To Infidelity and Back

baptism is the main key to the question of Christian union. We can differ on questions of theoretical theology and still work together in harmony in practical Christian activities. But

Christians can more easily agree than that of baptism, as the testimony of the scholars and churches that follow in this chapter abundantly demonstrate. The consummation of Christian union will have to patiently wait until inherited and acquired prejudices become sufficiently allayed so that all Christians can look at the question of baptism dispassionately. Then it will be discovered that we all agree on this question and the main barrier to Christian union will be removed. In our weakness we want to procure Christian union without giving

baptism, and, of course, I assumed that they must be right in the matter. Although I read the Bible through several times, I did not see its teaching on this subject, as I was not particularly interested in it. For reasons explained in prev

e to me, and I decided to discover for myself whether this was the fact or not. This was the beginning of my investigation of the subject of baptism. I found that Dr. Cary was correct in his statement. What influenced me greatly was the fact that the German rationalists, who are recognized as among the best scholars of the world, and who are perfectly

Commentary. The professor told us it was the very best and probably would be for years to come. When we came to Rom. 6:4, "buried with him through baptism," Dr. Sanday never raised a doubt about the meaning, but in eloquent words spoke about the beautiful representation of burial and resurrection with Christ in baptism. This astonished me very much, as Drs. Westcott and Sanday were noted Episcopalian scholars, and the Episcopal churches practise sprinkling. We used Dr. Thayer's New Testamen

t the truth about the meaning of the Greek word bap

A STUDY IN ME

r meaning has reference to specific acts, the secondary meaning refers to things done by means of these specific acts, while the tropical or metaphorical meaning departs from the specific meaning of the words and therefore cannot have reference to the specif

r meaning, that when it is said a man was hung, it means that he was shot, or when it is said he was poisoned, it means he was hung. No more is it conceivable that when the Greek word baptizoo (to immerse) was used, it meant to cleanse by sprinkling (rantizoo), or when the word rantizoo (to sprinkle) was used, it meant to cleanse by immersing (baptizoo). These words refer primarily to separate and distinct outward acts. It is true

reference to the application of water are so copiously supplied with words in the Greek, that they preclude the necessity of changing the meaning of a word like baptizoo to supply such a need. We have louoo, to wash or bat

out the application of water, except that of immersion; second, the fact that a tropical meaning of a word cannot refer to the specific outward act indicated by the word; and third, t

lowing answers-were received. It is the "best" (Professor Hodge, of Princeton); it is the "very best" (Dr. Alexander, of Vanderbilt University); "nothing can compare with it" (Dr Hersman, p

" (Professor Humphreys, of the University of Virginia, and Professor D'ooge, of Colby University); "I know of none" (Professor Flagg, of Cornell); "I do n

the numerous Greek lexicons, that they define the word baptizoo as meani

lexicons, but are much better acquainted with and influenced by the great chu

es Admit that Chris

s are taken from a tr

Catholic): "We observe a si

c): "That he who baptizes when he im

s I have seen (except that of Madeleine de Beulieu), and I have se

. 294.) "A mere pouring or sprinkling was never thought of." (First Age of Chu., p. 318.) "Baptism by immersion con

est immerses him, saying the servant of God

they hold to be a point necessary, that no

erally and always, to plunge. Baptism and immersion are, therefore, identical, and to say baptism is by aspersion is as if

the Greek language never has the meaning of to pour or to sprinkle, b

immerses him in water, saying such a one

ion, as when we plunge something into water, that it may be completely covered wi

one to be baptized was first immersed in water, signifying death, and then he was dra

s to immerse, and it is certain that the rite of immersion

Anabaptists, as our commentators declare, that in the Apostles' time the

Presbyterian included-are compelled to immerse candidates for baptism, for, as one of the profe

d into the water of baptism, ye wrere engraft

to the custom of the first church and the rule of the Church of England, by immersion." (Journal, vol. I, p. 20.) In Savannah, Ga., Sept., 1737, Wesley was found

d by Wesley himself, assert that "Jesus was baptized in the river of

voluntarily going under the water, so they received it as an emblem of the resur

d): "The priest shall dip him in

represent his death to the life of sin, then raised from this momentary burial to represent his resurrection to the life of righteousness. It must be a subject of regret t

he testimony is ample and decisive. It is a point on which ancient, medieval and modern historians alike, Catholic and Protestant, Lutheran and Calvi

sprinkle than to plunge. One who argues in this manner never fails, with persons of knowledge, to betray the cause he would defend; and though in respect to the vulgar, bold assertions gene

n the N. T., are all in favor of immersion rather than sprinkling, as is freely admitted by the best exegetes, Catholic

ke as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Fat

dies are washed in ba

] the Jordan" (Mark 1:9, A. R. V.). He could not hav

hanged Immersio

ld not be immersed, they sprinkled water on him. Thus originated what was called clinic or death-bed baptism. Its introd

ess, to baptize an infant by pouring water on its head from a cup or the hands?" The Pope replied: "Such a baptism, performe

administered by trine aspersion or immersion." This was th

izing by affusion has prevailed in the Catholic Church, as this manner is attended

with as much ease and as little contradiction as communion under one kind was established, so that the same reason stood for retaining one as the other. It is a fact most certainly avowed in the Reformation, although some will cavil at it, that baptism

the Eastern nations, whose habits and climate prepared them for it, and was, therefore, practiced in the commencement, whenever necessity did not prevent it. Cases, which at first were exceptional, gradually multiplied, so that, at length, the ordinary mode of baptism was by affusion. The church wisely sanctioned that which, although less

ine and ceremony. Not only the Catholic Church, but also the pretended reformed churches, have altered the primitive custom in giving the s

p under water." "Do we still baptize in that way?" Answer: "No;

mewhat, excepting the substance. It is of no consequence at all whether the person that is baptized is totally immersed, or wh

her immersion or sprinkling should be adopted; 25 voted for sprinkling, and 24 for immersion; and even that small majority was obta

dipping as long as any; for England, which is one of the coldest, was one of the latest that admitted this alteration of the ordinary way. . . . The offices or liturgies for public baptism in the Church of England did all along, so fa

that vast empire. Even in the Church of England it is still observed in theory. The Rubric in the public baptism for infants enjoins that, unless for speci

ime the Britons and Saxons were baptized, till King James' days, when the people grew peevish with all ancient ceremonies, and through t

ived far down into Queen Elizabeth's time, but seems to have died out early in the seventeenth century. I ought to add that in France (unreformed) the custom of dipping became obsolete long before it was disu

dently done in sincerity and in the honest belief that it was the right thing to do. We must accept the honest testimony of these scholarly experts that the New Testament teaches immersion, but we certainly believe they were mistaken in taking the liberty to change Christ's command. If we take such liberties, all of the

It is Wrong to Chan

changed the ordinance, broken the

God, ye hold the tradition of men. Ye reject the commandment of God that ye may keep your own tradition. Making the word

et if it be confirmed, no man disannu

the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, a

hearing the law, even his prayer

hat heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand; and the rain

eth me. If a man love me, he will keep my words. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you"

aptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the

dments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his command

ority and prejudice have hindered the translators from translating the Greek word, and thus telling us what it means in English, the cont

y. But the word has been translated in numerous editions in various languages, and whenever it has been translated, it was always by the word immerse or an equivalent term. No scholar, in any language, has ever had the temerity to translate it to sprinkle or to pour. Even our English translators translate it when it is not used as an ecclesiastical term. And when they translate it, they say it means to dip

d Record and see what th

saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him" (Mark 1:5,9,10). "John was baptizing in AEnon near to Salim, because there was much water there" (John 3:23). "And they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water . . . he went on his way rejoicing" (Acts 8:38,39). "We

mmarizes our study of

bl

N THE ENG

ON SPRINKLING AND POU

cts 8:36; 1

. John 3:23 2

er. Mark 1:9 3.

r. Acts 8:38 4. St

Mark 1:9 5. Putting wat

l. Col. 2:12 6.

ng. Rom 6:5 7. No

h. John 3:5 8.

ion. 9. No form of r

ne. Rom. 6:17 10.

hed. Heb. 10:2

the water. 12. No g

er, were buried in the water, planted in the water, born out of the water, raised out of the water, had their bodi

y places where sprinkling and pour

Pouring in th

.-Blood. 6. Heb. 12:24.-Blood. 7. 1 Pet. 1:2.-Blood. 8. Matt. 26:7,12.-Ointment. 9. John 2:15.-Mone

res that do refer to baptism hint at sprinkling or pouring as the action. Sprinkling and po

last trenches, and about to be caught, they try to escape by saying, "Baptism doesn't am

terally sprinkled or poured with the Holy Spirit, or immersed into Him, as the Holy Spirit is a person. The figurative meaning of baptism is to overwhelm, and to be baptized with the Holy Spirit is to be submerged or overwhelmed in His power, or to come completely under His control. Holy Spirit baptis

mere form?" Then, why is it said of the Samaritans that "when they believed Philip preaching good tidings concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women"? (Acts 8: 12). Will not the same follow to-day when people believe the whole gospel? "Baptism a mere form?" Then, why is it said of the eunuch that when Philip "preached unto him Jesus," he said, "Behold, here is water; what does hinder me to be baptized?"? And why did he not go "on his way rejoicing" before he "came up out of the water"? (Acts 8:35,39). If our converts do not ask for baptism, and we send them away as finished products without going down into the water with them, are we preaching and practising the same gospel as did the primitive evangelists under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? "Baptism a mere form?" Then, why did not even Christ himself speak peace to the soul of Saul, but sent him to Damascus and directed Ananias to tell him what he must do, who said to him, "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord"? (Acts 9: 6, 7; 22: 16). Does not the Lord send his servants to-day with the same message to those who put off their obedience to him in baptism? "Baptism a mere form?" Then, why was there a special miraculous demonstration to avoid objections to the baptism of the household of Cornelius, the first Gentile converts; and why did Peter command them to be baptized with water, after they had received the baptism of the Holy Spirit? (Acts 10:44-48). Does not this show that Holy Spirit baptism was not to displace water baptism? "Baptism a mere form?" Then, why was Lydia baptized as soon as she gave "heed unto the things which were spoken by Paul"? (Acts 16: 14, 15). If properly instructed, will not all people be baptized as soon as they are willing to give heed unto the word of the

d be his partisans, as they were divided on human leaders. We certainly dare not so interpret the words, "for Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel," as to contradict the commission of Christ and all the numerous clear Scriptures we have just quoted. He evidently meant that he himself did not do the baptizing, but had others do that part of the work, while he gave his time and strength to the preaching of the gospel. The same was true of Jesus himse

. 3:26, 27, we read, "For ye are all sons of God, through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ." In Rom. 6:3, 4, we read, "Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life." In Col

s in I Pet. 3:21: "Which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away the fil

rom the words of the Holy Spirit recorded in Luke 7: 29, 30: "And all the people when they heard, and the publicans, justified God, being

bordinates in an army or earthly kingdom act thus and use their influence to induce others to disobey the orders of those over them, they are punished for treason. Any army that is thoroughly united in the authority of its commander and cheerfully and promptly obeys his orders, is usually successful; while the largest and best army on earth would be doomed to defeat the moment its officers and men would disobey orders and each do as h

. This being true, as Christ has commanded every creature to be baptized (Mark 15: 15, 16; Acts 2: 38, etc.), it is evident that infant baptism is not valid. The parents cannot obey for the child, however good their intentions. The child, when it reaches the age of accountability, must

forsake the traditions, in which men have changed Christ's teaching on baptism, and will glor