiritual, it is a matter of little moment, provided the heart is right, as to a particular observance of “external rites.” Such persons seem to forget that the way to show that the heart is right with God is to do the very thing he has commanded. The reasons suggested for the failure of those Pedobaptists who have made such concessions as have been quoted to do their duty are, I must say, unsatisfactory. Satisfactory reasons cannot be given, for impossibilities cannot be performed. Those who admit that Jesus Christ commanded his disciples to be immersed, and at the same time array themselves in practical opposition to immersion, are accountable to him. Here the matter must be left.

SECTION III. The classical usage of “baptizo” establishes the position of Baptists.

I have said that lexicons are not the ultimate authority in settling the meaning of words. The truth of this statement can be readily seen. Lexicographers are necessarily dependent on the sense in which words are used to ascertain their meaning. But it is possible for them to mistake that sense. If they do, there is an appeal from their definitions to usage (called the usus loguendi), which is the ultimate authority. I shall now show how classic Greek authors used the word baptize not that I complain of the lexicons, but that I may show that the usage of the word fully justifies the lexicons in giving “immerse” or its equivalent as its primary, ordinary, literal meaning. It is pleasant .o go back to the ultimate authority.

Few men ever examined the classical import of baptizo more extensively than the late Dr. Alexander Carson, and the result of his labors is before the public. Since his death Dr. T. J. Conant has gone more exhaustively into the subject, apparently leaving nothing more to be said. These accomplished scholars prove beyond question that baptizo was used by the Greeks in the sense of “immerse;” but, as I prefer not to quote from Baptist authors, I do not avail myself of the learned labors of Drs. Carson and Conant. For obvious reasons, I give the preference to Pedobaptist testimony. The following extracts, therefore, are made from Professor Stuart on the Mode of Baptism. He refers to a number of Greek authors.

PINDAB, who was born five hundred and twenty years before Christ, says: “As when a net is east into the sea the cork swims above, so am I UNPLUNGED (abaptistos); on which the Greek scholiast, in commenting, says: As the cork (ou dunei) does not sink, so I am abaptistos unplunged, not immersed. The cork remains abaptistos, and swims on the surface of the sea, being of a nature which is abaptistos; in like manner, I am abaptistos.”

Pindar was describing the utter incompetency of his enemies to plunge him into ruin. It is only necessary to say to the English scholar, that the letter a (in Greek, “alpha”), prefixed in the foregoing extract to baptistos, conveys a negative idea. Abaptistos, therefore, means “unplunged,” “undipped,” “unimmersed.” “Unsprinkled” or “unpoured” is perfectly out of the question.

HIPPOCRATES, who lived about four hundred and thirty years before the Christian era, says: “Shall I not laugh at the man who SINKS (baptisanta) his ship by overloading it, and then complains of the sea for engulfing it with its cargo?”

ARISTOTLE, who died three hundred and thirty two years before Christ, “speaks of a saying among the Phenicians, that there were certain places, beyond the Pillars of Hercules, which when it is ebb-tide are not OVERFLOWED (mee baptizesthai)”

HERACXIDES PONTICUS, a disciple of Aristotle, says: “When apiece of iron is taken red hot from the fire and PLUNGED in the water (hudati baptizetai), the heat, being quenched by the peculiar nature of the water, ceases”

DIODORUS SICULUS, who lived about the middle of the century before Christ, uses these words: “Most of the land-animals that are intercepted by the river [Nile] perish, being OVERWHELMED.” Again: “The river, borne along by a more violent current, OVERWHELMED (ebaptise) many”

STRABO, the celebrated geographer, who died A. D. 25 a very short time before John the Baptist began to preach in the wilderness of Judea speaking of a lake near Agrigentum, says: Things that elsewhere cannot float DO NOT SINK (mee baptizesthai) in the water of this lake, but swim in the manner of wood.” Again: “If one shoots an arrow into the channel [of a certain rivulet in Cappadocia], the force of the water resists it so much that it mil scarcely PLUNGE IN (baptizesthai).” Again: “They [the soldiers] marched a whole day through the water PLUNGED IN (baptizomenori) up to the waist” Once more: “The bitumen floats on the top [of the lake Sirbon], because of the nature of the water, which admits of no diving; nor can anyone who enters it PLUNGE IN (baptizesthai), but is borne up.”

JOSEPHUS, who died A. D. 93, aged fifty-six, and was therefore contemporary with the apostles, “speaking of the ship in which Jonah was, says: Mellontos baptizesthai tou skaphous the ship being about TO SINK.” In the history of his own life, “speaking of a voyage to Rome, during which the ship that carried him foundered in the Adriatic, he says: Our ship being IMMERSED or SINKING in the Adriatic. Speaking of Aristobulus as having been drowned by command of Herod, he says: The boy was sent to Jericho, and there, agreeably to command, being IMMERSED in a pond (baptizo menos en columbeethra), he perished.”

PLUTARCH, who died about A. D. 140, refers to a Roman general “DIPPING (baptisas) his hand into blood,” etc. Again: “PLUNGE (baptison) yourself into the sea.”

LUCIAN, who died A. D. 180, represents Timon, the man-hater, as saying: “If a, winter’s flood should carry away any one, and he, stretching out his hands, should beg for help, I would press down the head of such an one when SINKING (baptizonta), so that he could not rise again” The reader, by referring to Professor Stuart’s treatise on the Mode of Baptism (pp. 14-20), can test the accuracy of these quotations. I might add to their number, but these are sufficient. It will be seen that I have used Roman instead of Greek letters. This has been done for the satisfaction of a large majority of those who will read these pages.

“Immerse” is clearly the classical meaning of baptizo. In all the preceding extracts it might with propriety be employed. A “sinking ship,” for example, is a ship about to be immersed. Nor is it any abuse of language to say that places “not overflowed” are not immersed. I solicit special attention to the fact that, of the Greek authors referred to, some lived before the coming of Christ, some during the apostolic age, and others at a period subsequent to that age. Seven hundred years intervened between the birth of Pindar and the death of Lucian. During those seven centuries usage shows that baptizo meant “to immerse.” Most of the classic Greek writers lived before baptism was instituted, and knew nothing of immersion as a religious ordinance; those who lived after its institution cared nothing for it. There was no controversy as to the meaning of baptizo during the classic period of Grecian history; there was no motive, therefore, that could so influence Greek writers as to induce them to use the word in any but its authorized sense. That sense was most obviously “to immerse.” Even Dr. Edward Beecher, though carried away with the notion that baptizo, “in its religious sense,” means “to purify,” admits that in classic usage it signifies “to immerse.” He says: “I freely admit that in numerous cases it clearly denotes ‘to immerse’ in which case an agent submerges partially or totally some person or thing. Indeed, this is so notoriously true that I need attempt no proof. Innumerable examples are at hand.” [Note: Beecher On Baptism, p. 9. 10] No man of established reputation as a Greek scholar will deny that baptizo, at the beginning of the Christian era, meant “to immerse,” and that usage had confirmed that meaning. Dr. Doddridge virtually admits this to be its import in the New Testament when used as descriptive of the sufferings of Christ. Hence he paraphrases Luke 12:50 thus: “But I have, indeed, in the meantime, a most dreadful baptism to be baptized with, and know that I shall shortly be bathed, as it were, in blood, and plunged in the most overwhelming distress.” [Note: Family Expositor, p. 204.] Baptizo literally means “immerse,” and therefore in its figurative application it is used to denote an immersion in sorrow, suffering, and affliction. But some say that though baptizo, in classic Greek, means “to immerse,” it does not follow that it is to be understood in this sense in the New Testament. They discourse learnedly on the difference between classic and sacred Greek. They insist that baptizo has in the Scriptures a theological sense. In short, they forget what they have learned from Ernesti’s Principles of Interpretation namely, that “when God has spoken to men he has spoken in the language of men, for he has spoken by men and for men.” For the benefit of these ingenious critics, I quote from an able Methodist work on theology. The author is showing, in opposition to the Socinian view that ‘the apostles, in referring to the death of Christ, employ terms which convey the idea of expiation. He says: “The use to be made of this in the argument is that, as the apostles found the very terms they used with reference to the nature and efficacy of the death of Christ fixed in an expiatory signification among the Greeks, they could not, in honesty, use them in a distant figurative sense, much less in a contrary one, without due notice of their having invested them with a new import being given to their readers ... In like manner, the Jews had their expiatory sacrifices, and the terms and phrases used in them are, in like manner, employed by the apostles to characterize the death of their Lord; and they would have been as guilty of misleading their Jewish as their Gentile readers had they employed them in a new sense and without warning, which, unquestionably, they never gave.” [Note: Richard Watson’s Theological Institutes, vol. 2, p. 151.] Dr. Hodge, in his Way of Life, expresses the same view. To all this I cordially subscribe. The apostles found in use among the people certain terms which conveyed to their minds the idea of expiation. They used those terms, and evidently in that sense. As honest men they could not do otherwise without giving information of the fact. So reasons the accomplished Richard Watson. Very well. The same apostles found the term baptizo fixed in its meaning, and that meaning was “to immerse.” Could they, then, “in honesty,” employ it to denote “sprinkle” and “pour” without notifying their readers of the fact? Dr. Watson being judge, they could not. “Unquestionably,” they never intimated to Jew or Gentile that they used the word in a new sense. Now, I insist that Methodists ought either to admit the validity of this argument in reference to baptizo or reject as inconclusive the reasoning against Socinians. It is to be remembered, also, that those who say that the scriptural meaning of baptizo differs from its classic meaning must prove it; the burden of proof is on them. If they say it means “to sprinkle,” let them show it; if they affirm that it means “to pour,” let them establish this signification. If Dr. Beecher can do anything for his “purification theory,” let him do it. Baptists occupy a position which commends itself to every unprejudiced mind. They say that baptizo, among the Greeks, meant “to immerse,” and that John the Baptist, Christ, and the apostles used it in the same sense and just as the people understood it. I think it has now been shown that the classical meaning of baptizo is “immerse,” and that it is perfectly gratuitous to assert that its scriptural meaning differs from its classical import.

SECTION IV. The design of baptism furnishes an argument in favor of the position of Baptists. In the ordinance of baptism there is a profession of faith in Jesus Christ, as we may learn from Ephesians 4:5 : “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” The term “Lord” in this passage, as is generally the case in the Epistles, refers to Christ. He, having died and risen again, is presented in the gospel as the Object of faith and the Author of salvation. Faith is a trustful acceptance of Christ as the Saviour. On a profession of this “one faith” in the “one Lord,” the “one baptism” is administered. Baptism is therefore a profession of faith. Take away the “one Lord,” and the “one faith,” becomes vain, for there is no object of faith) and the “one baptism” is vain also, for there is no faith of which it is the profession. If we transpose the terms of the passage, we see that the transposition is ruinous. If we put faith before the Lord, and baptism before faith, we invert the inspired order. If changed, the order is virtually abolished. Of baptism it may be said that it represents the burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This we learn from the following passages: “Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried [Greek, were 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. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection;” “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him, through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead;” “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2:12; 1 Peter 3:21).

It is clear from these passages that baptism has a commemorative reference to the burial and resurrection of Christ. The two ordinances of the gospel symbolically proclaim its three great facts. These facts, as Paul teaches (1 Corinthians 15:3-4), are that Christ died, was buried, and rose again. The Lord’s Supper commemorates the first fact; all are agreed in this view. At his Table the disciples of Christ are solemnly reminded of his death. They weep over him as crucified dead. In baptism they see him buried and raised again, just as they see him dead in the sacred Supper. Baptism is therefore a symbolic proclamation of two of the three prominent gospel facts the burial and the resurrection of Christ. These facts are infinitely worthy of commemoration, and they are properly commemorated when the ordinances of the New Testament are observed according to their original design. This by the way.

Baptism also expresses in emblem the believer’s death to sin and resurrection to “newness of life.” In “repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ” there occurs a spiritual death to sin, followed by a spiritual resurrection to a new life. These two facts are emblematically set forth in baptism. Hence the absurdity of baptizing any who are not dead to sin. We are baptized into the death of Christ. We profess our reliance on his death for salvation; and we profess also that, as he died for sin, we have died to sin. As burial is a palpable separation of the dead from the living, so baptism is a symbolic separation of those dead to sin from those living in sin. As a resurrection from the dead indicates an entrance into a new sphere of existence, so baptism, in its similitude to a resurrection, denotes an entrance upon a new life. Dr. Chalmers, therefore, in his lecture on Romans 6:3-7, remarks that we “are conceived, in the act of descending under the water of baptism, to have resigned an old life, and in the act of ascending to emerge into a second or new life.” There is an emblematic renunciation of “the old life,” and there is an emblematic introduction into “the new life.” William Tyndale very appropriately says, “The plunging into the water signifieth that we die and are buried with Christ as concerning the old life of sin, which is Adam. And the pulling out again signifieth that we rise again with Christ in a new life, full of the Holy Ghost,”

If baptism is a symbol of death to sin, it is of necessity a symbol of regeneration, because death to sin is involved in regeneration. In the words “washing of regeneration” the abstract is probably used for the concrete, the meaning being “the washing of the regenerate.” The much-controverted phrase “born of water” seems to refer to baptism. Burial in baptism has respect to immersion in water, while “born of water” literally, “out of water” has respect to emersion out of the watery envelopment which constitutes the symbolic burial. If baptism is a symbol of regeneration, it follows that regeneration must precede it; for otherwise nothing would be symbolized. If, as some suppose, baptism effects regeneration, or is regeneration, then it cannot be a symbol; for no symbol can produce that which it symbolizes, and no symbol can symbolize itself. In other words, the thing symbolized must have an existence, or there is no place for a symbol. This is plain to those who understand the philosophy of symbols.

Baptism is likewise a symbol of remission of sins, the washing away of sins, and moral purification. We therefore read in Acts 2:38, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins.” Many scriptures teach that sins are actually, really, remitted when the sinner believes in Christ; but there is a symbolic, formal, declarative remission in baptism. If sins are remitted when we believe in Christ, and if they are remitted when we are baptized, it is certain that the two remissions are not the same. The one is real, the other is symbolic. In the language addressed to Saul of Tarsus (Acts 22:16) “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” there is not so much a contemplation of sins in the light of crimes needing remission as in the aspect of pollutions needing to be washed away. There is an actual washing away of sins in the blood of Christ when faith unites the soul to him; but there is a symbolic washing away of sins in the baptismal waters. When our bodies are said to be washed “with pure water,” baptism is referred to as the symbol of moral purification. The symbol has to do with the body, “the outer man,” because the soul, “the inner man,” has been washed in the blood of Jesus. The outward cleansing follows the inward purification.

Baptism likewise anticipates the believer’s resurrection from the dead. This we learn from 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?” These questions are to be found in an argument of matchless power and beauty on the resurrection of the dead. Some of the Corinthians, it seems, denied the doctrine of the resurrection, yet it does not appear that they questioned the propriety of the observance of the ordinance of baptism. Paul virtually tells them that baptism has an anticipatory reference to the resurrection on the last day. It has this reference because it has a commemorative reference to the resurrection of Christ. It anticipates because it commemorates. The reason is obvious. The resurrection of the Lord Jesus procures the resurrection of his followers, and is an infallible pledge of it. The two resurrections are inseparable. Baptism, therefore, while it commemorates the resurrection of Christ, anticipates, of necessity, the resurrection of believers. Dr. Adam Clarke, distinguished among Methodists, in his comment on the verse under consideration, says: “The sum of the apostle’s meaning appears to be this: If there be no resurrection of the dead, those who, in becoming Christians, expose themselves to all manner of privations, crosses, severe sufferings, and a violent death, can have no compensation, nor any motive sufficient to induce them to expose themselves to such miseries. But as they receive baptism as an emblem of death in voluntarily going under the water, so they receive it as an emblem of the resurrection unto eternal life in coming up out of the water: thus they are baptized for the dead) in perfect faith of the resurrection.” That Dr. Clarke has given the meaning of this controverted passage there is, in my judgment, no ground for reasonable doubt.

Now, if these views of the design and the emblematic import of baptism are correct, it follows inevitably that the immersion in water of a believer in Christ is essential to baptism so essential that without it there is no baptism. If baptism represents the burial and the resurrection of Christ, it must be immersion. Do the sprinkling and the pouring of water bear any resemblance to a burial and a resurrection? Absolutely none. Immersion, however, bears a striking resemblance to a burial and a resurrection. We are “buried by baptism” that is, by means of baptism. When the baptismal act is performed, there is a burial. The two things are inseparable, and therefore where there is no “burial” there is no baptism. Were it necessary, I might show that Wall, Whitefield, Wesley, Doddridge, Chalmers, Macknight, Bloornneld, Barnes, and many others all of them Pedobaptists admit that the phrase “buried by baptism” alludes to immersion. Some learned men, however, insist that there is no reference to “water baptism.” “Spiritual baptism,” say they, “is referred to.” They think to nullify in this way the argument for immersion. But do they accomplish their object? Let us see. I will meet them on their own chosen ground. Let it be conceded, then, for argument’s sake, that “buried by baptism” denotes spiritual baptism. Then there is a spiritual burial. Now, it is a well-settled point among Pedobaptists that the outward baptism is a sign of the inward. If, then, the inward baptism involves a spiritual burial, the outward baptism must involve a burial in water that it may represent the inward. Men may torture and put to the rack the phrase “buried by baptism,” but it will testify of immersion. It cannot be divested of its reference to Christian immersion. To conclude the argument from the design of baptism: How stands the matter? If baptism commemorates the burial and the resurrection of Christ, it must be immersion. If it is an emblematic representation of death to sin and resurrection to newness of life, the representation is essentially incomplete without immersion. If it symbolizes the remission of sins, the washing away of sins, and moral purification, the purposes of the symbol require immersion. The fulness of the remission, the thoroughness of the washing, and the completeness of the purification demand an act affecting the whole body. If there is something in baptism that anticipates and resembles the resurrection of the dead, still it must be immersion. Sprinkling and pouring are as unlike a resurrection as they are unlike a burial.

Let baptism be considered a representation of the facts illustrated in the design of the ordinance, and it will appear not only an impressive symbol, but a combination of symbols as beautiful as they are solemn. If another form of expression is preferred, it may be said that kindred elements come together and constitute the symbol. In immersion alone is there a recognition of these elements, and therefore immersion alone is the symbol. No act but immersion in water, followed by emersion out of water, meets the demands of the symbol. Any other act vitiates the symbolic import of baptism.

SECTION V. The places selected for the administration of baptism and the circumstances
attending its administration, as referred to in the New Testament,
supply an additional argument in proof of the position of Baptists.

John baptized in Jordan. That the Jordan is a suitable stream for purposes of immersion is manifest from the testimony of one of the most distinguished of modern travellers and scholars, Dr. Edward Robinson.

Speaking of the Jordan, he says, “We estimated the breadth of the stream to be from eighty to one hundred feet. The guides supposed it to be now ten or twelve feet deep. I bathed in the river without going out into the deep channel.” [Note: Biblical Researches ‘in Palestine, vol. 2, p. 256.]

Even Dr. Lightfoot, who was quite conspicuous in his opposition to immersion in the Westminster Assembly, uses the following language: “That the baptism of John was by plunging the body seems to appear from those things which are related of him namely, that he baptized in Jordan; that he baptized in Enon, because there was much water there; and that Christ, being baptized, came up out of the water; to which that seems to be parallel (Acts 8:38), “Philip and the eunuch went down into the water?” [Note: Quoted in Dr. Adam Clarke’s Commentary, vol. 5, p. 325.]

I am aware that Pedobaptists many of them, at least argue that John’s was not Christian baptism, that he did not live under the Christian Dispensation, etc. Dissenting most earnestly from these views, I waive a consideration of them as foreign to my present purpose. It is sufficient for me to say that even if it could be shown that John’s was not Christian baptism it would avail Pedobaptists nothing. John performed an act called baptism, and various circumstances, as well as the meaning of the word, indicate that that act was immersion. Pedobaptists attempt to invalidate the force of those circumstances by denying that John administered Christian baptism. Bat they admit that the apostles, after the resurrection of Christ, administered Christian baptism. Very well. The same term used to designate the act performed by John is used to denote the act performed by them. It must therefore be the same act. Surely, no one will say that the word “baptize” means one thing in its connection with John’s ministry and a different thing in connection with the ministry of the apostles. Hence I repeat that if it could be shown that John’s was not Christian baptism it would amount to nothing.

There is another Pedobaptist view which requires notice. It is that Christ was baptized to initiate him into the priestly office. A few questions will place this matter in its proper light: Was not Christ “made a priest after the order of Melchisedec, and not after the order of Aaron”? How could he be a priest according to the law of Moses, when he was of the “tribe of Judah”? Was not the priestly office confined to the tribe of Levi, and to the family of Aaron in that tribe? Did not the law say, “The stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death”? All that Pedobaptists say about the baptismal initiation of Christ into the priestly office is at war with the Scriptures. Why this attempt to show that the Saviour was made a priest by his baptism? The object seems to be to evade the moral power of his example; for no man who will lay aside his prejudices can deny that Jesus was immersed in the Jordan. But if the people can be made to believe that the baptism of Christ had reference to his priestly consecration, they will feel comparatively exempt from obligation to follow his example, as they are not baptized that they may become priests. Jesus, in his baptism as well as in other respects, has “left us an example that we should follow his steps”

Returning from this apparent digression, I may say again that the Jordan was unquestionably a suitable stream for purposes of immersion; that John baptized in it; and that Jesus, when baptized, “went up straightway out of the water.” John also baptized “in Enon near to Salim” (John 3:23). Why? Let Dr. Miller answer. He says: “Independently of immersion altogether, plentiful streams of water were absolutely necessary for the constant refreshment and sustenance of the many thousands who were encamped from day to day to witness the preaching and the baptism of this extraordinary man; together with the beasts employed for their transportation. Only figure to yourselves a large encampment of men, women, and children, etc ... As a poor man who lived in the wilderness, whose raiment was of the meanest kind, and whose food was such alone as the desert afforded, it is not to be supposed that he possessed appropriate vessels for administering baptism to multitudes by pouring or sprinkling. He therefore seems to have made use of the neighboring stream of water for this purpose, descending its banks and setting his feet on its margin, so as to admit of his using a handful to answer the symbolic purpose intended by the application of water in baptism.” [Note: Miller On Baptism: Four Discourses, pp. 92, 93. 11]

What to call this extract I do not know. It seems to be a mixture of assertion, supposition, and fiction. Where did Dr. Miller learn that “plentiful streams of water were absolutely necessary” for the purposes which he specifies? What he says about “a large encampment” must have been a day-dream, as also his reference to “beasts” and. “transportation.” The evangelists say nothing of the “encampment” and make no allusion to the “beasts.” Poverty is an inconvenience, but not a crime; and I therefore take no offence at the reference to the indigence of the first Baptist preacher. It may, however, be questioned whether John was not able to own “appropriate vessels” for purposes of “pouring or sprinkling.” But, admitting his extreme poverty when he went to the Jordan to baptize, he then became so popular that an intimation from him that he needed “appropriate vessels” would have secured as many as the “beasts” could transport. Why did he not, then, get “vessels” and supersede the necessity of his going to the Jordan, and to “Enon near to Salim, because there was much water there”? Would not Herod also have furnished “appropriate vessels” at the time when he “did many things, and heard John gladly”?

Dr. N. L. Rice, having been a pupil of Dr. Miller, adopted his view of the matter before us. He therefore, in his Debate with Alexander Campbell (p. 193), uses these words: “John, it is true, was baptizing in Enon near Salim, because there was much water there. But did he want much water to baptize in, or did he want it for other purposes? As I have already stated, multitudes of the Jews who resorted to him remained together several days at a time. They must observe their daily ablutions. For these and for ordinary purposes they needed much water; but it cannot be proved that John wanted the water for the purpose of baptizing.”

Theologians should, of course, be wise men, but they ought not to be “wise above that which is written.” Where did Dr. Rice learn that the “multitudes” who went to John “remained together several days”? Who told him about those “daily ablutions”? By what sort of logic can it be shown that the Jews “needed much water” for other purposes, but not for baptismal purposes, when baptism is the only thing requiring water mentioned in the controverted passage?

It is humiliating to know that such men as Drs. Miller and Rice have used the language that has been quoted. Let modern teachers now keep silence, and let an evangelist speak. What does he say? Here are his inspired words: “And John also was baptizing in Enon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized” (John 3:23). Is there anything here about “encampments,” “beasts,” “daily ablutions,” etc. Did not the people go to John to be baptized? not to encamp, not to provide water for their “beasts,” not to “observe their daily ablutions.” Did not John select Enon as a suitable place for his purpose “because there was much water there”? Did he not need “much water” in baptizing? and is not this a strong argument in favor of immersion? No act performed on the body requires so “much water” as the act of immersing in water. I write in plainness and in sorrow when I ‘say that those who expound the passage under consideration as Drs. Miller and Rice have done assign a reason for John’s selection of Enon as a baptismal place which the Holy Spirit has not assigned. The doing of such a thing involves fearful responsibility. To demolish all that has ever been said about John’s selecting places where there was “much water” for other than baptismal purposes, I need only state a few facts. We are told that in the early part of the Saviour’s ministry “great multitudes followed him” subsequently, he miraculously fed “four thousand,” and at another time “five thousand men, besides women and children;” and on another occasion “there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trod one upon another.” But there was nothing said about water. It is not said that Jesus, “seeing the multitudes,” went where there was “much water,” that the people might be refreshed, but “he went up into a mountain.” Was he less considerate than was John of the comfort of the crowds that attended him. We cannot believe it. Still, there is nothing said about “much water” in connection with the multitudes that gathered around him. But we are told of “much water” in the account given of John’s baptism in Enon. He “was baptizing in Enon near to Salim, because there was much water there.” It is vain, and worse than vain, to deny that “much water” was required in baptism. This would not have been the case if baptism had not been immersion. Of the many acts popularly called baptism, there is only one the act of immersion that requires “much water;” and it is certain that this is the act performed by John the Baptist. The baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch, as recorded in Acts 8:38-39, is worthy of special notice. The sacred historian says, “And they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him j” “And when they were come up out of the water,” etc. It has been often said that going into the water does not necessarily imply immersion. This is true. It is possible to go “down into water” and “come up out of water” without being immersed. But suppose, as in the case before us, between the two movements the act of baptism occurs. What then? Evidently the word “baptize” must determine the nature of that act. This is the view held by Baptists. They say, with strongest emphasis, that the term “baptize” shows what act Philip performed after he went down with the eunuch into the water j and they confidently appeal to all Greek literature, secular and sacred, in support of the position that baptizo means “to immerse.” Hence they would be as fully satisfied as they now are of the eunuch’s immersion if not one word had been said about the descent into the water. Still, they regard the going down into the water and the coming up out of the water as furnishing a very strong circumstantial proof of immersion. They assume that Philip and the eunuch were men of good sense, and therefore did not go into the water for purposes of “pouring or sprinkling.” But it is often said that the Greek preposition eis, translated “into,” means “to,” and that Philip and the eunuch went only to the water. As sensible men they would not have done this if sprinkling or pouring had been the act to be performed. With reference to this little word eis, Dr. Summers, in his book On Baptism (p. 100), says: “When eis means e into/ it is used before the noun as well as before the verb.” The argument based on this statement is that, as eis is used but once in Acts 8:38, Philip and the eunuch did not go into, but only to, the water; and the conclusion is that “the eunuch was not immersed.”

I concede everything which truth requires me to concede to Dr. Summers. It is true that when entrance into a place or thing is denoted eis is frequently used twice once in composition with the verb, and once before the noun or pronoun j but in numberless instances it is used but once to express the same idea of entrance. Let any Greek scholar turn to Matthew 2:11-14; Matthew 2:20-22, and he will find eis but once in the phrases “into the house,” “into their own country” “into Egypt,” “into the land of Israel,” and “into the parts of Galilee.” If, then, Dr. Summers’s statement is true without qualification, the “wise men” did not go “into the house” and did not return “into their own country,” nor was Joseph required to “flee into Egypt” and to “go into the land of Israel.”

Again, if Dr. Summers is right in his assertion, the demons referred to in Matthew 8:31-33 did not enter “into the swine,” and the swine did not run “into the sea,” and the keepers of the swine did not go “into the city.” In all these places eis is used but once. It seems, also, that the Saviour, in Matthew 9:17, did not speak of putting wine into bottles, but only to bottles; for eis is used but once. Query: How could the “new wine “break the “old bottles” without being put into them? Once more: It is said in Matthew 25:46, “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.” Here, also, eis is used but once; and, according to Dr. Summers and many others, the wicked do not go “into everlasting punishment” nor the righteous “into life eternal.” But in these passages Pedobaptists very readily admit that eis means “into.” They have no objection to this meaning unless baptismal waters are referred to. This little word eis is a strange word indeed if all said of it is true. It will take a man into a country, into a city, into a house, into a ship, into heaven, into hell into any place in the universe except the water. Poor word! Afflicted, it seems, with hydrophobia, it will allow a person to go to the water, but not into it. However, where baptism is not referred to, it may denote entrance into water, as in Mark 9:22 : “And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire and into the waters to destroy him.” Unfortunate boy! that eis, though used but once, thrust him “into the fire and into the waters.”

Pedobaptists are very unreasonable in their management of the baptismal controversy. They insist that it is utterly improbable that water could be found in Jerusalem for the immersion of three thousand persons on the day of Pentecost that there is no mention of a stream of water in connection with the baptism of Saul of Tarsus and the jailer. One would imagine that if there was anything said about “a river” “much water,” something would be at once conceded in favor of immersion. But not so. For when Baptists refer to the Jordan or Enon, where there was “much water” or to the water into which Philip and the eunuch went down, Pedobaptists argue that an abundance of water by no means indicates that the act of immersion was performed. We cannot please them at all. They are like the Jewish children in the market-places. If we pipe to them, they will not dance; if we mourn to them, they will not lament. If there is no mention of a “river” in a baptismal narrative of the New Testament, the cry is, “No immersion” and “Scarcity of water.” If the river Jordan is named, the same cry of “No immersion” is heard; so that, according to Pedobaptist logic, scarcity of water and abundance of water prove the same thing! How are we to meet in argument men who draw the same conclusion from premises as far apart as “from the centre thrice to the utmost pole”?

John Calvin felt the force of the argument in favor of immersion derived from the places selected for the administration of baptism. Hence, in his commentary (translated by Rev. William Pringle, Edinburgh, and printed for the Calvin Translation Society), he remarks on John 3:22-23 : “From these words we may infer that John and Christ administered baptism by plunging the whole body beneath the water.” On Acts 8:38 he says: “Here we see the rite used among the men of old time in baptism; for they put all the body into the water. Now, the use is this, that the minister doth only sprinkle the body or the head. But we ought not to stand so much about a small difference of a ceremony that we should therefore divide the church or trouble the same with brawls. Wherefore the church did grant liberty to herself since the beginning to change the rites somewhat, excepting the substance.” So much for the testimony of the great Calvin.

Before proceeding to the historical argument for immersion, I will say that if baptizo means “to immerse,” it does not mean “sprinkle” or “pour.” If it means “sprinkle,” it does not mean “immerse” or “pour.” If it means “pour,” it does not mean “sprinkle” or “immerse.” It is at war with the philosophy of language to say that the word can denote three acts so dissimilar. Did not Jesus Christ, in enjoining baptism, give a specific command? If he did not, it is impossible to know what he requires, and the impossibility releases from all obligation to obey the requirement. I say boldly that it is not the duty of any man to be baptized if he cannot know what baptism is. All candid persons must admit that the Saviour gave a specific command when he enjoined baptism on believers. If so, he did not require them to be immersed in water, or that water be sprinkled or poured on them. He did not require any one of three things; for on this supposition the command loses its specific character. The matter, then, comes to this point: Did Christ require believers to be immersed in water, or to have water applied to them by sprinkling or pouring?

Now, if the word “baptize” in the New Testament means “sprinkle” or “pour,” as Pedobaptists insist, and if baptism is an “application of water,” is it not very remarkable that water is never said to be baptized upon the subjects of the ordinance, and never said to be applied? If “baptize” means “to sprinkle” or “pour,” the water is baptized, not the person.

We cannot speak of sprinkling a man without an ellipsis or figure of speech; and no one would expect an ellipsis or figure of speech in the Apostolic Commission. Sprinkling implies the separation and scattering of the particles of the substance sprinkled. A man cannot be poured, because pouring implies a continuous stream of the substance poured. I say, again, that if “baptize” in the New Testament means “sprinkle” or “pour,” the water is baptized. But nowhere is water found in the objective case after the verb “baptize” in the active voice, and nowhere is it the subject of the verb in the passive voice. We never read, “I baptize water upon you,” but, “I baptize you.” It is never said that water was baptized upon them, but it is said that “they were baptized, both men and women.” The subjects of the ordinance are baptized, the water is not; and therefore “baptize” in the New Testament signifies neither “sprinkle” nor “pour.” But substitute “immerse” for it, and how plain and beautiful is every baptismal narrative! I immerse you, not the water. They were immersed that is, the “men and women.” The plainness of this view renders a further elucidation of the point needless.

SECTION VI.

History bears testimony to the practice of immersion, except in cases of
sickness and urgent necessity, for more than thirteen hundred years.

I avail myself, as I have already done, of Pedobaptist witnesses. My first witness is Richard Baxter, author of the Saint’s Rest. He says, “It is commonly confessed by us to the Anabaptists, as our commentators declare, that in the apostles’ times the baptized were dipped over head in the water, and that this signified their profession both of believing the burial and resurrection of Christ, and of their own present renouncing the world and flesh, or dying to sin and living to Christ, or rising again to newness of life, or being buried and risen again with Christ, as the apostle expoundeth in the fore cited texts of Colossians 2 and Romans 6. [Note: Quoted in Booth’s Pedobaptism Examined] The celebrated Dr. Samuel Johnson refers to the Roman Catholics as in the Lord’s Supper giving the bread to the laity and withholding the cup from them. He says, “They may think that in what is merely ritual, deviations from the primitive mode may be admitted on the ground of convenience; and I think they are as well warranted to make this alteration as we are to substitute sprinkling in the room of the ancient baptism.” [Note: Boswell’s Life of Johnson, vol. 2, p. 383.]

John Wesley, in his Journal of Feb. 21, 1736, writes as follows: “Mary Welsh, aged eleven days, was baptized, according to the custom of the first church and the rule of the Church of England, by immersion.”

Dr. Miller, with his bitter opposition to immersion, says: “It is not denied that for the first few centuries after Christ the most common mode of administering baptism was by immersion.” [Note: Sermons on Baptism, p. 116.] The learned Mosheim, in his Church History, says of the first century: “The sacrament of baptism was administered in this century, without the public assemblies, in places appointed and prepared for that purpose, and was performed by an immersion of the whole body in the baptismal font.” Of the second century he says: “The persons that were to be baptized, after they had repeated the Creed, confessed and renounced their sins, and particularly the devil and his pompous allurements, were immersed under water and received into Christ’s kingdom.” Of the fourth century he writes thus: “Baptismal fonts were now erected in the porch of each church, for the more commodious administration of that initiating sacrament.” [Note: Maclaine’s Mosheim (in two vols.), vol. 1, pp. 46, 69, 121. 12] The celebrated church historian Neander, in his letter to .Rev. Willard Judd, expresses himself thus: “As to your question on the original rite of baptism, there can be no doubt whatever that in the primitive times the ceremony was performed by immersion, to signify a complete immersion into the new principle of life divine which was to be imparted by the Messiah. When St. Paul says that through baptism we are buried with Christ, and rise again with him, he unquestionably alludes to the symbol of dipping into, and rising again out of, the water. The practice of immersion in the first centuries was beyond all doubt prevalent in the whole church; the only exception was made with the baptism of the sick, hence termed baptisma clinicorum, which was performed merely by sprinkling.” [Note: See Appendix to Judd’s Review of Stuart.] I might quote other testimony like this from Neander’s Church History and his Planting and Training of the Christian Church, but the foregoing from the great Lutheran is sufficient.

Dr. “Whitby of the Church of England, in his commentary, says on Romans 6:4, “It being so expressly declared here and in Colossians 2:12 that we are ‘buried with Christ in baptism’ by being buried under water, and the argument to oblige us to a conformity to his death by dying to sin being taken hence, and this immersion being religiously observed by all Christians for thirteen centuries, and approved by our church, and the change of it into sprinkling, even without any allowance from the Author of the institution, or any license from any Council of the church, being that which the Romanist still urgeth to justify his refusal of the cup to the laity, it were to be wished that this custom might be again of general use, and aspersion only permitted, as of old, in case of clinici or those in present danger of death.”

What says Professor Stuart? Quoting Augusti, who refers to the ancient practice of immersion as “a thing made out,” he says: “So, indeed, all the writers who have thoroughly investigated this subject conclude. I know of no one usage of ancient times which seems to be more clearly and certainly made out. I cannot see how it is possible for any candid man who examines the subject to deny this.” Again: “The mode of baptism by immersion the Oriental Church has always continued to preserve, even down to the present time. The members of this church are accustomed to call the members of the Western churches sprinkled Christians, by way of ridicule and contempt. They maintain that baptizo can mean nothing but ‘mini erge’ and that ‘baptism by sprinkling’ is as great a solecism as * immersion by aspersion;’ and they claim to themselves the honor of having preserved the ancient sacred rite of the church free from change and corruption which would destroy its significancy.” [Note: Stuart On the Mode of Baptism, pp. 75-77.] As immersion was the general practice for more than thirteen hundred years, the reader may wish to know how it has been to so lamentable an extent superseded by sprinkling. The following quotations explain the matter.

Dr. Wall, in his History of Infant Baptism, speaking of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, which continued from A. D. 1558 to 1603, says: “It being allowed to weak children (tho’ strong enough to be brought to church) to be baptized by affusion, many fond ladies and gentlewomen first, and then by degrees the common people, would obtain the favor of the priest to have their children pass for weak children too tender to endure dipping in water. Especially (as Mr. Walker observes) if some instance really were, or were but fancied or framed, of some child’s taking hurt by it. And another thing that had a greater influence than this was: That many of our English divines and other people had, during Queen Mary’s bloody reign, fled into Germany, Switzerland, etc., and, coming back in Queen Elizabeth’s time, they brought with them a great love to the customs of those Protestant churches wherein they had sojourned. And especially the authority of Calvin, and the rules which he had established at Geneva, had a mighty influence on a great number of our people about that time. Now, Calvin had not only given his Dictate, in his Institutions, that the difference is of no moment, whether he that is baptised be dipt all over; and if so, whether thrice or once; or whether he be only wetted with the water poured on him: But he had also drawn up for the use of his church at Geneva (and afterward published to the world) a form of administering the sacraments where, when he comes to the order of baptizing, he words it thus: Then the minister of baptism pours water on the infant; saying, I baptize thee } etc. There had been, as I said, some Synods in some Dioceses of France that had spoken of affusion without mentioning immersion at all; that being the common practice: but for an Office or Liturgy of any church; this is, I believe the first in the world that prescribes affusion absolutely.”

Dr. Wall also refers to the influence of the “Westminster Assembly in substituting pouring and sprinkling for immersion. That Assembly not only made a “Confession of Faith,” but a “Directory for the Public Worship of God,” in which “pouring or sprinkling” is declared “not only lawful, but sufficient and most expedient.” Such a declaration surely would not have been made if “pouring” and “sprinkling” had not been of comparatively recent origin in England. This, however, by way of parenthesis. Dr. Wall says: “So (parallel to the rest of their reformations) they reformed the Font into a Basin. This Learned Assembly could not remember that Fonts to baptize in had been always used by the primitive Christians, long before the beginning of popery; and ever since churches were built: But that sprinkling, for the common use of baptizing, was really introduced (in France first, and then in other Popish countries) in times of Popery: And that accordingly all those countries in which the usurped power of the Pope is, or has formerly been, owned have left off dipping of children in the Font: But that all other countries in the world (which had never regarded his authority) do still use it: And that Basins, except in case of necessity, were never used by Papists, or any other Christians whatsoever, till by themselves. The use was: The minister continuing in his reading Desk, the child was brought and held below him: And there was placed for that use a little Basin of water about the bigness of a syllabub pot, into which the minister dipping his fingers, and then holding his hand over the face of the child, some drops would fall from his fingers on the child’s face. For the Directory says, it is not only lawful, but most expedient, to use pouring or sprinkling.” *

I quote also, in vindication of the “truth of history,” from the Edinburgh Encyclopaedia, edited by Sir David Brewster, a very distinguished Pedobaptist. It contains the following account of “sprinkling:” “The first law for sprinkling was obtained in the following manner: Pope Stephen II., being driven from Rome by Astolphus, King of the Lombards, in 753, fled to Pepin, who a short time before had usurped the crown of France. While he remained there the monks of Cressy, in Brittany, consulted him whether in case of necessity baptism performed by pouring water on the head of the infant would be lawful. Stephen replied that it would. But though the truth of this fact should be allowed which, however, some Catholics deny yet pouring or sprinkling was admitted only in cases of necessity. It was not till the year 1311 that the legislature, in a Council held at Ravenna, declared immersion or sprinkling to be indifferent. In this country [Scotland], however, sprinkling was never practised in ordinary cases till after the Reformation; and in England, even in the reign of Edward VI., trine immersion was commonly observed. But during the persecution of Mary many persons, most of whom were Scotsmen, fled from England to Geneva, and there greedily imbibed the opinions of that church. In 1556 a book was published at that place containing (The Form of Prayers and Ministration of Sacraments, approved by the famous and godly learned man, John Calvin/ in which the administrator is enjoined to take water in his hand and lay it on the child’s forehead. These Scottish exiles, who had renounced the authority of the Pope, implicitly acknowledged the authority of Calvin, and. returning to their own country, with John Knox at their head, in 1559, established sprinkling in Scotland. From Scotland this practice made its way into England iii the reign of Elizabeth, but was not authorized by the Established Church.” [Note: Article “Baptism.”] My last quotation bearing on the history of baptism I make from Dean Stanley of the Church of England. In his article on “Baptism” in the Nineteenth Century for October, 1879, in referring to immersion, he says: “Even in the Church of England it is still observed in theory. Elizabeth and Edward VI. were both immersed. The rubric in the Public Baptism for Infants enjoins that, unless for special cases, they are to be dipped, not sprinkled. But in practice it gave way since the beginning of the seventeenth century. . The reason of the change is obvious. The practice of immersion, apostolic and primitive as it was, was peculiarly suitable to the southern and eastern countries, for which it was designed, and peculiarly unsuitable to the tastes, the convenience, and the feelings of the countries of the North and West. Not by any decree of Council or Parliament, but by the general sentiment of Christian liberty, this great change was effected. Not beginning till the thirteenth century, it has gradually driven the ancient Catholic usage out of the whole of Europe. There is no one who would now wish to go back to the old practice. It had, no doubt, the sanction of the apostles and of their Master. It had the sanction of the venerable churches of the early ages and of the sacred countries of the East. Baptism by sprinkling was rejected by the whole ancient church (except in the rare case of deathbeds or extreme necessity) as no baptism at all.” In speaking of the decision of “the Christian civilized world” against immersion, he says: “It is a striking example of the triumph of common sense and convenience over the bondage of form and custom. Perhaps no greater change has ever taken place in the outward form of Christian ceremony with such general agreement. 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, and has altered the very meaning of the word.”

Dean Stanley’s testimony to historical facts can be safely accepted; but when he said that the change of immersion into sprinkling was a “triumph of common sense and convenience,” his language can be accounted for in one way: he was what is termed a “Broad Churchman,” and his views were quite elastic. There is no very great difference between a German Rationisalist and an English Broad Churchman. It would be out of place now for me to enter into a descriptive detail of the opinions of either.

If I have not proved that immersion was practised for more than thirteen hundred years, except in cases of sickness and urgent necessity, I may well despair of proving anything. He who is not convinced by the testimony adduced in support of this fact would not be “persuaded though one should rise from the dead.” What, then, is to be said of those Pedobaptists who assert that it cannot be proved that immersion was practised before the sixteenth century”? They should study church history, and from it they would learn that until the last few hundred years immersion was the general rule, and aspersion the exception. They would learn that at one period the validity of a copious pouring of water on the entire persons of the sick on their beds, instead of baptism, was seriously called in question, and by some positively denied. They would ascertain that many more infants had been immersed in water than ever had water sprinkled or poured on them. The man who denies this fact knows very little about ecclesiastical history. Immersion, however, so far as infants are concerned, is no better than sprinkling. Neither is commanded in the word of God, and both belong to the large family of human traditions.

SECTION VII.

Pedobaptist objections answered.

These are numerous, and all of them cannot be referred to in a book like this. I will, however, refer to the most prominent objections that have come to my notice. They are the following:

1. It is said that John baptized) not in, but at Jordan.

Episcopalians and Methodists are precluded from a resort to this objection, for the “Book of Common Prayer” and the “Discipline” both teach that Jesus was baptized “in the Jordan.” In all the range of Greek literature the preposition en, used in Matthew 3:6, and translated “in” means “in.” Harrison, who is high authority on “Greek prepositions,” refers to it as “the same with the Latin and English “in” (p. 243). It is a suggestive fact that our “in” comes to us through the Latin tongue from the Greek en. A child at a very early age learns what “in” means. To make the point before us plain it needs only to be said that John “baptized in the “wilderness.” Here we have the same “in” representing the Greek en. How would it do to say that John baptized at the wilderness? The Greek is surely a strange language if it has no preposition meaning “in;” and if en has not this meaning, there is no word in the language that has. Let any Greek scholar try to express in Greek the idea of being in a place, in a house, or in a river without the use of en. The meaning of en is “in,” as that of eis is “into;” and therefore it follows that John baptized in the Jordan, not at it.

2. John, it is said, baptized “with water”

It is insisted that “with water” implies that the water was applied in baptism. It is enough to say, in answer to this objection, that Baptists never immerse without water. John speaks of baptism in water, in the Holy Spirit, and in fire. King James’s translators probably rendered en “with” to make what they thought an emphatic distinction between the baptismal elements. They were wrong. Every scholar knows that the proper rendering is “in water.” The little preposition en here also acts a conspicuous part. It is as proper to say that John baptized with the wilderness and with the Jordan as that he baptized with water. In the first two instances en is translated “in,” and why should it be rendered “with” in the last? But, as I have said, Baptists do not immerse without water. If it is affirmed that the clothes were washed with water, does it follow that they were not dipped into it? Surely not.

3. It is urged with great confidence that three thousand persons could not have been immersed on the day of Pentecost,

It is supposed that there was not sufficient water for the purpose. Indeed! Where now is the “much water” that Dr. Rice found necessary for the “daily ablutions” of the Jews? They certainly performed their “ablutions” at home if they could not be dispensed with when they went to John’s baptism. Jerusalem, according to Dr. Edward Robinson, “would appear always to have had a full supply of water for its inhabitants, both in ancient and modern times. In the numerous sieges to which, in all ages, it has been exposed, We nowhere read of any want of water within the city.” [Note: Biblical Researches in Palestine, vol. 1, p. 479. 13] Where people can live, there is sufficient water for purposes of immersion. But why dwell on this point? If Jerusalem had been situated on the Mediterranean Sea, many Pedobaptists would not permit eis to take the three thousand converts into its waters. They are no more willing to admit immersion where there is an abundance of water than where there is a supposed scarcity. But it is insisted that it was impossible, even if there was water enough, for three thousand to be immersed in one day, and that therefore water must have been sprinkled or poured on them. I answer that it takes about as much time to sprinkle or pour as to immerse. Much the greater portion of time, in modern baptisms, is occupied in repeating the words of the baptismal ceremony. If it is said that sprinkling or pouring was more expeditiously performed in ancient than in modern times, I have an equal right to say the same thing of immersion. If the apostles alone baptized on the day of Pentecost (which, however, cannot be proved), they could have immersed the three thousand. If Pedobaptists deny this, let them account for the historical fact that Austin, the monk sent by Pope Gregory the Great into England in the year 597, “consecrated the river Swale, near York, in which he caused ten thousand of his converts to be baptized in one day.” They were immersed.

4. It is thought to militate against immersion that the Holy Spirit is said to be poured out.

If so, it militates equally against sprinkling. If pouring is baptism, why is not the Spirit sometimes said to be baptized? He is said to be poured out. There is as much difference between the pouring out of the Spirit and baptism in the Spirit as there is between the pouring of water into a baptistery and the immersion of a person in that water. Those baptized “with the Holy Spirit” or, rather, “in the Holy Spirit” are placed under the influence of the Spirit, just as a person baptized in water is put under the influence of the water. It is the prerogative of Christ to baptize in the Holy Spirit, If, as Pedobaptists insist, pouring is baptism because the Holy Spirit is said to be poured out, what follows? Why, that as the Spirit is said to be “given,” to “testify” to “fill,” and to “speak,” therefore giving, testifying, filling, speaking, are all baptism! This, surely, will not be claimed.

5. Saul of Tarsus, it is affirmed, was baptized standing up. The argument assumes that when it is said (Acts 9:18) that Saul “arose and was baptized,” the meaning is he “stood up and was baptized.” In the Greek the participle anastas is used, and it comes from a verb found in the New Testament more than a hundred times, rendered in a few places “stood up,” and in a hundred places “rise,” “arise,” or “raise.” Wherever “stood up” is found, “arose” would be just as good a translation. Let it be admitted, however, that the word is properly rendered “stand up” in certain passages; still, it is undeniable that it is used in other passages to denote the beginning of a process by which a thing is done. Two examples will be sufficient. It is said (Luke 1:39), “And Mary arose [anastasa, same word with a feminine termination] in those days, and went into the hill-country,” etc. Did Mary stand up and go? Does not anastasa here indicate the beginning of the movement by which she reached “the hill country”? In Luke 15:18 the prodigal son says, “I will arise [anastas] and go to my father;” and in Luke 15:20 it is said “And he arose [anastas] and came to his father.” Did he stand up and go to his father? Was not the anastas the commencement of the returning movement? He arose and returned to his father. Now, Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles. Is it not reasonable, then, to believe that when he says (Acts 9:18) that Saul “arose [anastas] and was baptized,” he means by anastas the beginning of a process necessary to his baptism? He evidently arose that he might be immersed; but no rising up, no anastas, was necessary if water was to be poured or sprinkled on him. His immersion implied the movement indicated by anastas, while pouring or sprinkling could imply no such movement. In Acts 9:39 of the same chapter it is said, “And Peter arose [anastas] and went with them “that is, to Joppa. He did not stand still and go, but he arose as the first thing to be done in getting to Joppa just as Saul arose as the first thing to be done in getting to a suitable place for immersion. But I shall let Saul, who afterward became Paul, settle this matter himself. In Romans 6:4, including himself with those to whom he wrote, he says: “We are [were] buried with him by baptism.” If Saul was buried by baptism, he was immersed. There is no burial in pouring or sprinkling.

6. It is argued that the question (Acts 10:47), “Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized?” intimates that water was to be brought. This objection to immersion is specially destitute of force. The question only means, Can anyone forbid the baptism of these Gentiles, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as the Jews? Baptist ministers, in receiving candidates for baptism, often say to the church, “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized?” Does this imply that the water is to be brought in a “bowl” or a “pitcher”? Evidently not.

7. It is supposed that the jailer (Acts 16:30-34) could not have been immersed in prison.

Baptists do not say that he was immersed in prison. The jailer brought out Paul and Silas from the prison before he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” Then they “spoke to him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.” It seems, then, that they were in his house (Acts 16:32). In Acts 16:34 it is said, “And when he had brought them into his house,” etc. Acts 16:33 contains an account of the baptism. They left the house when the baptism took place, and they went back into the house when the baptism was over. Did they leave the house that the jailer’ and his family might have water poured or sprinkled on them? Was it necessary? Certainly not, but it was necessary to the administration of apostolic baptism.

8. Pedobaptists urge that the baptism of the Israelites unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea is irreconcilable with the idea of immersion. In being baptized into or unto Christ we publicly assume him as our leader. The Israelites in being baptized unto Moses publicly assumed him as their leader. The resemblance of their passage through the sea, with the cloud above them, to Christian immersion no doubt suggested to Paul the language he employed. There was no literal baptism, and there was no pouring or sprinkling. How often is Psalms 77:17 referred to to prove that the Israelites had water poured on them! Unfortunately for this view of the matter, it is said, “The clouds poured out water.” It was a cloud that Paul refers to the miraculous cloud, the symbol of the Divine Presence. This cloud had no more water in it than that on which the Saviour rode triumphantly to heaven. It will be observed that the Israelites were baptized in the cloud and in the sea. In literal baptism the water constitutes the envelopment. The person is baptized in water only. In the case of the Israelites it required the sea (which was as a wall on each side) and the cloud (which was above) to complete the envelopment. Who does not see that the word “baptize” is used in connection with the passage of the Israelites .through the sea because it means “to immerse”? If it could be conceived that the miraculous cloud poured forth water, and that the pouring constituted the baptism, what had the sea to do in the baptismal operation? Absolutely nothing; but Paul says that “our fathers were ... baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Corinthians 10:2).

9. It is contended that the phrase “divers washings” in Hebrews 9:10 (in the original, “baptisms”) indicates more baptisms than one.

It is a significant fact that Dr. Macknight, a Presbyterian translator, renders the phrase “diverse immersions.” The Mosaic law required unclean persons to “bathe themselves in water;” it required unclean vessels to be “put into water;” and it said, “All that abideth not the fire ye shall make go through the water” (Numbers 31:23). It surely will be conceded that these regulations involved “diverse immersions.” There were “divers” occasions for immersing, and “divers” objects were immersed. Moreover, in the same chapter of Hebrews the verb rantizo (“to sprinkle”) is used three times. If by “divers washings” the inspired writer included sprinklings, why did he use a different word when, as everybody knows, he intended to convey the idea of sprinkling? Is there a man under the sun who can tell?

10. Immersion, it is affirmed, is indecent and dangerous.

What says Dr. Richard “Watson, in his Theological Institutes, a work so highly approved by his Methodist brethren? Here is his language: “With all the arrangements of modern times, baptism by immersion is not a decent practice: there is not a female, perhaps, who submits to it who has not a great previous struggle with her delicacy.” Again: “Even if immersion had been the original mode of baptizing, we should in the absence of any command on the subject, direct or implied, have thought the church at liberty to accommodate the manner of applying water to the body in the name of the Trinity, in which the essence of the rite consists, to different climates and manners; but it is satisfactory to discover that all the attempts made to impose upon Christians a practice repulsive to the feelings, dangerous to the health, and offensive to delicacy is destitute of all scriptural authority and of really primitive practice.” [Note: Vol. 2, pp. 648, 660, New York edition.]

Immersion “not a decent practice” Yet the Methodist “Discipline” authorizes it! Does it authorize an indecent practice? It recognizes immersion as valid baptism, and its validity must arise from the appointment of Jesus Christ. It cannot be valid unless he has appointed it. Will Methodists dare say that one of Christ’s appointments “is not a decent practice”? Will they say that this “practice” is “repulsive to the feelings” and “offensive to delicacy”? Can it be “repulsive to the feelings” of Christ’s friends to do what he has commanded? No “female,” it seems, “submits to” “immersion without a great previous struggle with her delicacy”! Ah, indeed! Baptists who practise immersion know nothing of this “great struggle.” The temptation to write something severe on this point is quite strong; but I resist it, and only say that persons who see “indecency” or “indelicacy” in immersion are vulgar-minded. The “indecency” and the “indelicacy” are in them, not in the ordinance of Christ. In the foregoing extract from Watson, where he refers to “the church” as “at liberty to accommodate the manner of applying water to the body in the name of the Trinity,” the discerning reader will detect the germ, of Popery. Ah, that “liberty to accommodate “! How mischievous has been its operation! It led Calvin to say that, though immersion was the primitive practice, “the church did grant liberty to herself, since the beginning, to change the rites somewhat, excepting the substance.” It led Watson to say that “if immersion had been the original mode of baptizing” the church would be “at liberty to accommodate the manner of applying” the water. In the last decade it led Dean Stanley to refer to the substitution of sprinkling in the place of immersion (admitted by him to have been the ancient baptism) as “the triumph of common sense and convenience over the bondage of form and custom.” Alas! the exercise of this assumed “liberty to accommodate” that is, to deviate from the order appointed by Christ resulted in the establishment of the Romish hierarchy, and has led to the formation of every Pedobaptist church under heaven. This fact is intensely suggestive.

I have now examined the most prominent objections of Pedobaptists to immersion. Whatever else may be said of these objections, it cannot be said that they have weight. They are light as the thin air lighter than vanity. They indicate the weakness of the cause they are intended to support. An examination of them must confirm Baptists in the belief of their distinctive principle which has now been considered namely, that THE IMMERSION IN WATER OF A BELIEVER IN CHRIST IS ESSENTIAL TO BAPTISM SO ESSENTIAL THAT WITHOUT IT THERE IS NO BAPTISM.