what is christian baptism? this is the gravest question which enters into the baptismal controversy. other questions of moment there are in connection with it, touching the design, the efficacy, and the subjects. but it is of primary importance to know what constitutes baptism.
baptists answer the question by saying that baptism is the immersion, dipping, or burying in water, of a professed believer in christ, in the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit.
pedobaptists, both roman catholic and protestant, answer the question by saying that baptism is either the sprinkling or pouring of water upon the candidate, touching the forehead with wet fingers, or dipping the person wholly into water; in either case in the name of the father, the son, and the spirit; and that it may be administered [p. 81] to a candidate on his profession of faith, or to an unconscious infant on the professed faith of parents or sponsors. this would make four kinds of baptism, and two classes of subjects for its reception; and would consist rather in the application of water to the person, than putting the person into water.
baptists hold to a unity of the ordinance, as well as to a oneness of the faith; insisting that as there is but one lord, and one faith, so there is but one baptism. and the dipping in water of a professed disciple of christ is that one baptism. neither sprinkling a person with water, nor pouring water upon him can by any possibility be christian baptism. that this position is the true one, we appeal to the new testament, and the best extant historical and philological authorities to establish.
let it be distinctly understood, however, that all the eminent names and learned authorities hereafter cited are pedobaptists. baptist authorities are wholly omitted, not because they are less accurate or less valuable, but because we prefer to allow our opponents in this controversy to bear witness for us, rather than to testify in our own behalf.
[p. 82]the meaning of the word
the word baptize is, properly speaking, a greek word (baptizo), adapted to the english language by a change in its termination. this is the word always used by christ and his apostles to express and define the ordinance. what does that word mean as originally used? for it is certain that our lord, in commanding a rite to be observed by believers of all classes, in all lands, and through all ages, would use a word of positive and definite import, and one whose meaning would admit of no reasonable doubt. what do greek scholars say? how do the greek lexicons define the word?
scapula says: “to dip, to immerse, as we do anything for the purpose of dyeing it.”
schleusner says: “properly it signifies to dip, to immerse, to immerse in water.”
parkhurst says: “to dip, immerse, or plunge in water.”
stevens says: “to merge, or immerse, to submerge, or bury in water.”
donnegan says: “to immerse repeatedly into liquid, to submerge, to soak thoroughly.”
[p. 83]robinson says: “to immerse, to sink.”
liddell and scott say: “to dip repeatedly.”
grimm’s lexicon of the new testament, which in europe and america stands confessedly at the head of greek lexicography, as translated and edited by professor thayer, of harvard university, thus defines baptizo: “(1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, submerge. (2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging. (3) to overwhelm. in the new testament it is used particularly of the rite of sacred ablution; first instituted by john the baptist, afterward by christ’s command received by christians and adjusted to the contents and nature of their religion, viz., an immersion in water, performed as a sign of the removal of sin, and administered to those who, impelled by a desire for salvation, sought admission to the benefits of the messiah’s kingdom. with eis to mark the element into which the immersion is made; en with the dative or the thing in which one is immersed.”
the noun baptisma, the only other word used in the new testament to denote the rite, grimm-thayer thus define: “a word peculiar to the new testament and [p. 84] ecclesiastical writers: used (1) of john’s baptism; (2) of christian baptism. this, according to the view of the apostles, is a rite of sacred immersion commanded by christ.”
add to those such authorities as alstidius, passow, sch?ttgen, stockius, stourdza, sophocles, anthon, rosenmüller, wetstein, leigh, turretin, beza, calvin, witsius, luther, vossius, campbell, and many others who bear the same witness to the proper meaning of the word baptize. if at any time the word may have a secondary meaning, it is strictly in accord with its primary meaning—to dip, or immerse. for both classic and sacred greek the same meaning holds.
prof. moses stuart, one of the ablest scholars america has produced, declared: “baptizo means to dip, plunge, or immerse into any liquid. all lexicographers and critics of any note are agreed in this.” essay on baptism, p. 51; biblical repository, 1833, p. 298.
“all lexicographers and critics, of any note, are agreed in this,” says one of the foremost scholars of the age, and he a pedobaptist. what a concession!
[p. 85] the greek language is rich in terms for the expression of all positive ideas, and all varying shades of thought. why, then, did our lord in commanding, and his apostles in transmitting his command to posterity, use always and only the one word baptizo, to describe the action, and that one word baptisma, to describe the ordinance to which he intended all his followers to submit? the word louo means to wash the body, and nipto to wash parts of the body; but these words are not used, because washing is not what christ meant. rantizo means to sprinkle, and if sprinkling were baptism this would have been the word above all others; but it was never so used. cheo means to pour: but pouring is not baptism, and so this word was never used to describe the ordinance. katharizo means to purify, but it is not used for the ordinance. the facts are clear and the reasoning conclusive.
stourdza, the russian scholar and diplomat, says: “the church of the west has then departed from the example of jesus christ; she has obliterated the whole sublimity of the exterior sign. baptism and immersion are identical. baptism by aspersion is as if one should say immersion by aspersion, or any other absurdity of the [p. 86] same nature.” considerations, orthodox ch., p. 87.
the baptism of jesus
the baptism of jesus in the jordan is thus described: “and jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water” (matt. 3:16). and again, it is recorded that jesus “was baptized of john in jordan: and straightway coming up out of the water” (mark 1:10). he certainly would not go down into jordan to have water sprinkled on him. nobody believes he would. he was baptized in jordan, not with jordan. moreover, he was baptized, that is, immersed, not rantized, that is, sprinkled.
bishop taylor says: “the custom of the ancient churches was not sprinkling, but immersion, in pursuance of the meaning of the word in the commandments and the example of our blessed saviour.” commentary on matthew 3:16.
macknight says: “christ submitted to be baptized, that is, to be buried under water, and to be raised out of it again, as an emblem of his future death and resurrection.” com. epis., rom. 6:4.
[p. 87] and with these agree campbell, lightfoot, whitby, poole, olshausen, meyer, alford, and many other commentators and scholars. all those whom john baptized he buried beneath the waters, and raised them up again.
much water needed
it is recorded that “john also was baptizing in enon, near to salim, because there was much water there” (john 3:23). why need much water except for dipping, or burying candidates in the act of baptism?
john calvin, the great theologian, scholar, and commentator, whom scaliger pronounced the most learned man in europe, says: “from the words of john (chap. 3:23) it may be inferred that baptism was administered by john and christ, by plunging the whole body under water.” com. on john 3:23.
poole says: “it is apparent that both christ and john baptized by dipping the whole body in the water, else they need not have sought places where had been a great plenty of water.” annot. john 3:23.
[p. 88]whitby says: “because there was much water there in which their whole bodies might be dipped.” crit. com. john 3:23.
with these agree bengel, curc?lleus, adam clarke, geikie, stanley, and others.
philip and the eunuch
“and they went down both into the water, both philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. and when they were come up out of the water, the spirit of the lord caught away philip” (acts 8:38). why go down into the water, both, or either of them, if not for an immersion?
venema, the ecclesiastical historian, says: “it is without controversy, that baptism in the primitive church was administered by immersion into water, and not by sprinkling; seeing that john is said to have baptized in jordan, and where there was much water, as christ also did by his disciples in the neighborhood of those places. philip also going down into the water baptized the eunuch.” eccl. hist., chap. i., sec. 138.
to this may be added calvin, grotius, towerson, poole, and others to the same effect.
[p. 89]the testimony of scholars
great men are not always wise. our search should be for the truth wherever found; and though our final appeal in these matters is to the new testament, still we are glad to use the testimony of distinguished scholars where it affirms the teachings of the scriptures and confirms our position on the baptismal question. especially so, as these scholars are not of our own, but of other denominations.
zanchius, the learned roman catholic professor of heidelberg, whose opinion de courcy declared, “is worth a thousand others,” said: “the proper signification of baptize is to immerse, plunge under, overwhelm in water.” works, vol. vi., p. 217. geneva, 1619.
luther, the great german reformer, says: “the term baptism is greek; in latin it may be translated mersio: since we immerse anything into water, that the whole may be covered with the water.” works, vol. i., p. 71. wit. ed., 1582.
melanchthon, the most scholarly and able co-laborer with luther, says: “baptism is immersion into water, with this admirable benediction.” melanc. catec. wit., 1580.
[p. 90]cave, in his able work on christian antiquities, says: “the party to be baptized was wholly immersed, or put under water.” prim. christ., p. i. chap. x. p. 320.
beza, the learned translator of the new testament, says: “christ commanded us to be baptized, by which word it is certain immersion is signified.” annot. on mark 7:4.
mede, the distinguished english scholar and divine, says, “there was no such thing as sprinkling used in the apostles’ days, nor for many ages after them.” dis. on titus 3:5.
grotius, who his biographer calls one of the most illustrious names in literature, politics, and theology says: “that baptism used to be performed by immersion, and not by pouring, appears by the proper signification of the word, and by the places chosen for the administration of the rite.” annot. on matt. 3:6; john 3:23.
adam clark, the great methodist commentator, says: “alluding to the immersions practiced in the case of adults, wherein the person appeared to be buried under the [p. 91] water as christ was buried in the heart of the earth.” com. on col. 2:12.
frederick meyer, one of the ablest and most accurate exegetes of the present age, says: “immersion, which the word in classic greek and in the new testament ever means.” com. on mark 7:4.
dean alford says: “the baptism was administered by immersion of the whole person.” greek testament, matt. 3:6.
bishop bossuet, the celebrated french catholic bishop, orator, and counselor of state, says: “to baptize, signifies to plunge, as is granted by all the world.” see stenett ad russen, p. 174.
doctor schaff, the well-known church historian, says: “immersion, and not sprinkling, was unquestionably the original form. this is shown by the very meaning of the words baptizo, baptisma, and baptismos used to designate the rite.” hist. apos. ch., p. 488. merc. ed., 1851. also see noel on bap., ch. 3, sec. 8.
dean stanley, the distinguished scholar, and historian of the oriental church, says: “the practice of the eastern church, and the meaning of the word, leave no sufficient [p. 92] ground for question that the original form of baptism was complete immersion in the deep baptismal waters.” hist. eastern church, p. 34.
professor fisher, of yale college, the accomplished scholar and historian, says of the apostolic age: “the ordinary mode of baptism was by immersion.” hist. christ. church, p. 41.
professor riddle says: “there is no doubt that the usual mode of administering baptism in the early church, was by immersion, or plunging the whole body of the person baptized under water.” christ. antiq., p. 502.
add to the above the testimony of bishops taylor and sherlock, witsius, poole, vitringa, diodati, calvin, samuel clark, bloomfield, scholz, neander, and many others to the same effect, none of whom were baptists.
apostolical allusions
what idea could the apostle have had as to the nature of baptism, when in two of his epistles he alludes to it as a burial except that it was a dipping or burial in [p. 93] water? to the romans he says: “therefore we are buried with him, by baptism, into death” (rom. 6:4). to the colossians, in nearly the same language, “buried with him in baptism” (col. 2:12). no one can misunderstand the meaning of these words. neither sprinkling, pouring, washing, cleansing—nothing but a complete submersion—can represent a burial. and no candid mind could misunderstand such language, unless blinded or biased by prejudice, education, or sophistical reasoning from others.
archbishop tillotson makes this comment: “anciently those who were baptized were immersed and buried in the water, to represent their death to sin; and then did rise up out of the water, to signify their entrance upon a new life. and to this custom the apostle alludes.” works, vol. i., p. 170.
john wesley, the celebrated founder of methodism, says: “buried with him, alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion.” note on rom. 6:4.
conybeare says: “this passage cannot be understood unless it be borne in mind that the primitive baptism was by immersion.” [p. 94] life and epist. st. paul, rom. 6:4.
bloomfield says: “here is a plain allusion to the ancient custom of baptizing by immersion, and i agree with koppe and rosenmüller, that there is reason to regret it should ever have been abandoned in most christian churches; especially as it has so evident a reference to the mystical sense of baptism.” recens. synop., rom. 6:4.
whitefield says: “it is certain that in the words of our text (rom. 6:4) there is an allusion to the manner of baptizing which was by immersion.” eighteen sermons, p. 297.
meyer says: “the candidate says to himself, now i enter into fellowship with the death of christ; i am to be buried with christ in the immersion, and in the emersion i rise with christ to newness of life.” com. on rom. 6:4.
add to these the names of bishop fell, doctor doddridge, adam clark, estius, maldonatus, fritsche, benson, diodati, turretin, zwingli, whitby, samuel clarke, with others equally good in authority, and what no one ought to question seems to be put beyond doubt.
[p. 95]the witness of history
learned and devout men have studied with care the early records of christianity, and have written histories of the doctrines and customs of the churches, during the ages immediately succeeding the apostles. what do they tell us as to the use of baptism during the first centuries after christ?
barnabas, the companion of st. paul; hermas, writing about a. d. 95; justin martyr, about a. d. 140; tertullian, about a. d. 204; hippolytus, about a. d. 225; gregory, about a. d. 360; basil, about a. d. 360; ambrose, about a. d. 374; cyril, about a. d. 374; chrysostom, about a. d. 400; all speak of being dipped, or buried, or immersed, or plunged in the water in baptism; and none of them make the least allusion to any application of water to the person for baptism by sprinkling, pouring, washing, or any other mode whatsoever.
doctor wall, whose learned and laborious researches in connection with his exhaustive work on the history of infant baptism left little for others to discover in this field of scholarship, says: “the greek [p. 96] church in all its branches does still use immersion, and so do all other christians in the world, except the latins. all those nations that do now, or formerly did submit to the bishop of rome, do ordinarily baptize their children by pouring or sprinkling. but all other christians in the world, who never owned the pope’s usurped power, do and ever did dip their infants in the ordinary use. all the christians in asia, all in africa, and about one-third in europe are of the last sort.” hist. inf. bap., vol. ii., p. 376, 3d ed.
bingham, in his origines, the ablest work we have in english on christian antiquities, says: “the ancients thought that immersion, or burying under water, did more lively represent the death, burial, and resurrection of christ, as well as our own death to sin and rising again unto righteousness.” christ. antiq., b. xi., ch. xi.
mosheim says: “in this century (the first) baptism was administered in convenient places, without the public assemblies, and by immersing the candidate wholly in water.” eccl. hist., cent. i., part. ii., ch. 4.
neander says: “in respect to the form of baptism, it was in conformity to the original [p. 97] institution, and the original import of the symbol, performed by immersion, as a sign of entire baptism into the holy spirit, of being entirely penetrated with the same.” ch. hist., vol. i., p. 310. also, plant. and train., vol. i., p. 222.
schaff says: “finally, so far as it respects the mode and manner of outward baptizing, there can be no doubt that immersion, and not sprinkling was the original normal form.” hist. christ. ch., p. 488.
pressensé says: “baptism, which was the sign of admission into the church, was administered by immersion. the convert was plunged beneath the water, and as he rose from it he received the laying on of hands.” early years of christianity, p. 374.
kurtz says: “baptism took place by a complete immersion.” church history, p. 41.
kraus says: “baptism was performed by immersion in the name of the trinity.” church history, p. 56. 1882.
ellicott says: “jewish ablutions arrived at a ceremonial purity in the levitical sense, and had nothing in common with the figurative act which portrayed through immersion [p. 98] the complete disappearance of the old nature, and by the emerging again, the beginning of a totally new life.” life of christ, p. 110.
for thirteen centuries
it is proved that not only was immersion practiced for baptism by christ and his apostles, but that for many ages after nothing else was known as baptism: and that for thirteen hundred years it was the common and prevailing form over the whole christian world, with only exceptional departures, hereafter to be noticed. and that though the latin or roman church did finally adopt sprinkling, claiming the right to change ordinances, the greek and all the oriental churches retained dipping, as they do to this day.
doctor stackhouse says: “several authors have shown and proved that this manner of immersion continued, as much as possible, to be used for thirteen hundred years after christ.” hist. bible, b. 8, ch. 1.
bishop bossuet says: “we are able to make it appear, by the acts of councils and by ancient rituals, that for thirteen hundred years baptism was thus administered [by [p. 99] immersion] throughout the whole church, as far as possible.” cited, stennet ad russen, p. 176.
hagenbach says: “from the thirteenth century sprinkling came into more general use in the west. the greek church, however, and the church of milan still retained the practice of immersion.” hist. doct. vol. ii., p. 84, note 1.
van oosterzee says: “this sprinkling, which appears to have first come generally into use in the thirteenth century in place of the entire immersion of the body, in imitation of the previous baptism of the sick, has certainly the imperfection that the symbolical character of the act is expressed by it much less conspicuously than by complete immersion and burial under the water.” christ. dogmat., vol. ii., p. 749.
coleman says: “the practice of immersion continued even until the thirteenth or fourteenth century. indeed, it has never been formally abandoned.” anc. christ. exemp., ch. 19, sec. 12.
to the same effect is the testimony of doctors brenner, von c?lln, winer, augusti, bingham, and others.
[p. 100]as to the greek church
it is a notable fact and worthy of record in this discussion, that the greek church has always retained immersion in baptism. this church extends over greece, russia, arabia, palestine, abyssinia, siberia, and other oriental countries. like the latin church, it has corrupted the primitive purity of gospel doctrine and practice with many absurd glosses and superstitious rites. it practices infant baptism, yet it is by dipping, even in the severe climate of siberia; and it uses trine immersion, or dipping the candidate three times, one to each of the names in the sacred trinity. but in all its branches immersion is retained.
the edinburgh encyclopedia says: “the greek church, as well as the schismatics in the east, retained the custom of immersing the whole body; but the western church adopted, in the thirteenth century, the mode of sprinkling, which has been continued by the protestants, baptists only excepted.” ency. edin., art. baptism.
these statements are fully confirmed by stourdza, ricaut, deylingius, buddeus, wall, king, broughton, stanley, coleman [p. 101] and others, who have written on the state and history of the greek church.
the design of baptism
what was baptism intended to represent? as a religious rite it meant something, had some symbolic force, and represented some moral or spiritual fact or truth. its meaning was clearly this: to show forth the death, burial, and resurrection of christ, who died for our sins, and rose again for our justification. and every believer who receives this ordinance, professes thereby to have faith in the merits of christ’s death as the ground of his own hope of salvation; to have fellowship also with his sufferings, and makes a declaration of his own death to sin, and rising to a new life in christ. it also typifies the washing of regeneration; it further declares the candidate’s hope of a resurrection from the dead, even as christ, into the likeness of whose death he is buried, was raised up by the glory of the father. chiefly death, burial, and resurrection: the great facts of redemptive grace are by it set forth. immersion in baptism does teach all this, and immersion alone can teach it. careful students of the new [p. 102] testament have clearly seen this, and very generally confessed it, whatever may have been their practice.
bishop newton says: “baptism was usually performed by immersion, or dipping the whole body under water, to represent the death, burial, and resurrection of christ, and thereby signify the person’s own dying to sin, the destruction of its power, and his resurrection to a new life.” pract. expos. cate., p. 297.
bloomfield, barnes, schaff, poole, hammond, barrows, baxter, macknight, olshausen, grotius, saurin, buddeus, pictetus, frankius, wall, towerson, adam clark, tyndale, and others, bear similar testimony as to the design of the ordinance, and how it is answered in immersion only.
a sufficiency of water
there have been found persons so ignorant, or so weak, or so perverse in their opposition to immersion, as to assert that the jordan was a small stream, so nearly dry in the summer, that it had not sufficient depth of water for the immersion of the multitudes of the disciples of john and of [p. 103] jesus said to have been baptized in it; and also that jerusalem had no sufficient accommodation for the immersion of the thousands of converts at the pentecost, and on subsequent occasions. people are becoming more intelligent, and more candid, and it is possible that such puerile objections are no more heard. but it may be well to give passing notice to the facts.
dr. edward robinson, at that time professor in the union theological seminary, new york city, in 1840, made a careful survey of palestine, including the jordan valley and river. his published statements corroborate those of others previously made, as to the abundant supply of water, both in the jordan, and in the city of jerusalem. he cites the published statements of earlier explorers, whose works are known to the reading public: seetzen, who visited that country in 1806; burkhardt, who explored it in 1812; irby and mangles, in 1818; and buckingham, who traveled through it about the same time. see robinson’s bib. researches, vol. ii., sec. 10, pp. 257-267.
lieutenant lynch, of the united states navy, was, in 1848, sent out by our [p. 104] government in charge of an expedition to explore the river jordan and the dead sea. doctor thomson, for a quarter of a century missionary in syria and palestine, traversed the land in 1857, and dean stanley in 1853, and others more recently. for a complete refutation of such puerile objections as those above mentioned, and a confirmation of baptist claims, see the following works: robinson’s “biblical researches,” vol. ii, sec. 10, pp. 257-267; lynch’s “dead sea expedition,” ch. 10 and 11; thomson’s “the land and the book,” vol. ii., pp. 445-6; stanley’s “syria and palestine,” ch. 7, pp. 306-7; barclay’s “the city of the great kings,” ch. 10; and other citations in “baptist church directory.”
the rise of sprinkling
the question will naturally arise and very properly, when did sprinkling for baptism first come into use? and how came it to pass, that a human device superseded and took the place of a divine institution? these questions are fully and satisfactorily answered by pedobaptist scholars themselves, whose testimony we accept as a justification of baptist views.
[p. 105] for two hundred and fifty years after christ we have no evidence of any departure from the primitive practice of immersion. at length the idea came to prevail that baptism possessed saving virtue, and had power to purify and sanctify the soul, making its salvation more secure. it was consequently thought unsafe to die unbaptized. here was the germ of the pernicious dogma of “baptismal regeneration,” the foundation alike of infant baptism and of sprinkling instead of immersion.
the first authenticated instance of sprinkling occurred about the middle of the third century, or a. d. 250. this was the case of novatian. the historian eusebius gives this case, and doctor wall in his laborious researches could find no earlier instance; good evidence that no earlier existed. novatian was dangerously sick, and believing himself about to die, was anxious to be baptized. the case seemed urgent, and as he was thought to be too feeble to be immersed, a substitute was resorted to; water was poured profusely over him as he lay in bed, so as to resemble as much as possible a submersion. the word used to describe this action (perichutheis, purfusus) has usually been rendered besprinkle; it [p. 106] rather means to pour profusely over and about one. this it was thought might answer the purpose in such an emergency.
from this time onward pouring and sprinkling were resorted to at times of extreme illness, or feebleness, where persons could not leave their beds, and hence was termed clinic baptism, from clina, a couch. but it was always regarded as a substitute for baptism, rather than baptism itself; and its validity was doubted. novatian himself having recovered from his sickness, was objected to when his friends proposed to make him bishop, because, it was said, he had never been properly baptized. it was not, however, until the seventeenth century that sprinkling became common in europe, in france first, and then extending through those countries over which the pope held sway. at length, accepted by calvin and the genevan church, it extended into scotland, by john knox, and other scotch refugees, who had found in geneva a shelter from the persecution to which they had been exposed in their native country; then into england: and in 1643 it was adopted as the exclusive mode of baptism by a majority of one of the westminster assembly of divines, and sanctioned by parliament [p. 107] the next year. all of which is verified by eusebius, valesius, wall, salmasius, venema, taylor, towerson, grotius, “ency. brit.,” “edin. ency.,” and other reliable historical authorities.
