2011 issue 3 - difficulties about baptism - counsel of chalcedon

8/12/2019 2011 Issue 3 - Difficulties About Baptism - Counsel of Chalcedon

1/25

DifficultiesAbout baptism

bydouglas bannerman

A Handbook for Young People

FORWARD

HE REV. PROFESSOR R. L.

MARSHALL, M.A., LL.D., D.D.,

F.R. HIS. S.

his handbook written by Doug-las Bannerman, M.A., D.D., waspublished originally by Te Free

Church of Scotland in 1898. D. Doug-

las Bannerman is primarily known

to us by his excellent two volume

work, Te Scripture Doctrine of the

Church. Bannerman, a Scottish Pres-

byterian (January 29, 1842-1903) was

the son of James Bannerman and,

like his father, a minister in the FreeChurch of Scotland. Te mode and

subjects of Baptism are living issues.

It is obvious, therefore, that Christian

people should be aware of what the

Scriptures can teach us about this

Sacrament, and of the nature and his-

tory of the controversies which have

arisen concerning it.wo generations ago Professor

(Tomas) Witherow published a little

book which very substantially ful-

filled these needs, and later the Rev.

Dr. Lowes book provided a clear and

trenchant exposition of the relevant


2/25

5Counsel of Chalcedon Issue 3 2011

Difficulties About Baptism

issues. Both of these are long out ofprint. (Witherows book is available on-

line and in print).

One welcomes, then, this re-issueof Difficulties about Baptism by D. D.

Bannerman. o my mind it furnishesthe sincere enquirer with a clear and

judicial summary of the subject, setting

out simply what we can learn from the

Bible, and treating concisely the variousquestions about which there has been

dispute.

We are indebted to the members

of the Presbyterian Fellowship whohave ably prepared this re-issue, and

I cordially commend it to the carefuland prayerful attention of all interested

Christians. R. L. MARSHALL

PREFATORY NOTE

HE OBJEC OF HIS LILEWORK IS WOFOLD.

First, it seeks to supply something

which may be useful to young men andwomen, who have been led to think spe-

cially of the questions: What is Baptism?

and Who should be baptized? and who

feel difficulties in connection with them.Te Author has supposed himself to be in

the presence of an audience of that class,and speaks to them in this book in the

direct style which it would be natural for

Him to use in such circumstances.Secondly, the book is meant to be of

service to ministers and other teachers,who may have occasion to take up the

subject in Bible or senior classes, and

who wish to meet effectively the sort ofdifficulties about Baptism which experi-

ence shows are apt to weigh most with

the young people for whom they arecalled to care. With this view, the work

has been broken up into short chapters,

with subdivisions and headings to themain paragraphs, so as to facilitate thestudy of the subject in a class.

Te Scripture quotations are taken,as a rule, from the Revised Version.

DIFFICULTIES ABOUTBAPTISM

INRODUCION

NATURE OF THE DIFFICULTIES

he Larger Catechism of the West-minster Divines has a valuablesection on the Sacraments. It is to thesame effect as the corresponding sec-

tion in the Shorter Catechism, withwhich most of us are more familiar;but it is fuller and more detailed in

statement. Te language may seem alittle old-fashioned, but it is singularlyweighty and well considered. Te uni-

versal teaching of the Reformed Churchon the subject of the Sacraments in gen-eral, and of Baptism in particular, couldhardly be better expressed.

A Sacrament is an holy ordinance,instituted by Christ in His Church, tosignify, seal, and exhibit unto those that

are within the covenant of grace thebenefits of His mediation; to strengthenand increase their faith and all other

graces; to oblige (i.e., bind) them to obe-dience; to testify and cherish their loveand communion, one with another, andto distinguish them from those that are

without. Te parts of a Sacrament are

twothe one, an outward and sensiblesign,1 used according to Christs own

appointment; the other, an inward andspiritual grace thereby signified. Under

1. A sensible sign means one which can be per-

ceived by our bodily senses, and which ap-

peals to us through them.


3/25

Counsel of Chalcedon Issue 3 20116


the New estament, Christ hath insti-tuted in His Church only two Sacra-mentsBaptism and the Lords Supper.

Baptism is a Sacrament of theNew estament, wherein Christ hath

ordained the washing with water in thename of the Father, and of the Son, andof the Holy Ghost, to be a sign and sealof ingrafting into Himself, of remissionof sins by His blood, and regenerationby His Spirit, of adoption, and resurrec-tion unto everlasting life ; and wherebythe parties baptized are solemnly ad-

mitted into the visible Church, and en-ter into an open and professed engage-ment, to be wholly and only the Lords.,Baptism is not to be administered toany that are out of the visible Church,and so strangers from the covenant ofpromise, till they profess their faith inChrist and obedience to Him; but in-

fants descended from parents, eitherboth, or but one of them, professingfaith in Christ and obedience to Him,are, in that respect, within the cov-enant, and to be baptized.2

In this little book we are to con-sider difficulties often felt by youngChristians, and sometimes by those ofriper years also, about Baptism. Tesedifficulties, generally, arise in connec-tion with one or other of two ques-tionswhat is Baptism, what it is, inparticular, as regards the outward andsensible sign used according to Christsappointment? and to whom oughtBaptism to be administered?3

2. Larger Catechism, Qs. 162-168

3. Reformed Presbyterian are Baptists. We be-

lieve in and practice Christian baptism. Te

question is how and to whom baptism is to

be administered. Te term Baptists should

not be reserved for credo-Baptists or immer-

sionists.

First,What is Baptism? It is agreedon all sides that Christian Baptism, sofar as the outward rite is concerned,consists in the solemn application ofwater, in the name of the rinity, to the

person to be baptized. Te differenceof opinion arises when we ask: How isthis to be done? Should Baptism be byimmersion onlyi.e., by dipping thewhole body under water, as our Bap-tist brethren hold? Or should it be bywashing with water, as the Westmin-ster Divines teach, in common with all

the rest of Christendomi.e., either byimmersion of the person to be baptizedin the water, or by pouring or sprinklingof the water upon him, as may be judgedmost for convenience and edification?

Second,Who should be baptized?Should it be adult believers only, as Bap-tists hold? Or should it be adult believ-

ers, when these have not already beenbaptized in infancy, and the infantchildren of believers, when brought bythem for the ordinance? Tat is whatthe Reformed Church generally holdsand practices, all over the world.

It is in connection with one or otherof these two questions, or with both ofthem, that the difficulties are felt. Inother and more technical words, theyrefer either to the Mode of Baptism, orto the Subjects of Baptism. In the firstpart of this little work, accordingly, weare to consider the first question: Whatis Baptism, as regards its mode? going onin Part II to consider the second onenamely, Who ought to be baptized ? But

before we do so, it may be well to con-sider for a little from what standpoint,and in what spirit this subject should betaken up.


4/25



HOW THE DIFFICULTIESSHOULD BE DEALT

WITH: PRELIMINARYCONSIDERATIONS

1. RESPEC DUE O BAPIS

DENOMINAION

At the outset I would like to say thatI have the kindliest feelings towardsour respected brethren of the Baptistdenomination. I have read a great manybooks and articles on their side by their

leading writers, from Mr. Gale andDr. Carson to President Rooke and Dr.Clifford. I did so, I think, with an openmind, wishing to know all that was tobe said on both sides of this question;but I did not find their arguments at allconclusive. On the contrary, I am fullyconvinced that our Baptist brethren

have mistaken the mind of Christ forHis Church on the two points whichseparate them from the great majorityof their fellow-Christians. I sincerelyregret the separation thus broughtabout. I am sure that both we and theylose something by it. But I recognize,of course, that their views are consci-

entiously held, and that they are con-vinced that loyalty to Christ requiresthem to take up this separate position.

C. H. Spurgeon was seriouslyalarmed about what he called thedown-grade movement, or the progressof unsound doctrines among the Bap-tists ; and felt so strongly on the point asto withdraw, on that ground, from theBaptist Union, But, generally speaking,the Baptist denomination, in its varioussections, has been distinguishedandwill, I trust, always continue to be sofor soundness in the great fundamen-tal truths of the faith, and for a warmevangelical spirit. Tey have done much

good service in the cause of the Gospel

at home and abroad. Tere are names

of Baptist ministers and missionaries,

such as those of Robert Hall and C. H.

Spurgeon, William Carey, and Adoni-

ram Judson, which will always be heldin the highest honor in the universal

Church of Christ.

2. ADVANAGES ON HEIR SIDE:

BAPIS ARGUMEN SIMPLE

AND SEEMINGLY SRONG:

APPEALS O CHRISIAN CON

SCIENCE IN YOUNG BELIEVERS.

It is not at all surprising that young

men and women, who have not hith-

erto given any special attention to the

subject, should feel difficulties when a

Baptist tract is put into their hands, or

when some zealous Christian friend,

who holds Baptist views, begins to argue

with them, and to suggest objections to

the ordinary practice of the churches

which had not occurred to them before.

It would show a want of intelligence

if they did not now awake to see that

there were apparent difficulties, at least,

in connection with infant Baptism, and

there was a good deal that was plausible

at all eventsif not conclusiveto be

said in support of the Baptist view.

Te Baptist argument is very sim-

ple, and easily followed.And it may be

put in such a way as to appeal strongly

to the Christian instincts of a young

convert. You have come to Christit

is urgedand have promised to follow

Him. Well, why not follow Him into the

river? Was He not baptized as a young

man? Did He not say in connection

with His Baptism: Tus it becometh

us i.e., not Myself only, but all My

true followersto fulfil all righteous-

ness.? Did He not say afterwards: He


5/25



that believeth and is baptized shall besaved? You believe now. You did not,and could not do so, when you weresprinkled with water as an uncon-scious babe. Why not go on now to be

baptized after the Lords example andcommand? You should be buried withHim in Baptism. Is not immersion likeburial, whereas sprinkling is not? Isit safe for you to disobey such a clearcommand of Christ, or to shrink fromtaking up your cross and following Himin this way?

Now, every one of these argu-mentsas I shall have occasion to

show presentlyis unsound and

misleading. Tey rest upon a mis-understanding and misapplication ofScripture texts separated from theirconnections, and upon a failure to dis-tinguish between things that differ. But

they are certainly plausible, and fittedto impress young people who hear themfor the first time from earnest Christianmen and women, who honestly believein them, and who have perhaps them-selves acted upon them at some cost inthe way of family disagreement, or sep-aration from a congregation to whichthey were truly attached. Tere is oftena great deal to sympathize with and torespect in such cases, however muchone may regret the mistaken step.

Christian conscience, especially

in a young believer in the glow of his

first love, is naturally sensitive to ap-

peals of that sort. Te young man orwoman does not see how to answer

these Baptist arguments. He or shehas never, till now, thought particu-larly about the question. Possibly theirwhole argumentative stock-in-trade, asone writer on the subject calls it,4is the

4. Barnes-Lawrence, Infant Baptism. London,

1894, p. 6

fact that on three occasions the Apostle

Paul is said to have baptized house-

holds or families. Tat is very soon

disposed of; and they feel themselves

controversially bankrupt. Tey begin

to doubt whether they may not havebeen disobeying Christ in this matter

hitherto, and whether they will not be

acting against conscience now, if they

do not take steps for being immersed

without delay. Tey let their hesitation

be seen, and that, of course, brings fur-

ther pressure at once upon them. Tey

are told: I felt just so for months, orperhaps years, while I trifled with con-

science, and put off coming to a deci-

sion. It was such a relief when at last I

obeyed the Lord in simple faith in this

matter. I felt so much happier; and you

will feel the same, if you only have cour-

age to lay aside the fear of man, which

bringeth a snare, and to do what theLord has been showing you to be right.

3. HOW FAR CONSCIENCE A ES

IN SUCH CASES: ANALOGY OF

ROMAN CAHOLIC ARGUMEN.

Now, observe, the fact that a certain

action brings relief to conscience is no

proof at all that the thing done is right

in itself. No one who knows the facts of

the case can doubt that Cardinal New-

man, for example, honestly believed

that he was following Christ when he

joined the Church of Rome, and accept-

ed the doctrine of transubstantiation,

and that of the absolute supremacy of

the Pope. Had not Christ said: Tis is

My Body.? And was it not our part to

receive that in simple faith, in the plain

meaning of the words, without seek-

ing to lessen the wonder or explain it

away? Had He not said also: Tou art

Peter; and on this Rock will I build My


6/25



Church.I will give unto thee the keysof the kingdom of heaven; and whatso-ever thou shalt bind on earth shall bebound in heaven: and whatsoever thoushalt loose on earth shall be loosed in

heaven? Was it not safestnay, theonly safe wayto be in the only Churchwhich claimed to be built on Peter, togive the body and blood of the Lord atall her altars to all her communicants,and to wield the absolute power of thekeys of the kingdom of heaven ?

Dr. Newman came to feel that he

was resisting conscience by remaininglonger in the Church in which he wasborn and brought up, and to which heclung with such true affection ; andhe tells us in his Apologia, and in hisLetters, what relief of mind and peaceof conscience he got by becoming aRomanist. But you can all see that that

fact did not in the least prove that thestep he took was right in itself. Well, itis equally clear that no experience ofanyones getting peace of conscience bybeing immersed, furnishes the slightestproof that the step in itself was a rightone. I have no hesitation in saying thatmost of you young men and women

would find it very difficult to answer anintelligent English Roman Catholic, ifyou got into discussion with him aboutreligion. He would press you with thearguments that convinced CardinalNewman and Cardinal Manning, andwould dispose of some of the commonobjections to Romanism, which youwould be likely to bring forward, veryrapidly indeed. Te fact is that an edu-cated Romanist in this country, and aBaptist, being both in a minority as re-gards their distinctive views, are usual-ly much better up on the points of con-troversy, and the most effective way ofputting them from their side, than the

average Protestant, who has, naturally

enough, not given special thought to

the questions in dispute, and has taken

things a good deal for granted. But that

does not prove that either the Roman-

ist or the Baptist is right, or that wherethey are wrong cannot be clearly shown

by those who have given more attention

to the subject.

Te points of difference between us

and our Baptist brethren are, happily,

very trifling indeed in comparison with

the great and vital differences between us

and the Roman Catholics. But there is un-doubtedly a certain analogy in the style of

argument in the two cases. So far as the

Roman Catholics try to defend their sys-

tem on the ground of Scripture, as distin-

guished from tradition and the authority

of the Church, they, like the Baptists, rest

their argument on two or three isolated

texts taken out of their connection, andinsisted on in a sense which can be dis-

proved from the connection.

4. PRACICAL CONSIDER

AIONS BEFORE AKING UP

MAIN QUESION.

Te essential question to be settled,

both as regards the mode and the sub-

jects of Baptism, is: What is the mind

of Christ for His disciples in this mat-

ter? But, before we go on to look at

the Scripture evidence, I may say that

there are three practical considerations

which ought to be before the minds of

all young Christians who are troubled

by the sort of difficulties about Baptism

to which I have referred, and which may

help them to deal with these difficulties

in the right way :

First, Tis is not a vital or pri-

mary question at all, but a secondary

one. It is not about the essentials of


7/25



the faith, or the way of salvation. Itdoes not concern repentance towardsGod and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ;5nor that Baptism of the Holy Spirit,whereby all Christs true disciples are

baptized by the one Spirit into one bodyin Him.6As a minister of our Churchputs it in an excellent little tract on thissubject : Faith in the Lord Jesus Christand the Baptism of the Holy Ghost arewhat we need for salvation and for ser-

vice. Let us seek after these with all ourhearts; and then as doers of Gods will,

we shall know of His doctrine.7Te question which we are con-

sidering now is simply the outward

mode of administering a particular

ordinance, and the precise persons

to whom it should be administered.It is a question about which there is anhonest difference of judgment between

Christian men, equally anxious toknow their Lords will, and to obey it.We should see, therefore, that we do notmake too much of a difference of thissort. It is not a term of Communion,so far as I know, in any Presbyterian

Church in the world, for members as

distinguished from office-bearers.

I remember hearing C. H. Spur-geon say once, in our General As-sembly, where his presence was alwayswelcomed in the warmest way, that heheld the Shorter Catechism in the veryhighest esteem, and used itif I am notmistakenas a handbook in his Col-lege for the training of young Ministers.He only took the liberty, he said, ofleaving out one clause of the answer to

5. Compare the apostles words in 1 Cor. i.17 :

Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach

the Gospel, with Acts xx. 20f; 1 Cor. xv.1-4.

6. Eph. iv. 4-6; 1 Cor. xii. 13.

7. Soutar, Christian Baptism : Its Mode and Sub-

jects. Glasgow, p. 8.

one Question : Te infants of such asare members of the visible Church areto be baptized! Well, it is clear thatwe may easily make too much of a dif-ference of judgment upon one clause

of the answer to one Question in theCatechism, when we agree so cordiallywith men like C. H. Spurgeon on all therest. Should we not at least agree todiffer about that one clause in a spir-

it of mutual respect and forbearance?

Second, Te Baptist view is thatof a comparatively small minority

Te vast majority of Christians and ofProtestants hold a different view fromthat of our Baptist brethren on these

two points:How ought Baptism to

be administered, and to whom? Tereis something sad about the way in whichsome of their leading representativesspeak of this. Urged, says Dr. Clifford,

by our judgment of the meaning of theNew estament as to the will of the LordJesus, we have dared to differ from nearlythe whole of Christendom and some of ushave cultivated isolation lest we shouldbe entrapped into compromise. We havepreferred to dwell apart rather than en-danger our integrity as trustees of truth.Knowing that catholicity of spirit hassometimes led to disloyalty to intellec-tual conviction, we rejoice with tremblingin gatherings of Christians to promoteintimate knowledge of one another, in-terchange of ideas, and the quickeningof a kindly regard, lest it should issue inunwarranted concessions to what is re-garded as Paedo-Baptist error.8

While this is significant and worthconsidering, it is not, of course, con-clusive. It does not decide the questionon its merits. It is possible that the im-mense majority of intelligent Christians

8. Dr. Clifford in Review of the Churches,15th

December, 1892 p. 157.


8/25



in this country, and all over the world,may have mistaken the meaning of theBible teaching about Baptism. It is pos-sible, but it is not very likely. Te factsfurnish, at least, a good reason why a

young man or woman should not cometo any hasty conclusion, nor rush intoany hasty action on the subject, becausethey feel difficulties about it, and do notsee how to answer arguments or objec-tions which have been brought beforethem. Te facts to which I have referredmake it absolutely certain at least that

there must be another side to the ques-tion than the Baptist onethat it mustadmit of being answered in a differentway by intelligent Christian men; be-cause, in point of fact, the overwhelm-ing majority of Protestant Christians,with their Bibles in their hands, andwith the promise of the Spirit to lead

them into all truth needful for Christsdisciples, have come to one conclusionon this subject, and our Baptist breth-ren have come to another.

Tird, Te argument in support

of the view of the Reformed Church

generally is a CUMULAIVE ONE.It is of great practical importance if we

really wish to come to a right conclusionin this matter, that this should be keptin mind, namely, that the argument insupport of the view of Baptism held byall the Churches of Reformed Christen-dom except those of the Baptist order, isa cumulative one, just as the argumentfor the Divine authority of the Chris-tian Sabbath is. No one who insists onone special method of proof alonethat of direct injunction in so manywordscan possibly feel the full weightand force of the argument in support ofthe Divine obligation of the Lords Day;neither can he do so as regards the ar-gument in support of the true answer

to the question who should be bap-tized? It draws from the whole field ofScripture, from Genesis to Revelation.It grows and gathers strength in a mansmind the better he knows his Bible as a

whole, the better he understands theconnection between the Old estamentand the New, between the Church inthe days when the Gospel was preachedbeforehand unto Abraham,1 and theChurch under the Gospel now.

Te argument needs, therefore, alittle time and thought to be spent upon

it, if we are really to understand it andtake it in. In the case of the Jews in ourLords time, and the first disciples in theApostolic age, there was no difficultyof this sort, as we shall have occasionto show in the second Part, becausethe transition from the Old estamentChurch to the New estament one was

made in a perfectly natural way undertheir very eyes, Gal. 3:8. But for us, liv-ing in the twentieth century from thebirth of Christ, if we break away fromwhat Origenborn only some eighty-five years after the death of the ApostleJohntells us was the practice of thewhole Church from the Apostles timeas to the Baptism of infants,9it requiressome thought and study of Scriptureand contemporary writers in order thatwe may so put ourselves in the placeof the first disciples as really to under-stand what our Lords words and ac-tions in this matter means, and couldnot but mean, to them.

A young believer is apt to be a little

hasty and impatient in such circum-stances, to take one or two isolatedtexts in what he supposes to be theirnatural sense, without troubling him-self to look beyond them or to con-

9. Origen. Comment, in Rom. v., sec. 9 ; Homil, in

Lev. viii., sec. 3 ; in Luc. xiv.


9/25



sider their historic connection, and soto draw premature conclusions. Now,the Baptist argument, as I have saidalready, has a distinct advantage here.It is very simple, easily put, and easily

understood. It seems quite convincing,so long as you do not go beyond Matt.iii. 15, Mark xvi 16, and Rom. vi. 4, andwhile you interpret these verses fromthe standpoint of the twentieth centuryinstead of from the standpoint of thefirst disciples.

If any of you young men and wom-

en feel difficulties about Baptism, theright and the wise course for you to takeis to speak to older Christian friends inwhom you have confidence, or to cometo your minister or your elder for alittle frank talk over the matter at thebeginning. Tat is the time when theirwords are likely to be helpful to one

who really wishes to know the mind ofChrist for His people on this point, andnot merely to follow his or her own im-pulses and impressions. Young peoplehave repeatedly come to me in that way,and in most cases, I think, I have beenable to remove their difficulties, if theycame at an early stage. Of course, allwho know anything of human naturewill see that there is little use in a younglad or girl coming to their minister as todifficulties, after they have been talkingfor weeks about them to Baptist friends,and have practically made up theirminds, and told other people that theymeant to be immersed. It would requirea very unusual amount of humility of

mind to draw back at that stage, how-ever much evidence on the other side ofthe question might be set before them.

PART I - WHAT IS BAPTISM,

SO FAR AS THE OUTWARD

RITE IS CONCERNED?

HOW SHOULD I BE

ADMINISERED?

CHAPTER I - EXACT QUESTION

AT ISSUE: ANSWER OF CHRIS-

TIAN CHURCH GENERALLY:

ANSWER OF THE BAPTISTS:

PRESUMPTIONS AGAINST THE

LATTER.

1. How Far All Agree

PUING out of account the

members of the Society of Friends (or

Quakers, as they are generally called),

and any others who may think, like

them, that Baptism was not meant by

our Lord to be an ordinance of perma-nent obligation in His Church, we may

say that all Christians agree that this

Sacrament, so far as the outward and

visible part of it is concerned, consists

in the solemn application of water to

the person baptized, in the name of the

rinity. Tere is also general agreement

so far as the symbols and symbolic ac-tions in Baptism are concerned, that

these represent the washing away of

sins, cleansing, or purification through

the blood of Christ, and the power of

the Holy Spirit, union with the Lord Je-

sus in His atoning death and risen life,

and consecration to Him and to His

service. Te difference comes in whenwe ask how the water is to be applied,

whether the person to be baptized must

be put wholly under the wateri.e.,

dipped or immersed, or whether he

may be baptized as lawfully by pouring

or sprinkling.


10/25



2. NAURE AND EXEN OF HE

DIFFERENCE AS O MODE OF

BAPISM

he view of the Christian Church,

generally, is that, if the symbol of wa-ter is preserved, the amount of it isnot essential, but is a question to be

decided by considerations of conve-

nience and edification.All Christians admitBaptists as

well as othersthat there is a liberty

of this sort as regards the other Sac-

rament of Christs appointment. TeLords Supper, as the name implies, was

originally held at night, and in connec-

tion with a full meal. We hold it now,generally, in the forenoon or afternoon,

and we take only a morsel of bread and

a sip of wine. Yet Baptists, like all otherChristians, call it the Lords Supper still,

and consider that all that is essential inthe use of the symbols is preserved. Isit not reasonable to think that we were

meant to have the same liberty as to the

amount of the element or elements used

in the one Sacrament as in the other?Our Baptist friends say, No; because,

as regards Baptism, from the nature of

the case, no choice is given us. Here themode is the ordinance. You may have a

supper, which is taken in the forenoon,

and which consists of a morsel of breadand a mouthful of wine, but you can-

not have a Baptism unless the person

baptized is dipped over the head in the

water. We cannot recognize any Chris-tian, however eminent, as a baptized

believer, unless the ordinance has been

administered to him in that particularway. And most Baptiststhe immense

majority of those in America, in par-

ticulargo further, and say, We can-not admit him to the Lords able in our

church; and it would be wrong for us to

sit down with him at the Communion

in his own church.

Now, it is not fair to meet that posi-

tion, as is sometimes done, with mere

ridicule. It is honestly held by a large

number of earnest Christian men andwomen, because they believe that faith-

fulness to Christ requires them to take

it up. Tey hold that He meant all His

disciples to be baptized by immersion

that they cannot, indeed, be baptized at

all in any other way, because Baptism

means immersion, and, therefore, they

must obey Him at all costs, and mustmark their disapproval of what they re-

gard as disobedience on the part of pro-

fessing disciples of Christ to His plain

command, by coming out and being

separate from those who disobey

with such an one no not to eat at the

Lords able.

It is not fair, as I have said, to meetsuch views with mere ridicule. But it is

quite fair to point out that there are

3. CERAIN PRESUMPIONS

AGAINS HE BAPIS POSIION

(1.) It is not likely that under the

Gospel of Christ and the dispensation

of the Spirit so much should turn upon

a mere point of ritual. For that is what

it really isa dispute about the correct

way of performing a certain outward

rite. Te question at issue here is simply

this: whether a man is rightly baptized

by standing in a river and being dipped

over his head in the water, and wrongly

baptizedor rather, not baptized at all

by standing in the river and having water

poured or sprinkled on his head. We say,

It makes no difference. Either way will

do. Our Baptist brethren say, It makes

all the difference in the world. Te first

way is Baptism, and the second is not.


11/25



OHER CONSIDERAIONS

(2.) It is not likely that the DivineFounder of a universal religion shouldhave bound all His followers in all time

to perform the rite of admission into thefellowship of His disciples in one par-ticular way, which, in some countries,10is practically impossible for some sixmonths in the year, and in others ishighly inconvenient, contrary to thenatural habits and ways of the people,and even dangerous to health.

(3.) It is not likely that the resultwould have been that throughoutnineteen centuries the great majorityof Christians should invariably havemistaken the meaning of their Lordscommand, and so should never havebeen baptized at all, although honestlybelieving that they were.

All these things are unlikely. It wouldneed very strong and conclusive evidenceto establish a position which involvesthem. Let us consider now what the evi-dence bearing on the question really is.

CHAPTER II

MEANING OF WORDS BAP

IZE, BAPISM, EC., AS USEDIN SCRIPURE AND BY WRIERS

OF HELLENISIC GREEK GEN

ERALLY.

1. Exact Point at Issue needs some

Scholarship to decide.

A put by our Baptist brethren, thequestion of the mode of Baptism turnsentirely upon the meaning of a particu-lar word, or group of words, in the Newestament, namely, the word baptizo,

10. In Greenland, e.g., or among the North

American Indians.

with its derivatives. Baptists generallysay that it means to immerse, and onlyto immerse, always and everywhere, inthe New estament and out of it alike. 11

Well, this just comes to be a ques-

tion of scholarship and of nicer andmore exact scholarship than you mightthink at first sight; and, therefore, itis not easy to go into it in a popularhandbook such as this without seem-ing pedantic, and being too minute fora good many of my readers. Because,observe, this is a question regarding

11. Footnote l-Te separate ecclesiastical posi-

tion of our Baptist brethren rests upon the

further assumption that, if Baptism means

immersion, that settles the whole question

as to the mind of Christ for His Church in

this matter. But the analogy of the other

Sacrament is enough to show that this is an

unfounded assumption. Te proper meaning

of supper is an evening meal. Te LordsSupper arose out of the Passoverwhich

was also an evening mealand it was held

at night, both when first instituted and

on other occasions mentioned in the New

estament. But these facts do not prevent

the Lords Supper from being lawfully held,

in the judgment of Baptists and of all other

Christians, in the morning. Even supposing,

therefore, that it could be proved that the

proper, or at least the original, meaning of

Baptism is immersion, just as the proper

meaning of supper is an evening meal, it

would not in the least follow that, accord-

ing to the mind of Christ, His people could

only be baptized by immersion, any more

than that they could only lawfully hold the

Lords Supper in the evening. In this chap-ter, however, the Baptist arguments regard-

ing the mode of Baptism are considered on

their own ground. Dr. Carson, for example,

asserts that in the strongest terms (Baptism

in its Mode and Subjects. London, 1844, p.

55) and he is, on the whole, the ablest Baptist

controversialist whom I know.


12/25



the precise use and meaning of a smallgroup of words, not in ordinary classi-cal Greekthe Greek which boys learnat schoolbut in a certain dialect ofGreek at a certain age, and as used by a

certain class of writers, which differedin many respects from classical Greekespecially in its use of certain words.Te New estament, like the famousGreek version of the Old estament,commonly called the LXX. (or Septua-gint), which was our Lords Bible, andthat of all His first disciples, was writ-

ten not in classical but in what is knownas Hellenistic Greeka very impor-tant difference.12 Obviously, therefore,this point in disputenamely, the exactmeaning of baptizo in the LXX., in theNew estament, and in certain otherwriters who used what was practicallythe same, or a closely-kindred form of

the Greek language, is a somewhat nicequestion of scholarship, which can onlybe settled by those who have studiedthe subject, and are competent to speakupon it. Others must be guided on thispoint, as in similar cases, by the evi-dence of experts.

2. DIFFERENCES BEWEEN AS

SERIONS IN POPULAR BAPISRACS AND ADMISSIONS OF

12. Reference to any good school dictionary for

ordinary Greek will bring out the point here.

urn up Baptizo in Liddell & Scott. Tree

chief meanings are givenI., o dip under

water ; of ships, to sink them ; Pass, to bathe;

II., o draw water; III.,o baptize, N.. [4thEdition, Oxford, p. 238]. Te question we

have now to consider is what the third mean-

ing in Liddell & Scott covers. Tey do not

settle that point for us. Tey leave us to find

out what to baptize really means in the N..

and other books written by Jewish authors in

Hellenistic Greek.

MORE COMPEEN REPRESEN

AIVES OF HE HEORY

Some of the tracts and pamphletscommonly circulated by our Baptist

friends, when they try to handle thisquestion of the meaning of baptizo,supply remarkable illustrations of the

truth of the saying that a little knowl-

edge is a dangerous thing. It is in thatclass of writings that you find strong as-

sertions that baptizo means to immerse

and only to immerse, with the still more

amazing assertion that all scholars ad-mit this. And therewith these writers

often give a list of names of commenta-

tors from patristic times and from theReformation period, whom they declare

to be all on their side. Nothing could be

more irrelevant and misleading thansuch references.

When we come, however, to Bap-tist controversialists whose scholarshipis of a higher order, such as Dr. Carson

and President Rooke, we find consid-

erably greater caution, and some very

noteworthy admissions. ake Dr. Car-son, for example, in his able work to

which reference has already been made:

Baptizo, I have asserted, has but onesignification.My position is that it al-

ways signifies to dip, never expressing

anything but mode. Now, as I have allthe lexicographers and commentators

against me in this opinion, it will be

necessary to say a word or two with re-

spect to the authority of lexicons. Manymay be startled at the idea of refusing

to submit to the unanimous authority

of lexicons, as an instance of the bold-est skepticism. Dr. Carson proceeds

accordingly, at some length, to explain

why his readers should in this case fol-low him rather than the lexicons. Now

this is a frank and courageous admis-


13/25



sion on the part of Dr. Carson, He has

all the lexicons and all the commenta-

tors against him in his opinion on the

crucial point of this controversy. And

although Dr. Carson goes on to fight

vigorously for his opinion, an ordinary

jury of thoughtful readers may see rea-

son to side with all the lexicographers

and all the commentators, rather than

with him and the Baptist writers gener-

ally who agree with him.

3. EVIDENCE FROM HE LEXICONS

It is unnecessary to give this in

detail, in view of Dr. Carsons candid

admission that all the lexicographers

are against him A few instances may

be enough :

First, Gases, a learned scholar

of last century, a Greek himself and a

member of the Modern Greek Church,defines baptizo in his large lexicon as

meaning (1) o wet or moisten; (2)

o wash or bathe; (3) o draw water.

None of these meanings suits the Bap-

tist view, not even No. 2 ; for a thing

or person may be washed, or bathed,

without being dipped. All the mean-

ings of course, except the last, suit ourview of the modes of Baptism.

Second, Scapula,one of the great

Greek scholars of the Reformation pe-

riod, says, in his Greek-Latin Lexicon,

that baptizo means1, o dip or im-

merse, as when we immerse something

in water for the sake of washing or pu-

rifying it ; 2, to submerge or overwhelmwith water ; 3, to wash or purify (Mark

vii. and Luke xi). Only the first of these

meanings suits the view of the Baptists.

Scapulas interpretation of the Bap-

tisms spoken of in Mark vii. and Luke

xi. is, of course, fatal to their theory.

Tird, Grimms Greek-English

Lexicon of the New estament de-

fines baptizo, 1, Prop, to dip repeat-edly, to immerse, submerge (of vesselssunk, Polyb.; of animals, Diod.) ; 2, to

cleanse by dipping or submerging, towash or make clean with water ; in theMid. and 1 Aor.. Pass., to wash ones-self, bathe ; so Mark vii. 4, where W.H.txt. rhantisontaii.e. sprinkle them-selves . . . baptismos, a washing, puri-fication effected by water ; so Mark vii.,4-8 ; of the washing prescribed by the

Mosaic Law, Heb. ix. 10. lt is worth noting that the mean-

ing, to wash or make clean with water,is the one given by Grimm in referenceto the New estament passages, withthe alternative reading of sprinklethemselves, in Mark vii. 4. For bap-tismos (the word used for Baptism in

Mark vii.. 4-8, Heb. vi. 2 and ix. 10, andby Josephus of Johns Baptism13) Grimmdoes not give immersion as a meaningat all, but only a washing, purificationeffected by water. He gives immersionas one of the meanings for baptisma, akindred word.

Fourth, Dr. E. Robinson, Profes-

sor of Biblical Literature in New York,and author of Biblical Researches in

Palestine,a book which marked an erain Biblical Archaeology, compiled alsoan excellent Greek and English lexiconof the New estament. In it he gives themeaning of baptizo in the N. as, 1. owash, to lave, to cleanse by washing; 2,to baptize, to administer the rite of bap-

tism, either that of John or of Christ.14Te general result, then, is this: ac-

cording to the lexicons, baptizo has sev-

13. Josephus, Ann. 18, 5, 2.

14. Compare also Cremers Biblico-Teological

Lexicon of N Greek, 3rd English ed., pp.

126-130.


14/25



eral meaningsimmerse, wash, wet ormoisten, wash away, cleanse or purify.

Which of these meanings it has ina particular case, or class of cases, de-pends on the context, or the usage of

the writer or group of writers.15Whenwe turn to the group of writers whoused Hellenistic Greek we find that thisword, especially as employed by Jewishwriters on religious subjects (and all theN., writers, it is to be remembered,were either Jews or proselytes), meansto wash or purify with water for some

religious purpose, in whatever way thewater was applied. It may be by puttingthe thing or the person into the wateri.e. by immersion ; or it may be by put-ting the water upon themi.e. by pour-ing, wetting, or sprinkling.

Illustrations of this might easily begiven from the LXX, and other sources.

But, for the readers whom I have espe-cially in view, it will be more convenientto turn at once to the New estament.

4. EVIDENCE FROM HE NEWESAMEN

In Mark vii. 4 we have two instanc-es of the kind I refer to in one verse.

(1.) When theyi.e. the Phari-sees and all the Jews, come from the

15. Immerse is sometimes spoken of in the

lexicons as the proper or original meaning

of baptizo. Tat the proper meaning of a

word may often largely, or entirely, give place

in the course of time to one of its second-

ary meanings may be easily understood by

English readers if they think of such wordsin their own language as manufacture and

blazon. Te proper or original meaning

of the first of these terms is to make with the

hand; we use it always now of things made

by machinery. Te second meant originally

to explain a coat-of-arms; it means now to

publish abroad in any way.

market-place, except they wash (liter-ally, as in margin of R.V., baptize)themselves, they eat not.

Tat does not mean, of course, thatthey immersed themselves over the head

in water each time before eating. Terewere no private baths, as a rule, amongthe Jews of our Lords time, even inwealthy houses, far less among the peoplegenerally. o go to a public bath, even ifthere had been such institutionswhichwas the case only in a few Greek citieslike iberiaswould have been, from

the Pharisees point of view, to contractadditional uncleanness. What they didwas to sprinkle themselves with a bunchof hyssop, or something of that sort, forceremonial cleansing, very much as Ro-man Catholics sprinkle themselves withholy water on entering a church.16 Youwill see on the margin of the R.V., Some

ancient authorities read sprinkle them-selves, instead of baptize themselves.Tat is the reading of the Vatican and theSinaitic MSS., both of them very high au-thorities. It may not have been the origi-nal reading, but a gloss or interpretationadded at a very early date. But, if so, it wasa correct interpretation of what baptiz-ing themselves meant in this connec-tionnamely, sprinkling themselveswith water. (of our Lords time read intheir Greek Version of Ps. li 7).

(2.) Mark vii. 4.And many oth-

er things there be, which they have

received to hold, washing of cups andpots, brasen vessels and tables. TeR.V. gives the last clause, Washing of

cups and pots and brasen vessels, not-ing in the margin, Many ancient au-thorities add and couches,

Here again, while the A.V., and R.V.rightly give the meaning of the word by

16. Sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be

clean, was what the Jews


15/25



washings, literally it is baptizings.Tese were some of the divers baptiz-ings of the Jews, referred to in Heb. ix.1017 which consisted in application ofwater in various ways with a view to

washing or purifying. You might washa cup, for example, by immersing itin water, though you might also do soby using a sponge or a wet cloth. But

you certainly would not wash a greatbrasen vessel or copper, or a table or acouch by dragging it down to the riverand plunging it in.. You would pour or

sprinkle water upon it, and use a spongeor something of that sort. Well, that waswhat the Jews did in these baptizingsof coppers and tables, or couches.

(3.) Luke xi. 38.And when thePharisee saw it, he marveled that He

(Jesus) had not first washed (literally

baptized Himself) before dinner.

Our Lord had come from the midstof a multitude of people, Luke xi.29,many of them, in the judgment of thePharisee, common and unclean. Afterbeing in contact with impure persons,why had He not purified or baptizedHimself in the usual ceremonial way?Tat did not mean that every casualguest was expected to immerse himselfand his clothes also, before taking hisplace at the table. But those who camein from the marketplaceas in Mark

vii., 4or from contact with a crowd, asin this case, were expected to wash theirhands, which was usually done by pour-ing water upon them, and to sprinklethemselves and their garments from a

vessel set in some convenient place in thehall or court of the house, with a bunchof hyssop beside it for the purpose.

Tis explains the verse in the ac-count of the Marriage at Cana of Gali-

17. And possibly also in Heb. vi. 2 the teaching

of baptisms, where the same word is used.

lee, in which we read: Now there weresix water-pots of stone set there, afterthe Jews manner of purifying, contain-ing two or three firkins a-piece, John2.6. Tat was the provision made for

the numerous guests baptizing them-selves, as they passed in to the weddingfeast. Tey were not to immerse them-selves in the water-pots, but to pour alittle of the clean water on their hands,or sprinkle it on their garments afterthe Jews manner of purifying.

(4.) John iii. 22-25.After a state-

ment that Jesus was baptizing in Ju-dea at the same time that John was

doing so in Enon, the evangelist pro-

ceeds: Tere arose, therefore, a ques-tioning on the part of Johns discipleswith a Jew about purifying. And theycame unto John, and said unto him:Rabbi, He that was with thee beyond

Jordan, to whom thou hast borne wit-ness, behold, the same baptizeth, andall men come to Him. Tese disciplesof John, as it appears, were jealous inbehalf of their master when they heardof crowds flocking to be baptized byJesus of Nazareth. Some Jew had ap-parently been taunting them about the

greater popularity of the new eacherand His baptism. Tey came to Johnhimself to decide the difficulty as tothe rival baptisms. Te questioningabout purifying was just a questioningabout baptizing. Te evangelist usesthe words interchangeably just becausein the ecclesiastical language of his daythe two meant the same thing. Dr.James Bannerman, Church of Christ,Vol. ii, pg. 126.

As the writer now quoted pointsout, it is easy to see how the transitionof meaning took place. Te same pro-cess may be traced in the history of thekindred word bapto. It has two chief


16/25



meaningsfirst, to dip, and secondly,to dye. Men dipped objects in liquid inorder to impart color to them; and sobapto came to signify to dye or impartcolor. Te Jews immersed, or washed,

or sprinkled, in order to attain purity,and so baptizo came to mean to pu-rify. As commonly used by the Jewsin our Lords time, the word conveyedthe general idea of purifying withoutany special reference to mode. It hadbecome practically equivalent to kath-arizo. Look at the first instance in the

New estament of the use of the term,and you will see how well the render-ing purify suits the whole scope of thepassage, and how obviously unsuitableimmerse is, in the second part of it.Ten went out unto John, Jerusalemand all Judea, and all the region roundabout Jordan ; and they were purified

(immersed or dipped) of him in theriver Jordan, confessing their sins. Butwhen he saw many of the Phariseesand Sadducees coming to his purifica-tion (immersion or dipping), he said:. indeed purify (immerse or dip) youwith water unto repentance; but Hethat cometh after me is mightier than

I; He shall purify (immerse or dip) youwith the Holy Ghost and with fire. Tencometh Jesusfrom Galilee to the Jordanunto John, to be purified (immersed ordipped) of him., But John would havehindered Him, saying, I have need to bepurified (immersed or dipped) of Tee,and comest Tou to me? And Jesus an-swering said unto him: Suffer it now; forthus it becometh us to fulfill all righ-teousness. (Matt. iii. 5-15. Dr. JamesBannerman. Church of Christ, ii. 124f.)

It may safely be left to the com-mon sense of the reader to decidewhether Scapulas third meaning ofbaptizo, Robinsons first (for the N.),

and Grimms secondviz., to wash orpurify, to wash or make clean withwater, is not a more suitable renderinghere than immerse or dip.

(5.) Compare the promise given in

the passage quoted aboveHe shallbaptize you with the Holy Ghost and

with fire,and repeated by our Lord inActs i. 5, with its fulfillment when theHoly Spirit came upon the disciples atJerusalem on the Day of Pentecost, andupon those gathered in the house of Cor-nelius afterwards at the Pentecost of

the Gentiles. As I began to speak, theApostle Peter said, who had been an eye-witness of both events, the Holy Ghostfell on them, even as on us at the begin-ning. And I remembered the word of theLord, how that He said : John indeed bap-tized with water ; but ye shall be baptizedwith the Holy Ghost. Acts xi. 15f.

It is suitable that the symbol shouldrepresent the reality as closely as pos-sible. As regards the mode of baptism,that is better done when the water fallsupon the person baptized, as in baptismby pouring or sprinkling, than whenthe person is plunged into the water asin baptism by immersion. Te Scripture

symbols for the Spirit in His graciousoperations are dew or rain comingdown from above, not a pond or poolinto which men are plunged.

Te apostles words in the house ofCornelius, when he enjoined that theoutward sign of baptism should fol-low the inward grace and power of theSpirit already received, are in perfectaccordance with this view. Ten an-swered Peter: Can any man forbid thewater that these should not be baptized,which have received the Holy Ghost aswell as we? And he commanded themto be baptized in the name of JesusChrist. Acts 10:47. Te expression is


17/25



interesting, Dean Alford says in hisCommentary on the passage, as show-ing that the practice was to bring thewater to the candidates, not the candi-dates to the water. Tis, which would be

implied by the word under any circum-stances, is rendered certain when weremember that they were assembled inthe house. In other words, this is oneof several cases in the N.., in whichthere is something like moral certaintythat the baptism was by sprinkling orpouring, and not by immersion.

(6.) In I Cor. x. 1 f., the Apostlesays: Our fathers were all under thecloud and all passed through the sea,and were all baptized unto (Moses inthe cloud and in the sea. Ex. 14.21ff, 29.

Te Israelites at the crossing of theRed Sea were no doubt sprinkled bydrops from the cloud, and by the spray

of the sea waves as the strong windswept over them all night.. But certainlythey were not immersed. Tey wentinto the midst of the sea upon the dryground; and the waters were a wall untothem on their right hand and on theirleft. Te Children of Israel walked upondry land in the midst of the sea. TeEgyptians were immersed afterwards.But that was not a kind of baptism tobe desired or followed.

(7.) Heb. ix. 8-10.Te first tab-ernacle is a parable for the time nowpresent, according to which are offeredboth gifts and sacrifices that cannot,as touching the conscience, make theworshipper perfect, being only (with

meats and drinks, and divers wash-ings,) carnal ordinances imposed untila time of reformation.

Te service of the tabernacle inO.. times is here described as con-sisting, among other things, of div-ers washings (literally baptisms). Te

context18 shows that what the writerspecially had in view wasfirst, thewater of separation namely, spring-water with which the ashes of an heiferwere mingled, and which was applied

for the sprinkling of the unclean; sec-ondly, the water mixed with blood withwhich Moses sprinkled the book of thecovenant, the people themselves, andthe tabernacle with all its vessels. Tesebaptisms, therefore, were in point offact sprinklings and not immersions.

CHAPTER III

BAPTIST OBJECTIONSANSWERED

OBJECION I HE WAY IN

WHICH HE BAPISM OF OUR

LORD AND HA OF HE EHI

OPIAN EUNUCH ARE DESCRIBEDPROVES HA HESE WERE

CASES OF IMMERSION.

We read in Mark 1:9f: Jesuswasbaptized of John in the Jordan; andstraightway coming up out of the water,he saw the heavens rent asunder, andthe Spirit as a dove descending upon

Him. Te narrative in Acts (8:38ff)says: Tey both went down into thewater, both Philip and the eunuch, andhe baptized him. And when they came

18. See verses 13 and 19-22. For if the blood

of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a heifer

sprinkling them that have been defiled sanc-

tify unto the purifying of the flesh. . . . Mosestook the blood . . . with water and scarlet wool

and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book

itself and all the people. . . . Moreover the

tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry

he sprinkled in like manner with the blood.

And according to the law, I may almost say,

all things are cleansed with blood.


18/25



up out of the water, the Spirit of theLord caught away Philip.1 Ought wenot to follow the example of our Lord,and the practice of the Baptist and ofPhilip as to the mode of Baptism?

Answer to Objection I - Well, butthe question remains : What was themode in these two cases? Certainly thewords used in the passages now quoteddo not settle the point - No one suppos-es that Philip himself was immersed; yetit is said of him equally with the eunuchthat he went down into the water, and

came up out of it. Our Lord may havebeen immersed at His baptism; and theeunuch may have been immersed alsoin what was probably a wayside springor shallow stream by the desert road toGaza; though the presumption in thelatter case seems against it.

But assuredly the words used do not

assert it in either case. Tose employedby the Evangelist in reference to ourLord would accurately describe such aBaptism as is set before us in the old-est Christian pictures of the rite in ex-istence, those found in the Catacombs,where the candidate is depicted asstanding in a shallow pool while wateris poured upon his head from the hand,or from a shell or small vessel held inthe hand of the person baptizing.19

19. Tat is the sort of Baptisme.g., represented

in a picture in the cemetery of Calixtus in

Rome, which is believed by De Rossione

of our foremost authorities on such ques-

tionsto belong to the second century. Inan interesting mosaic of our Lords Baptism

in an old baptistry at Ravenna, dating from

the fifth century, He is depicted as standing

in the Jordan, with the water reaching to His

waist, while the Baptist stands near, as if

upon the bank, and pours water from what

seems a small shell upon His head. See Mar-

Here is an instance of the samemode of Baptism as we see in the Cata-comb pictures, and the same use ofwords in describing it as we have in theaccount of our Lords Baptism and the

eunuchs.. I take it from the organ ofthe Church Missionary Society of theChurch of England. Scores of similarinstances could be given from mission-ary reports in connection with otherChurches. Te Rev. A., N. Wood bap-tised seventeen adults at Mamboia (Cen-tral Africa) on Easter Day. Te Baptism

took place in the river. Mr. Wood writes:Te Christians were arranged on oneside of the bank, and the heathen on theother. Te candidates for Baptism wereon the brink of the river on the side ofthe heathen. urning to the candidates, Iput the usual questions, with one or twoothers relating to their superstitions and

heathen customs.Tese being answered satisfactorily,the candidates stepped into the river,and were baptized (not by immersion,the river being too shallow), and thentaken by the hand by their witnessesto the group of Christians on the otherbank. When all the seventeen were bap-tized, we sang, O happy day that fixedmy choice.At Mpwapwa also nineadults were baptized in the river on Eas-ter Day by the Rev. J. C. Price.20

Here we have all the circumstancesand expressions from which our Baptistfriends argue that our Lords Baptism

riotts Art. Baptism in Smith and Cheethams

Diet, of Christ. Antiquities, i. 168-170.20. Church Missionary Intelligencer, July, 1894,

p. 535. Te witnesses referred to in this in-

teresting narrative are two native Christians,

who bear testimony to the consistent life of

the candidate for Baptism, and promise to

take some charge of him or her afterwards as

regards religious things.


19/25



and the eunuchs must have been byimmersion. Te candidates were bap-tised in the river; they went down intoit, and came up out of it. And yet theofficiating minister tells us, parentheti-

cally, the Baptism was not by immer-sion, the river being too shallow. Inthat climate, and in view of the customsof the people, it would have been a quitenatural and suitable thing, had the riverbeen deep enough, that the Baptismshould have been by immersion, Butin point of fact it was not so. And it is

quite likely that the Baptism of our Lordand of the Ethiopian treasurer tookplace just in the way in which those oldChristian pictures represent it, and inwhich those groups of converts fromheathenism were baptized in Africa onthat Easter Day.

Te words used about New esta-

ment Baptisms leave question of modeopen.Negatively, at all events, it is quite

clear that no one can ever prove fromsuch expressions as those now con-sidered, that our Lord and the eunuchwere not baptized, like those Africanconverts, in the water, but without be-ing immersed in it. It is simply a mat-ter of more or less uncertain inference.Tese Baptisms may have been in oneway, or in another as to mode.

Further, it is equally certain that theprimary word used in reference to ev-ery one of the Baptisms recorded in theNew estament is a word which leavesit an open question in what precise way

the water was applied. Tere are severalGreek words, kataduo and enduno, asthere are several English ones, whichmean to immerse, and nothing but toimmerse. Tese are sometimes used byearly ecclesiastical writersby some ofthe Greek fathers, for examplewhen

they wish to call attention to the pointthat the Baptism of which they speaktook place by immersion, as was, in pointof fact, the general custom in the post-apostolic age. Tese terms might have

been used by our Lord and His apostlesto show the mode of Baptism whichChristians were to use. In that case therecould have been no difference of opin-ion. But none of these words is ever usedin the New estament for Baptism, or inconnection with it. It is always this wordbaptizo which is employed; and that, as

we have seen, and as Dr. Carson admits,according to all the lexicographers andall the commentatorsthough not ac-cording to himself and the Baptists gen-erallyhas several meaningsin par-ticular, in that age, and among the Jews,the meaning of washing or purifyinggenerally. Its use, therefore, does not

settle the question of mode, but leaves itan open question.

Observe, it does not concern us inthe least to deny that some of the Newestament Baptisms may have been byimmersion, total or partial. Tat mode ofwashing or purifying was in accordancewith the Syrian climate, at most seasons,

and with the manners of the country,where circumstances were favorable,and there was much water in the place- John iii. 23: John also was baptising inEnon near to Salim, because there wasmuch water (lit. many waters) there;they came and were baptized.

Very probably some at leastper-haps mostof Johns Baptisms were ofthat sort. We have no desire whateverto dispute it. But it is a matter of lifeand deathso to speakfor our Baptistfriends to prove that not only some ormany, but all of them, and all the otherBaptisms spoken of in the New esta-ment, were Baptisms by immersion.


20/25



Now, to prove that is simply impossible,because it is plain, from the facts alreadynoted, that the precise mode of Baptismin every one of the New estament in-stances is simply a matter of conjecture,

or more or less probable inference fromthe circumstances of each case. If, inany one of them, the Baptism wase.g.,by pouring, as the very old Christiantradition, embodied in such picturesas those I have named, represents ourLords as being, then that is fatal to thetheory which declares the only lawful

Baptism to be by immersion.

CONCLUSION ON HIS POIN

FROM SCRIPURE EVIDENCE

All Scripture evidence, bearing onthe question of the mode of Baptism,leads us to the conclusion that the viewheld in all the Reformed Churches, ex-

cept the Baptist denomination, is thecorrect one, namely, that Baptism byimmersion, although perfectly law-

ful, is not necessary, and that its

expediency is simply a question of

circumstances. It is never enjoinedin Scripture; and it cannot be provedfrom Scripture, or by probable infer-

ence from Scripture, that it was eventhe common mode as regards Chris-tian Baptism. In several instances inthe apostolic historye.g., in the caseof Cornelius and his friends, in that ofPaul, and that of the jailor and his fam-ilythe strong presumption is that theordinance was administered in some

other way than by immersion.

CONFIRMAION OF HIS VIEW

FROM EARLIES POSAPOS

OLIC REFERENCE

An interesting confirmation of thisview is to be found in the very earli-

est reference to the mode of Baptism,which meets us when we pass beyondthe New estament writings. Te Di-dache, or eaching of the welve Apos-tles, is variously dated by competent

scholars as belonging to the end of thefirst century or the first half of the sec-ond. Tere is general agreement that itproceeded from some Jewish Christiancommunity, whether in Egypt or Syria,being an intensely Jewish decument.21Te author of this genuine fragment ofthe earliest tradition of the Church, as

it has been called by one of the great au-thorities on such subjects,22testifies tothe existence in his time of at least twomodes of Baptism, by immersion andby pouring or effusion; and he evincesnot the slightest doubt that the one isas valid as the other. After speakingof the preliminary instruction needed

for converts from heathenism, he says:And as touching Baptism, thus baptizeye : When ye have first recited all thesethings, baptize into the Name of theFather, and of the Son, and of the HolyGhost, in living water.. But if thou havenot living water, baptize into other wa-ter; and if thou canst not in cold, then inwarm. And if thou have not either, pourforth water thrice upon the head untothe Name of the Father, and Son, andHoly Ghost, eaching, chap. vii. (Dr.aylors translation.)

It is evident from this passage thatat the time and in the circle of its author,the normal or favorite mode of Baptismwas by immersion (total or partial) in

living i.e., fresh and running water;but that where water was scarce, as in aprivate house, a prison, or a catacomb,

21. Salmon, Lecture on Non-Canonical Books.

London, 1886, p 57

22. Dr. C. aylor, Cambridge, in his eaching of

the welve Apostles, p. 118.


21/25



it was held equally lawful to baptize by

pouring or sprinkling water on the head

in the name of the rinity. We learn

here, Dr. Schaff says, that in the post-

apostolic age a degree of freedom pre-

vailed as to the mode of Baptism, whichwas afterwards somewhat restricted.,

From this fact we may reason, a fortiori,

that the same freedom existed already

in the apostolic age. It cannot be sup-

posed that the twelve apostles were less

liberal than the writer of the Didache,

who wrote as it were in their name,

Schaff, Oldest Church Manual, p. 34.

LAER DEVELOPMENS AS O

MODE OF BAPISM AND SIGNIF

ICANCE AACHED O I:

Baptism by immersion became

almost universal in the early Church

when persecution ceased in the third

century and beginning of the fourth,

and it became possible to erect great

baptisteries, and have suitable arrange-

ments, with curtains, etc, for the con-

venient Baptism of men and women.

Te catechumens were baptized in a

state of absolute nakedness in great

numbers at Easter and other feasts of

the Church, with elaborate ritual of all

sorts. Immersion, generally three times

repeated, lent itself readily to such cer-

emonial, and to the allegorizing ten-

dencies of the patristic writers. It was

identified in the most absolute way with

regeneration; and the significance and

vital importance of this precise mode

of Baptism came to be insisted on in

language of the wildest extravagance.

Anyone who considers the way in

which even such a man as Chrysostom

speaks on this subject, will not won-

der at the fashion in which the pool

of regeneration and justification was

spoken of by less enlightened writers ofthe patristic period.23Teir position inthis matter is represented very closelyby the theory and practice of the GreekChurch at the present day in Russia

and elsewhere.

OBJECION II

We read in Romans vi. 3-5: Are yeignorant that all we who were baptizedinto Christ Jesus were baptized into Hisdeath? We were buried, therefore, withHim through Baptism into death: thatlike as Christ was raised from the deadthrough the glory of the Father, so wealso might walk in newness of life. Forif we have become united with Him bythe likeness of His death, we shall bealso by the likeness of His resurrection.And so, too, in Col. ii 12: Having beenburied with Him in Baptism, wherein ye

were also raised with Him through faithin the working of God, who raised Himfrom the dead. Is not the figure in thesetwo passages drawn from immersion,and does that not show that immersionat Baptism was the rule in the ApostolicChurch, and ought to be with us? Doesnot the apostle here obviously refer to a

person being buried for a moment underthe water when baptized, and rising upagain, even as Christ died, and was bur-ied, and rose again from the grave?

ANSWER O OBJECION II

Personally, I do not think that thereis any allusion in these passages to the

mode of Baptism; and a number of emi-nent commentators24 are of the same

23. See Marriott, Art. Baptism in Diet, of Christ.

Antiquities, i., pp. 157-164 ; Isaac aylor, An-

cient Christianity, 2nd edit., i., pp. 236-239.

24. E.g., Principal D. Brown, Godet, Dr. Charles

Hodge, President Beecher, &c. Dean Alford


22/25



opinion, for reasons which I shall touchon presently. But suppose, for the sakeof argument, that Baptism by immer-sion is referred to here.

Supposewhich is not the case

that burial to the Apostle Paul andhis first readers meant being lowereddown into a pit or grave under theground, and that resurrection fromamong the dead would thus mean ris-ing up out of a pit or grave, such as weare accustomed to see. Ten, being putdown under the water for a moment

in Baptism, and rising up again, wouldbe, so far, like being buried and raisedfrom the grave. Te apostle might, inthat case, naturally use it in illustrationof his argument as to Christians beingone with Christ in His death and burialand resurrection; because Baptisms byimmersion, although never expressly

mentioned in the New estament, wereprobably common enough in the Apos-tolic Churchthough not so commonas they became in the third and fourthcenturies when circumstances madethat mode of Baptism more generallyconvenient, and a growing tendency toformalism led the Church to attach im-portance to it.

But, observe, the (supposed) factof the apostles drawing an inciden-tal illustration from a common modeof Baptism would no more prove thatPaul regarded immersion as the onlylawful mode, than the undoubted factthat he draws not an illustration onlybut an argument, in I Cor., xv. 29, from

a curious custom prevalent in those

is doubtful whether the apostle intended

any reference to the mode of Baptism or

not. He is quite clear that, if there is such a

reference, it has no binding authority for the

Church as regards the question of one mode

rather than another.

days of being baptized for the dead,give any evidence that he even ap-proved of that custom, far less that hewished to perpetuate it.

An illustration, or even an argu-

ment, drawn from a prevalent customof that sort, proves nothing as to the

authority or importance of the custom

itself.But the truth is that the whole con-nection of thought in these two passagesis against the idea of there being any spe-cial reference to the mode of Baptism.What the apostle is speaking of in both

cases is the real and spiritual union ofbelievers with Christ as their substituteand representative in all that He did assuch, especially in His death, which wassealed by His burial, and in His resur-rection from the dead. Te ordinance ofBaptism is the outward sign and seal ofunion with Christ in all these respects.

Te inward grace is the Baptism ofthe Holy Spirit, the being baptized intoChrist and putting on Christ, Gal. 3:7,the being brought into union with Himand His, which the ordinance repre-sents. Te apostles argument does notin the least require any special referenceto the mode of Baptism.

Further, it is to be noted that the

modes of burial, customary among

the Romans, the Greeks, and the

Jews, were not in the least like im-

mersion. Among them the body wasnot lowered into a pit-like grave at all, aswith us. It was laid reverently on a rockshelf at some height above the ground,in a cave or built recess. Often there

were several of these shelves, rising oneabove the other, in the walls of the cave,or sepulchral chamber.25 Or else, as

25. Te early Christian graves in catacombs are

long, low, horizontal recesses in the walls

of the narrow galleries, commencing a few

inches above the level of the floor, and ris-


23/25



generally among the Romans, the body

was reduced to ashes, and these were

stored in a vase or urn, which was put

on a shelf or tiny niche in the wall.26If

we put ourselves, therefore, in the place

of the first readers of the Epistle to theRomans and the Colossians, it seems

quite unlikely that immersion in water

would suggest burial to them, or be a

natural image for it.

Lazarus, when he was called back

to life from among the dead, and our

Lord on the Resurrection morning, did

not rise up out of a pit in the ground.Tey rose up as from sleep on a bed,

stepping down from a shelf cut in the

side of the cave, or rock-hewn chamber,

which had a door against which27 a

stone was rolled to keep it in position.

Tey came forth. Tey did not come

up out of a grave dug in the ground,

with a flat stone laid on the top of it, aswe are apt to think from our association

with a quite different mode of burial.

No reliable argument, therefore,

can be drawn from these two passages,

in Rom. vi. and Col. ii., in support of the

Baptist view that immersion is the only

lawful mode of Baptism.

OBJECION III

But did not our Savior go down

into the river to be baptized, and did He

not say, in connection with His Baptism,

ing tier above tier, like the berths in a ships

cabin, to the number of five, six and some-

times even twelve ranges.Art. Catacombsin Diet, of Christ. Anliq. i. p. 306.

26. From the rows of such little niches in the

walls of the Roman burial chambers, these

were commonly known as Columbaria or

dovecots.

27. Mark xv. 46 ; John xi. 38, R.V., Comp. Matt,

xxvii. 60 ; xxviii. 2 ; Mark xvi. 3.

Tus it becometh us to fulfill all righ-

teousness, Mat. 3.15? We ought to fol-

low Christ in all things. Is it not safest

at least, if not absolutely necessary, for a

believer to follow Him into the river?

ANSWER O OBJECION III

1. As to our Lord going down into

the river, we have already seen that that

expression does not prove that He was

immersed in the river, any more than

those seventeen African converts of

whom we read that they all went downinto the river, and were all baptized in

the river, and yet not one of them, as it

happened, was baptized by immersion.

2. As to that argument about fol-

lowing Christ into the river, no doubt

it is used in all sincerity by some earnest

and well-meaning Christians; but it re-

ally embodies such a series of fallacies

that it would take more time than it is

worth while to bestow upon it to un-

ravel them all. It may be enough to say

two things to any young person who is

inclined to be impressed by that phrase.

In the first place, if you are to follow

Jesus in that literal and undiscriminat-

ing fashion, why not begin sooner, and

go further. He was circumcised. He sub-

mitted Himself to the initial Sacrament

of the Church of the Old estament, and

was thereby received into the visible fel-

lowship of the covenant people of God.

And, from the time when He was twelve

years old, our Lord kept the Passover, the

Sacrament of redemption by sacrifice

and the shedding of blood. Why not fol-

low Him in these things? Tere is just as

much reason for doing so as for follow-

ing Him in the matter of Johns Baptism.

For observe, in the second place, Johns

Baptism was not Christian Baptism;

and therefore it was no model for us as


24/25



Christians to follow. It would seem thatJohns disciples, who received that Bap-tism, who followed Jesus or precededHim in the Jordan, had to be baptizedover again when they became Chris-

tians. Te case of those twelve believersat Ephesus, who had received only JohnsBaptism, and knew nothing of the giftsof the Holy Spirit, is conclusive on thispoint. Tey, and all in like position, re-quired to be baptized into the name ofthe Lord Jesus, Acts xix. 1-7.

For those of the first disciples, such

as John and Andrew, who had followedthe Baptist before they turned fromhim to Christ, Johns Baptism was atemporary ordinance instituted fortemporary reasons, which have no ap-plication whatever to us.

For our Lord Himself, it was an or-dinance to which He submitted Himself

for reasons connected with His Divinemission as the Savior and the Substi-tute, which are still more applicable tous. He had to fulfill all righteousnessin the room and stead of His people.Coming forward now to be owned byJohn, as He of whom he spoke, TeSon of God, Te Lamb of God, whichtaketh away the sin of the world, ourLord speaks of Himself with the samemajesty of utterance as when He said toNicodemus: We speak that we do know,and bear witness of that we have seen;and ye receive not our witness. Tus itbecomes us to fulfill all righteousness.Te plural does not refer, in either case,to His future disciples at all.28

28. Te only other admissible interpretation of

the Us is that given by some commenta-

torsviz., that our Lord includes the Baptist

with Himself. In that case the meaning would

be as Meyer puts it: If I do not allow myself

to be baptized, and thou dost not baptize me,

there remains something unfulfilled, which

o bid young converts followChrist into the river, on the ground ofour Lords utterance as to His fulfillingall righteousness, however sincere andwell intentioned the adviser may be, is

simply to misapply Scripture altogether,and to furnish an illustration of whatArchbishop Whately, in a valuable essayof his, speaks of as the danger of an er-roneous imitation of Christs example.

Te whole question of the precisemode of Baptism is, from the stand-point of the New estament, an en-

tirely subordinate one. Te questionsto which importance is attached byour Lord and His Apostles are such asthese: Into what Name, and unto whatgifts is anyone baptized? In what spiritand on what grounds ought a believerto seek the ordinance for himself andthose that are his? Tere is one body

and one spirit, even as ye were called inone hope of your calling; one Lord, onefaith, one Baptism.

For in one Spirit are we all bap-tized into one bodyand have beenall made to drink into one Spirit. Eph.4.4ff, 1 Cor. 12:13. Te one Spirit has,indeed, diversities of operations; andso the symbol of the one outward Bap-tism, by washing with water in thename of the Father, the Son, and theHoly Ghost, may fitly have its diversityof administration, whether by immer-sion, or pouring, or sprinkling. Tatdoes not break the unity of the symbol.And over unessential points like these,Christians ought not to break the

unity of the Spirit, or the unity of com-munion in the Church of Christ.

ought to be done by us in accordance with

the Divine will; then satisfaction is not made

by us to al l righteousness.


25/25


Come with desire and you shall go away

with comfort. You shall have the virtues of

Christs blood, the inuences of His Spirit,

the communications of His love.

After several years of meditation, study,and prayer, Judy has completed writ-ing and composing songs for each of the

Beatitudes.

Judy says, This may be the most signi-

cant body of songs I have written.

Editor: Of course, many books have been written

on the subject and debate of the mode and

recipients of Christian baptism since Ban-

nermans article. Jay Adams provides a par-

ticularly cogent argument in his book, Te

Meaning and Mode of Baptism, for the viewthat there is no argument for immersion as

a mode of baptism in the Bible. Although

much ink and megabytes have been spilt on

this subject, we thought this a thoughtful re-

print to make available, especially since it ad-

dresses the youth of Reformed churches who

often do not know how to respond to immer-

sionists and credo (Believers only) - Baptists.

PART II NEXT ISSUE. WHOSHOULD BE BAPTIZED?

In the future we plan on print-

ing both parts as a one volume

booklet

2011 issue 3 - difficulties about baptism - counsel of chalcedon

Documents