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 imme............