Chapter II: The Ordinances Of The Church (1)

By the ordinances, we mean those outward rites which Christ has appointed to be administered in his church as visible signs of the saving truth of the gospel. They are signs, in that they vividly express this truth and confirm it to the believer.

In contrast with this characteristically Protestant view, the Romanist regards the ordinances as actually conferring grace and producing holiness. Instead of being the external manifestation of a preceding union with Christ, they are the physical means of constituting and maintaining this union. With the Romanist, in this particular, sacramentalists of every name substantially agree. The Papal Church holds to seven sacraments or ordinances:—ordination, confirmation, matrimony, extreme unction, penance, baptism, and the eucharist. The ordinances prescribed in the N. T., however, are two and only two, viz.:—Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

It will be well to distinguish from one another the three words:
symbol, rite, and ordinance. 1. A _symbol_ is the sign, or visible
representation, of an invisible truth or idea; as for example, the
lion is the symbol of strength and courage, the lamb is the symbol
of gentleness, the olive branch of peace, the sceptre of dominion,
the wedding ring of marriage, and the flag of country. Symbols may
teach great lessons; as Jesus’ cursing the barren fig tree taught
the doom of unfruitful Judaism, and Jesus’ washing of the
disciples’ feet taught his own coming down from heaven to purify
and save, and the humble service required of his followers. 2. A
_rite_ is a symbol which is employed with regularity and sacred
intent. Symbols became rites when thus used. Examples of
authorized rites in the Christian Church are the laying on of
hands in ordination, and the giving of the right hand of
fellowship. 3. An _ordinance_ is a symbolic rite which sets forth
the central truths of the Christian faith, and which is of
universal and perpetual obligation. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper
are rites which have become ordinances by the specific command of
Christ and by their inner relation to the essential truths of his
kingdom. No ordinance is a sacrament in the Romanist sense of
conferring grace; but, as the _sacramentum_ was the oath taken by
the Roman soldier to obey his commander even unto death, so
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are sacraments, in the sense of vows
of allegiance to Christ our Master.

President H. G. Weston has recorded his objections to the
observance of the so‐called “Christian Year,” in words that we
quote, as showing the danger attending the Romanist multiplication
of ordinances. “1. The ‘Christian Year’ is not Christian. It makes
everything of actions, and nothing of relations. Make a day holy
that God has not made holy, and you thereby make all other days
unholy. 2. It limits the Christian’s view of Christ to the scenes
and events of his earthly life. Salvation comes through spiritual
relations to a living Lord. The ‘Christian Year’ makes Christ only
a memory, and not a living, present, personal power. Life, not
death, is the typical word of the N. T. Paul craved, not a
knowledge of the fact of the resurrection, but of the power of it.
The New Testament records busy themselves most of all with what
Christ is doing now. 3. The appointments of the ‘Christian Year’
are not in accord with the N. T. These appointments lack the
reality of spiritual life, and are contrary to the essential
spirit of Christianity.” We may add that where the “Christian
Year” is most generally and rigidly observed, there popular
religion is most formal and destitute of spiritual power.

I. Baptism.

Christian Baptism is the immersion of a believer in water, in token of his previous entrance into the communion of Christ’s death and resurrection,—or, in other words, in token of his regeneration through union with Christ.

1. Baptism an Ordinance of Christ.

A. Proof that Christ instituted an external rite called baptism.

(_a_) From the words of the great commission; (_b_) from the injunctions of the apostles; (_c_) from the fact that the members of the New Testament churches were baptized believers; (_d_) from the universal practice of such a rite in Christian churches of subsequent times.

(_a_) _Mat. 28:19_—“_Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all
the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the
Son and of the Holy Spirit_”; _Mark 16:16_—“_He that believeth and
is baptized shall be saved_”—we hold, with Westcott and Hort, that
_Mark 16:9‐20_ is of canonical authority, though probably not
written by Mark himself. (_b_) _Acts 2:38_—“_And Peter said unto
them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of
Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins_”; (_c_) _Rom.
6:3‐5_—“_Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into
Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried
therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ
was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we
also might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united
with him in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the
likeness of his resurrection_”; _Col. 2:11, 12_—“_in whom ye were
also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the
putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of
Christ; having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were
also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who
raised him from the dead._” (_d_) The only marked exceptions to
the universal requisition of baptism are found in the Society of
Friends, and in the Salvation Army. The Salvation Army does not
regard the ordinance as having any more permanent obligation than
feet‐washing. General Booth: “We teach our soldiers that every
time they break bread, they are to remember the broken body of the
Lord, and every time they wash the body, they are to remind
themselves of the cleansing power of the blood of Christ and of
the indwelling Spirit.” The Society of Friends regard Christ’s
commands as fulfilled, not by any outward baptism of water, but
only by the inward baptism of the Spirit.

B. This external rite intended by Christ to be of universal and perpetual obligation.

(_a_) Christ recognized John the Baptist’s commission to baptize as derived immediately from heaven.

_Mat. 21:25_—“_The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven or
from men?_”—here Jesus clearly intimates that John’s commission to
baptize was derived directly from God; _cf._ _John 1:25_—the
delegates sent to the Baptist by the Sanhedrin ask him: “_Why then
baptizest thou, if thou art not the Christ, neither Elijah,
neither the prophet?_” thus indicating that John’s baptism, either
in its form or its application, was a new ordinance that required
special divine authorization.

Broadus in his American Com. on _Mat. 3:6_, claims that John’s
baptism was no modification of an existing rite. Proselyte baptism
is not mentioned in the Mishna (A. D. 200); the first distinct
account of it is in the Babylonian Talmud (Gemara) written in the
fifth century; it was not adopted from the Christians, but was one
of the Jewish purifications which came to be regarded, after the
destruction of the Temple, as a peculiar initiatory rite. There is
no mention of it, as a Jewish rite, in the O. T., N. T.,
Apocrypha, Philo, or Josephus.

For the view that proselyte‐baptism did not exist among the Jews
before the time of John, see Schneckenburger, Ueber das Alter der
jüdischen Proselytentaufe; Stuart, in Bib. Repos., 1833:338‐355;
Toy, In Baptist Quarterly, 1872:301‐332. Dr. Toy, however, in a
private note to the author (1884), says: “I am disposed now to
regard the Christian rite as borrowed from the Jewish, contrary to
my view in 1872.” So holds Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus,
2:742‐744—“We have positive testimony that the baptism of
proselytes existed in the times of Hillel and Shammai. For,
whereas the school of Shammai is said to have allowed a proselyte
who was circumcised on the eve of the Passover, to partake, after
baptism, of the Passover, the school of Hillel forbade it. This
controversy must be regarded as proving that at that time
[previous to Christ] the baptism of proselytes was customary.”

Porter, on Proselyte Baptism, Hastings’ Bible Dict., 4:132—“If
circumcision was the decisive step in the case of all male
converts, there seems no longer room for serious question that a
bath of purification must have followed, even though early mention
of such proselyte baptism is not found. The law (_Lev. 11‐15_;
_Num. 19_) prescribed such baths in all cases of impurity, and one
who came with the deep impurity of a heathen life behind him could
not have entered the Jewish community without such cleansing.”
Plummer, on Baptism, Hastings’ Bible Dict., 1:239—“What is wanted
is direct evidence that, before John the Baptist made so
remarkable a use of the rite, it was the custom to make all
proselytes submit to baptism; and such evidence is not
forthcoming. Nevertheless the fact is not really doubtful. It is
not credible that the baptizing of proselytes was instituted and
made essential for their admission to Judaism at a period
subsequent to the institution of Christian baptism; and the
supposition that it was borrowed from the rite enjoined by Christ
is monstrous.”

Although the O. T. and the Apocrypha, Josephus and Philo, are
silent with regard to proselyte baptism, it is certain that it
existed among the Jews in the early Christian centuries; and it is
almost equally certain that the Jews could not have adopted it
from the Christians. It is probable, therefore, that the baptism
of John was an application to Jews of an immersion which, before
that time, was administered to proselytes from among the Gentiles;
and that it was this adaptation of the rite to a new class of
subjects and with a new meaning, which excited the inquiry and
criticism of the Sanhedrin. We must remember, however, that the
Lord’s Supper was likewise an adaptation of certain portions of
the old Passover service to a new use and meaning. See also Kitto,
Bib. Cyclop., 3:593.

(_b_) In his own submission to John’s baptism, Christ gave testimony to the binding obligation of the ordinance (Mat. 3:13‐17). John’s baptism was essentially Christian baptism (Acts 19:4), although the full significance of it was not understood until after Jesus’ death and resurrection (Mat. 20:17‐23; Luke 12:50; Rom. 6:3‐6).

_Mat. 3:13‐17_—“_Suffer it now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill
all righteousness_”; _Acts 19:4_—“_John baptized with the baptism
of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on
him that should come after him, that is, on Jesus_”; _Mat. 20:18,
19, 22_—“_the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests
and scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall
deliver him unto the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to
crucify.... Are ye able to drink the cup that I am about to
drink?_” _Luke 12:50_—“_But I have a baptism to be baptized with;
and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!_” _Rom. 6:3,
4_—“_Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ
Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with
him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised
from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might
walk is newness of life._”

Robert Hall, Works, 1:367‐399, denies that John’s baptism was
Christian baptism, and holds that there is not sufficient evidence
that all the apostles were baptized. The fact that John’s baptism
was a baptism of faith in the coming Messiah, as well as a baptism
of repentance for past and present sin, refutes this theory. The
only difference between John’s baptism, and the baptism of our
time, is that John baptized upon profession of faith in a Savior
yet to come; baptism is now administered upon profession of faith
in a Savior who has actually and already come. On John’s baptism
as presupposing faith in those who received it, see treatment of
the Subjects of Baptism, page 950.

(_c_) In continuing the practice of baptism through his disciples (John 4:1, 2), and in enjoining it upon them as part of a work which was to last to the end of the world (Mat. 28:19, 20), Christ manifestly adopted and appointed baptism as the invariable law of his church.

_John 4:1, 2_—“_When therefore the Lord knew that the Pharisees
had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than
John (although Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples)_”;
_Mat. 28:19, 20_—“_Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the
nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even
unto the end of the world._”

(_d_) The analogy of the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper also leads to the conclusion that baptism is to be observed as an authoritative memorial of Christ and his truth, until his second coming.

_1 Cor. 11:26_—“_For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the
cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come._” Baptism, like
the Lord’s Supper, is a teaching ordinance, and the two ordinances
together furnish an indispensable witness to Christ’s death and
resurrection.

(_e_) There is no intimation whatever that the command of baptism is limited, or to be limited, in its application,—that it has been or ever is to be repealed; and, until some evidence of such limitation or repeal is produced, the statute must be regarded as universally binding.

On the proof that baptism is an ordinance of Christ, see Pepper,
in Madison Avenue Lectures, 85‐114; Dagg, Church Order, 9‐21.

2. The Mode of Baptism.

This is immersion, and immersion only. This appears from the following considerations:

A. The command to baptize is a command to immerse.

We show this:

(_a_) From the meaning of the original word βαπτίζω. That this is to immerse, appears:

First,—from the usage of Greek writers—including the church Fathers, when they do not speak of the Christian rite, and the authors of the Greek version of the Old Testament.

Liddell and Scott, Greek Lexicon: “βαπτίζω, to dip in or under
water; Lat. _immergere_.” Sophocles, Lexicon of Greek Usage in the
Roman and Byzantine Periods, 140 B. C. to 1000 A. D.—“βαπτίζω, to
dip, to immerse, to sink ... There is no evidence that Luke and
Paul and the other writers of the N. T. put upon this verb
meanings not recognized by the Greeks.” Thayer, N. T. Lexicon:
“βαπτίζω, literally to dip, to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to
submerge, ... metaphorically, to overwhelm.... βάπτισμα,
immersion, submersion ... a rite of sacred immersion commanded by
Christ.” Prof. Goodwin of Harvard University, Feb. 13, 1895, says:
“The classical meaning of βαπτίζω, which seldom occurs, and of the
more common βάπτω, is dip (literally or metaphorically), and I
never heard of its having any other meaning anywhere. Certainly I
never saw a lexicon which gives either sprinkle or pour, as
meanings of either. I must be allowed to ask why I am so often
asked this question, which seems to me to have but one perfectly
plain answer.”

In the International Critical Commentary, see Plummer on Luke, p.
86—“It is only when baptism is administered by immersion that its
full significance is seen”; Abbott on Colossians, p. 251—“The
figure was naturally suggested by the immersion in baptism”; see
also Gould on Mark, p. 127; Sanday on Romans, p. 154‐157. No one
of these four Commentaries was written by a Baptist. The two
latest English Bible Dictionaries agree upon this point. Hastings,
Bib. Dict., art.: Baptism, p. 243 a—“The mode of using was
commonly immersion. The symbolism of the ordinance required this”;
Cheyne, Encyc. Biblica, 1:473, while arguing from the _Didache_
that from a very early date “a triple pouring was admitted where a
sufficiency of water could not be had,” agrees that “such a method
[as immersion] is presupposed as the ideal, at any rate, in Paul’s
words about death, burial and resurrection in baptism (_Rom.
6:3‐5_).”

Conant, Appendix to Bible Union Version of Matthew, 1‐64, has
examples “drawn from writers in almost every department of
literature and science; from poets, rhetoricians, philosophers,
critics, historians, geographers; from writers on husbandry, on
medicine, on natural history, on grammar, on theology; from almost
every form and style of composition, romances, epistles, orations,
fables, odes, epigrams, sermons, narratives: from writers of
various nations and religions, Pagan, Jew, and Christian,
belonging to many countries and through a long succession of ages.
In all, the word has retained its ground‐meaning without change.
From the earliest age of Greek literature down to its close, a
period of nearly two thousand years, not an example has been found
in which the word has any other meaning. There is no instance in
which it signifies to make a partial application of water by
affusion or sprinkling, or to cleanse, to purify, apart from the
literal act of immersion as the means of cleansing or purifying.”
See Stuart, in Bib. Repos., 1833:313; Broadus on Immersion, 57,
note.

Dale, in his Classic, Judaic, Christic, and Patristic Baptism,
maintains that βάπτω alone means “to dip,” and that βαπτίζω never
means “to dip,” but only “to put within,” giving no intimation
that the object is to be taken out again. But see Review of Dale,
by A. C. Kendrick, in Bap. Quarterly, 1869:129, and by Harvey, in
Bap. Review, 1879:141‐163. “Plutarch used the word βαπτίζω, when
he describes the soldiers of Alexander on a riotous march as by
the roadside dipping (lit.: baptizing) with cups from huge wine
jars and mixing bowls, and drinking to one another. Here we have
βαπτίζω used where Dr. Dale’s theory would call for βάπτω. The
truth is that βαπτίζω, the stronger word, came to be used in the
same sense with the weaker; and the attempt to prove a broad and
invariable difference of meaning between them breaks down. Of Dr.
Dale’s three meanings of βαπτίζω—(1) intusposition without
influence (stone in water), (2) intusposition with influence (man
drowned in water), (3) influence without intusposition,—the last
is a figment of Dr. Dale’s imagination. It would allow me to say
that when I burned a piece of paper, I baptized it. The grand
result is this: Beginning with the position that baptize means
immerse, Dr. Dale ends by maintaining that immersion is not
baptism. Because Christ speaks of drinking a cup, Dr. Dale infers
that this is baptism.” For a complete reply to Dale, see Ford,
Studies on Baptism.

Secondly,—every passage where the word occurs in the New Testament either requires or allows the meaning “immerse.”

_Mat. 3:6, 11_—“_I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance ...
he shall baptize you in the holy Spirit and in fire_”; _cf._ _2
Kings 5:14_—“_Then went he_ [Naaman] _down, and dipped himself_
ἐβαπτίσατο _seven times in the Jordan_”; _Mark 1:5, 9_—“_they were
baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins....
Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John into
the Jordan_”; _7:4_—“_and when they come from the market‐place,
except they bathe_ [lit.: ‘_baptize_’] _themselves, they eat not:
and many other things there are, which they have received to hold,
washings_ [lit.: ‘_baptizings_’] _of cups, and pots, and brasen
vessels_”—in this verse, Westcott and Hort, with א and B, read
ῥαντίσωνται, instead of βαπτίσωνται; but it is easy to see how
subsequent ignorance of Pharisaic scrupulousness might have
changed βαπτίσωνται into ῥαντίσωνται; but not easy to see how
ῥαντίσωνται should have been changed into βαπτίσωνται. On _Mat.
15:2_ (and the parallel passage _Mark 7:4_), see Broadus, Com. on
Mat., pages 332, 333. Herodotus, 2:47, says that if any Egyptian
touches a swine in passing, with his clothes, he goes to the river
and dips himself from it.

Meyer, Com. _in loco_—“ἐὰν μὴ βαπτίσωνται is not to be understood
of washing the hands (Lightfoot, Wetstein), but of immersion,
which the word in classic Greek and in the N. T. everywhere means;
here, according to the context, to take a bath.” The Revised
Version omits the words “and couches,” although Maimonides speaks
of a Jewish immersion of couches; see quotation from Maimonides in
Ingham, Handbook of Baptism, 373—“Whenever in the law washing of
the flesh or of the clothes is mentioned, it means nothing else
than the dipping of the whole body in a laver; for if any man dip
himself all over except the tip of his little finger, he is still
in his uncleanness.... A bed that is wholly defiled, if a man dip
it part by part, it is pure.” Watson, in Annotated Par. Bible,
1126.

_Luke 11:38_—“_And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he
had not first bathed_ [lit.: ‘_baptized_’] _himself before
dinner_”; _cf._ _Ecclesiasticus 31:25_—“_He that washeth himself
after the touching of a dead body_” (βαπτιζόμενος ἀπὸ νεκροῦ);
_Judith 12:7_—“_washed herself ἐβαπτίζετο in a fountain of water
by the camp_”; _Lev. 22:4‐6_—“_Whoso toucheth anything that is
unclean by the dead ... unclean until the even ... bathe his flesh
in water._” _Acts 2:41_—“_They then that received his word were
baptized: and there were added unto them in that day about three
thousand souls._” Although the water supply of Jerusalem is
naturally poor, the artificial provision of aqueducts, cisterns,
and tanks, made water abundant. During the siege of Titus, though
thousands died of famine, we read of no suffering from lack of
water. The following are the dimensions of pools in modern
Jerusalem: King’s Pool, 15 feet x 16 x 3; Siloam, 53 x 18 x 19;
Hezekiah, 240 x 140 x 10; Bethesda (so‐called), 360 x 130 x 75;
Upper Gihon, 316 x 218 x 19; Lower Gihon, 592 x 260 x 18; see
Robinson, Biblical Researches, 1:323‐348, and Samson, Water‐supply
of Jerusalem, pub. by Am. Bap. Pub. Soc. There was no difficulty
in baptizing three thousand in one day; for, in the time of
Chrysostom, when all candidates of the year were baptized in a
single day, three thousand were once baptized; and, on July 3,
1878, 2222 Telugu Christians were baptized by two administrators
in nine hours. These Telugu baptisms took place at Velumpilly, ten
miles north of Ongole. The same two men did not baptize all the
time. There were six men engaged in baptizing, but never more than
two men at the same time.

_Acts 16:33_—“_And he took them the same hour of the night, and
washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his,
immediately_”—the prison was doubtless, as are most large edifices
in the East, whether public or private, provided with tank and
fountain. See Cremer, Lexicon of N. T. Greek, _sub voce_—“βαπτίζω,
immersion or submersion for a religious purpose.” Grimm’s ed. of
Wilke—“βαπτίζω, 1. Immerse, submerge; 2. Wash or bathe, by
immersing or submerging (_Mark 7:4_, also Naaman and Judith); 3.
Figuratively, to overwhelm, as with debts, misfortunes, _etc._” In
the N. T. rite, he says it denotes “an immersion in water,
intended as a sign of sins washed away, and received by those who
wished to be admitted to the benefits of Messiah’s reign.”

Döllinger, Kirche und Kirchen, 337—“The Baptists are, however,
from the Protestant point of view, unassailable, since for their
demand of baptism by submersion they have the clear Bible text;
and the authority of the church and of her testimony is not
regarded by either party”—_i. e._, by either Baptists or
Protestants, generally. Prof. Harnack, of Giessen, writes in the
Independent, Feb. 19, 1885—“1. _Baptizein_ undoubtedly signifies
immersion (_eintauchen_). 2. No proof can be found that it
signifies anything else in the N. T. and in the most ancient
Christian literature. The suggestion regarding a ‘sacred sense’ is
out of the question. 3. There is no passage in the N. T. which
suggests the supposition that any New Testament author attached to
the word _baptizein_ any other sense than _eintauchen_ =
_untertauchen_ (immerse, submerge).” See Com. of Meyer, and
Cunningham, Croall lectures.

Thirdly,—the absence of any use of the word in the passive voice with “water” as its subject confirms our conclusion that its meaning is “to immerse.” Water is never said to be baptized upon a man.

(_b_) From the use of the verb βαπτίζω with prepositions:

First,—with εἰς (Mark 1:9—where Ἰορδάνην is the element into which the person passes in the act of being baptized).

_Mark 1:9, marg._—“_And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John into the Jordan._”

Secondly,—with ἐν (Mark 1:5, 8; _cf._ Mat. 3:11. John 1:26, 31, 33; _cf._ Acts 2:2, 4). In these texts, ἐν is to be taken, not instrumentally, but as indicating the element in which the immersion takes place.

_Mark 1:5, 8_—“_they were baptized of him in the river Jordan,
confessing their sins.... I baptized you in water; but he shall
baptize you in the Holy Spirit_”—here see Meyer’s Com. on _Mat.
3:11_—“ἐν is in accordance with the meaning of βαπτίζω (immerse),
not to be understood instrumentally, but on the contrary, in the
sense of the element in which the immersion takes place.” Those
who pray for a “baptism of the Holy Spirit” pray for such a
pouring out of the Spirit as shall fill the place and permit them
to be flooded or immersed in his abundant presence and power; see
C. E. Smith, Baptism of Fire, 1881:305‐311. Plumptre: “The baptism
with the Holy Ghost would imply that the souls thus baptized would
be plunged, as it were, in that creative and informing Spirit,
which was the source of light and holiness and wisdom.”

A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 67—“The upper room became
the Spirit’s baptistery. His presence ‘_filled all the house where
they were sitting_’ (_Acts 2:2_).... Baptism in the Holy Spirit
was given once for all on the day of Pentecost, when the Paraclete
came in person to make his abode in the church. It does not follow
that every believer has received this baptism. God’s gift is one
thing,—our appropriation of that gift is quite another thing. Our
relation to the second and to the third persons of the Godhead is
exactly parallel in this respect. ‘God so loved the world, that he
_gave_ his only begotten Son’ (_John 3:16_). ‘But as many as
_received_ him, to them gave he the right to become children of
God, even to them that believe on his name’ (_John 1:12_). We are
required to appropriate the Spirit as sons, in the same way that
we are required to appropriate Christ as sinners.... ‘_He breathed
on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye_’—take ye, actively—‘_the
Holy Spirit_’ (_John 20:22_).”

(_c_) From circumstances attending the administration of the ordinance (Mark 1:10—ἀναβαίνων ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος; John 3:23—ὕδατα πολλά; Acts 8:38, 39—κατέβησαν εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ ... ἀνέβησαν ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος).

_Mark 1:10_—“_coming up out of the water_”; _John 3:23_—“_And John
also was baptizing in Ænon near to Salim, because there was much
water there_”—a sufficient depth of water for baptizing; see Prof.
W. A. Stevens, on Ænon near to Salim, in Journ. Soc. of Bib. Lit.
and Exegesis, Dec. 1883. _Acts 8:38, 39_—“_and they both went down
into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
And when they came up out of the water...._” In the case of Philip
and the eunuch, President Timothy Dwight, in S. S. Times, Aug. 27,
1892, says: “The baptism was apparently by immersion.” The Editor
adds that “practically scholars are agreed that the primitive
meaning of the word ’baptize’ was to immerse.”

(_d_) From figurative allusions to the ordinance.

_Mark 10:38_—“_Are ye able to drink the cup that I drink? or to be
baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?_”—here the cup
is the cup of suffering in Gethsemane; _cf._ _Luke
22:42_—“_Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me_”;
and the baptism is the baptism of death on Calvary, and of the
grave that was to follow; _cf._ _Luke 12:50_—“_I have a baptism to
be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be
accomplished!_” Death presented itself to the Savior’s mind as a
baptism, because it was a sinking under the floods of suffering.
_Rom. 6:4_—“_We were buried therefore with him through baptism
into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through
the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of
life_”—Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epistles of St. Paul, say,
on this passage, that “it cannot be understood without remembering
that the primitive method of baptism was by immersion.” On _Luke
12:49, marg._—“_I came to cast fire upon the earth, and how would
I that it were already kindled!_”—see Wendt, Teaching of Jesus,
2:225—“He knew that he was called to bring a new energy and
movement into the world, which mightily seizes and draws
everything towards it, as a hurled firebrand, which whereever it
falls kindles a flame which expands into a vast sea of fire”—the
baptism of fire, the baptism in the Holy Spirit?

_1 Cor. 10:1, 2_—“_our fathers were all under the cloud, and all
passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the
cloud and in the sea_”; _Col. 2:12_—“_having been buried with him
in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him_”; _Heb.
10:22_—“_having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and
having our body washed_ [λελουμένοι] _with pure water_”—here
Trench, N. T. Synonyms, 216, 217, says that “λούω implies always,
not the bathing of a part of the body, but of the whole.” _1 Pet
3:20, 21_—“_saved through water: which also after a true likeness
doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth
of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward
God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ_”—as the ark whose
sides were immersed in water saved Noah, so the immersion of
believers typically saves them; that is, the answer of a good
conscience, the turning of the soul to God, which baptism
symbolizes. “In the ritual of Moses and Aaron, three things were
used: oil, blood, and water. The oil was poured, the blood was
sprinkled, the water was used for complete ablution first of all,
and subsequently for partial ablution to those to whom complete
ablution had been previously administered” (Wm. Ashmore).

(_e_) From the testimony of church history as to the practice of the early church.

Tertullian, De Baptismo, chap. 12—“Others make the suggestion
(forced enough, clearly) that the apostles then served the turn of
baptism when in their little ship they were sprinkled and covered
with the waves; that Peter himself also was immersed enough when
he walked on the sea. It is however, as I think, one thing to be
sprinkled or intercepted by the violence of the sea; another thing
to be baptized in obedience to the discipline of religion.”
Fisher, Beginnings of Christianity, 565—“Baptism, it is now
generally agreed among scholars, was commonly administered by
immersion.” Schaff, History of the Apostolic Church,
570—“Respecting the form of baptism, the impartial historian is
compelled by exegesis and history substantially to yield the point
to the Baptists.” Elsewhere Dr. Schaff says: “The baptism of
Christ in the Jordan, and the illustrations of baptism used in the
N. T., are all in favor of immersion, rather than of sprinkling,
as is freely admitted by the best exegetes, Catholic and
Protestant, English and German. Nothing can be gained by unnatural
exegesis. The persistency and aggressiveness of Baptists have
driven pedobaptists to opposite extremes.”

Dean Stanley, in his address at Eton College, March, 1879, on
Historical Aspects of American Churches, speaks of immersion as
“the primitive, apostolical, and, till the 13th century, the
universal, mode of baptism, which is still retained throughout the
Eastern churches, and which is still in our own church as
positively enjoined in theory as it is universally neglected in
practice.” The same writer, in the Nineteenth Century, Oct. 1879,
says that “the change from immersion to sprinkling has set aside
the larger part of the apostolic language regarding baptism, and
has altered the very meaning of the word.” Neander, Church Hist.,
1:310—“In respect to the form of baptism, it was, in conformity
with the original 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 by the same.... It
was only with the sick, where exigency required it, that any
exception was made. Then it was administered by sprinkling; but
many superstitious persons imagined such sprinkling to be not
fully valid, and stigmatized those thus baptized as clinics.”

Until recently, there has been no evidence that clinic baptism,
_i. e._, the baptism of a sick or dying person in bed by pouring
water copiously around him, was practised earlier than the time of
Novatian, in the third century; and in these cases there is good
reason to believe that a regenerating efficacy was ascribed to the
ordinance. We are now, however, compelled to recognize a departure
from N. T. precedent somewhat further back. Important testimony is
that of Prof. Harnack, of Giessen, in the Independent of Feb. 19,
1885—“Up to the present moment we possess no certain proof from
the period of the second century, in favor of the fact that
baptism by aspersion was then even facultatively administered; for
Tertullian (De Pœnit., 6, and De Baptismo, 12) is uncertain; and
the age of those pictures upon which is represented a baptism by
aspersion is not certain. The ‘Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,’
however, has now instructed us that already, in very early times,
people in the church took no offence when aspersion was put in
place of immersion, when any kind of outward circumstances might
render immersion impossible or impracticable.... But the rule was
also certainly maintained that immersion was obligatory if the
outward conditions of such a performance were at hand.” This seems
to show that, while the corruption of the N. T. rite began soon
after the death of the apostles, baptism by any other form than
immersion was even then a rare exception, which those who
introduced the change sought to justify upon the plea of
necessity. See Schaff, Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 29‐57, and
other testimony in Coleman, Christian Antiquities, 275; Stuart, in
Bib. Repos., 1883:355‐363.

The “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” section 7, reads as
follows: “Baptize ... in living water. And if thou have no living
water, baptize in other water; and if thou canst not in cold, then
in warm. And if thou have neither, pour water upon the head
thrice.” Here it is evident that “baptize” means only “immerse,”
but if water be scarce pouring may be substituted for baptism. Dr.
A. H. Newman, Antipedobaptism, 5, says that “The Teaching of the
Twelve Apostles” may possibly belong to the second half of the
second century, but in its present form is probably much later. It
does not explicitly teach baptismal regeneration, but this view
seems to be implied in the requirement, in case of an absolute
lack of a sufficiency of water of any kind for baptism proper,
that pouring water on the head three times be resorted to as a
substitute. Catechetical instruction, repentance, fasting, and
prayer, must precede the baptismal rite.

Dexter, in his True Story of John Smyth and Sebaptism, maintains
that immersion was a new thing in England in 1641. But if so, it
was new, as Congregationalism was new—a newly restored practice
and ordinance of apostolic times. For reply to Dexter, see Long,
in Bap. Rev., Jan. 1883:12, 13, who tells us, on the authority of
Blunt’s Ann. Book of Com. Prayer, that from 1085 to 1549, the
“Salisbury Use” was the accepted mode, and this provided for the
child’s trine immersion. “The Prayerbook of Edward VI succeeded to
the Salisbury Use in 1549; but in this too immersion has the place
of honor—affusion is only for the weak. The English church has
never sanctioned sprinkling (Blunt, 226). In 1664, the Westminster
Assembly said ’sprinkle or pour,’ thus annulling what Christ
commanded 1600 years before. Queen Elizabeth was immersed in 1533.
If in 1641 immersion had been so generally and so long disused
that men saw it with wonder and regarded it as a novelty, then the
more distinct, emphatic, and peculiarly their own was the work of
the Baptists. They come before the world, with no partners, or
rivals, or abettors, or sympathizers, as the restorers and
preservers of Christian baptism.”

(_f_) From the doctrine and practice of the Greek church.

DeStourdza, the greatest modern theologian of the Greek church,
writes; “βαπτίζω signifies literally and always ‘to plunge.’
Baptism and immersion are therefore identical, and to say ‘baptism
by aspersion’ is as if one should say ‘immersion by aspersion,’ or
any other absurdity of the same nature. The Greek church maintain
that the Latin church, instead of a βαπτισμός, practice a mere
ῥαντισμός,—instead of baptism, a mere sprinkling”—quoted in Conant
on Mat., appendix, 99. See also Broadus on Immersion, 18.

The evidence that immersion is the original mode of baptism is
well summed up by Dr. Marcus Dods, in his article on Baptism in
Hastings’ Dictionary of Christ and the Apostles. Dr. Dods defines
baptism as “a rite wherein by immersion in water the participant
symbolizes and signalizes his transition from an impure to a pure
life, his death to a past he abandons, and his birth to a future
he desires.” As regards the “mode of baptism,” he remarks: “That
the normal mode was by immersion of the whole body may be inferred
(_a_) from the meaning of _baptizo_, which is the intensive or
frequentative form of _bapto_, ‘I dip,’ and denotes to _immerse_
or _submerge_—the point is, that ‘dip’ or ‘immerse’ is the
primary, ‘wash’ the secondary meaning of _bapto_ or _baptizo_.
(_b_) The same inference may be drawn from the law laid down
regarding the baptism of proselytes: ‘As soon as he grows whole of
the wound of circumcision, they bring him to baptism, and being
placed in the water, they again instruct him in some weightier and
in some lighter commands of the Law, which being heard, he plunges
himself and comes up, and behold, he is an Israelite in all
things’ (Lightfoot’s Horæ Hebraicæ). To use Pauline language, his
old man is dead and buried in water, and he rises from this
cleansing grave a new man. The full significance of the rite would
have been lost had immersion not been practised. Again, it was
required in proselyte baptism that ‘every person baptized must dip
his whole body, now stripped and made naked, at one dipping. And
wheresoever in the Law washing of the body or garments is
mentioned, it means nothing else than the washing of the whole
body.’ (_c_) That immersion was the mode of baptism adopted by
John is the natural conclusion from his choosing the neighborhood
of the Jordan as the scene of his labors; and from the statement
of _John 3:23_ that he was baptizing in Enon ‘because there was
much water there.’ (_d_) That this form was continued in the
Christian Church appears from the expression _Loutron
palingenesias_ (bath of regeneration, _Titus 3:5_), and from the
use made by St. Paul in _Romans 6_ of the symbolism. This is well
put by Bingham (Antiquities xi.2).” The author quotes Bingham to
the effect that “total immersion under water” was the universal
practice during the early Christian centuries “except in some
particular cases of exigence, wherein they allow of sprinkling, as
in the case of a clinic baptism, or where there is a scarcity of
water.” Dr. Dods continues: “This statement exactly reflects the
ideas of the Pauline Epistles and the ’_Didache_’” (Teaching of
the Twelve Apostles).

The prevailing usage of any word determines the sense it bears, when found in a command of Christ. We have seen, not only that the prevailing usage of the Greek language determines the meaning of the word “baptize” to be “immerse,” but that this is its fundamental, constant, and only meaning. The original command to baptize is therefore a command to immerse.

As evidence that quite diverse sections of the Christian world are
coming to recognize the original form of baptism to be immersion,
we may cite the fact that a memorial to the late Archbishop of
Canterbury has recently been erected in the parish church of
Lambeth, and that it is in the shape of a “font‐grave,” in which a
believer can be buried with Christ in baptism; and also that the
Rev. G. Campbell Morgan has had a baptistery constructed in the
newly renovated Westminster Congregational Church in London.

Pfleiderer, Philos. Religion, 2:211—“As in the case of the Lord’s
Supper, so did Baptism also first receive its sacramental
significance through Paul. As he saw in the immersing under water
the symbolical repetition of the death and resurrection of Christ,
baptism appeared to him as the act of spiritual dying and
renovation, or regeneration, of incorporation into the mystical
body of Christ, that ’new creation.’ As for Paul the baptism of
adults only was in question, faith in Christ is already of course
presupposed by it, and baptism is just the act in which faith
realizes the decisive resolution of giving one’s self up actually
as belonging to Christ and his community. Yet the outward act is
not on that account a mere semblance of what is already present in
faith, but according to the mysticism common to Paul with the
whole ancient world, the symbolical act effectuates what it
typifies, and therefore in this case the mortification of the
carnal man and the animation of the spiritual man.” For the view
that sprinkling or pouring constitutes valid baptism, see Hall,
Mode of Baptism. _Per contra_, see Hovey, in Baptist Quarterly,
April, 1875; Wayland, Principles and Practices of Baptists, 85;
Carson, Noel, Judson, and Pengilly, on Baptism; especially recent
and valuable is Burrage, Act of Baptism.

B. No church has the right to modify or dispense with this command of Christ.

This is plain:

(_a_) From the nature of the church. Notice:

First,—that, besides the local church, no other visible church of Christ is known to the New Testament. Secondly,—that the local church is not a legislative, but is simply an executive, body. Only the authority which originally imposed its laws can amend or abrogate them. Thirdly,—that the local church cannot delegate to any organization or council of churches any power which it does not itself rightfully possess. Fourthly,—that the opposite principle puts the church above the Scriptures and above Christ, and would sanction all the usurpations of Rome.

_Mat. 5:19_—“_Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least
commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the
kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall
be called great in the kingdom of heaven_”; _cf._ _2 Sam.
6:7_—“_And the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Uzzah; and God
smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of
God._” Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part I, 2:4—“Faith, I have been a
truant in the law, And never yet could frame my will to it, And
therefore frame the law unto my will.” As at the Reformation
believers rejoiced to restore communion in both kinds, so we
should rejoice to restore baptism as to its subjects and as to its
meaning. To administer it to a wailing and resisting infant, or to
administer it in any other form than that prescribed by Jesus’
command and example, is to desecrate and destroy the ordinance.

(_b_) From the nature of God’s command:

First,—as forming a part, not only of the law, but of the fundamental law, of the church of Christ. The power claimed for a church to change it is not only legislative but constitutional. Secondly,—as expressing the wisdom of the Lawgiver. Power to change the command can be claimed for the church, only on the ground that Christ has failed to adapt the ordinance to changing circumstances, and has made obedience to it unnecessarily difficult and humiliating. Thirdly,—as providing in immersion the only adequate symbol of those saving truths of the gospel which both of the ordinances have it for their office to set forth, and without which they become empty ceremonies and forms. In other words, the church has no right to change the method of administering the ordinance, because such a change vacates the ordinance of its essential meaning. As this argument, however, is of such vital importance, we present it more fully in a special discussion of the Symbolism of Baptism.

Abraham Lincoln, in his debates with Douglas, ridiculed the idea
that there could be any constitutional way of violating the
Constitution. F. L. Anderson: “In human governments we change the
constitution to conform to the will of the people; in the divine
government we change the will of the people to conform to the
Constitution.” For advocacy of the church’s right to modify the
form of an ordinance, see Coleridge, Aids to Reflection, in Works,
1:333‐348—“Where a ceremony answered, and was intended to answer,
several purposes which at its first institution were blended in
respect of the time, but which afterward, by change of
circumstances, were necessarily disunited, then either the church
hath no power or authority delegated to her, or she must be
authorized to choose and determine to which of the several
purposes the ceremony should be attached.” Baptism, for example,
at the first symbolized not only entrance into the church of
Christ, but personal faith in him as Savior and Lord. It is
assumed that entrance into the church and personal faith are now
necessarily disunited. Since baptism is in charge of the church,
she can attach baptism to the former, and not to the latter.

We of course deny that the separation of baptism from faith is
ever necessary. We maintain, on the contrary, that thus to
separate the two is to pervert the ordinance, and to make it teach
the doctrine of hereditary church membership and salvation by
outward manipulation apart from faith. We say with Dean Stanley
(on Baptism, in the Nineteenth Century, Oct. 1879), though not, as
he does, with approval, that the change in the method of
administering the ordinance shows “how the spirit that lives and
moves in human society can override the most sacred ordinances.”
We cannot with him call this spirit “the free spirit of
Christianity,”—we regard it rather as an evil spirit of
disobedience and unbelief. “Baptists are therefore pledged to
prosecute the work of the Reformation until the church shall
return to the simple forms it possessed under the apostles” (G. M.
Stone). See Curtis, Progress of Baptist Principles, 234‐245.

_Objections_: 1. Immersion is often impracticable.—We reply that,
when really impracticable, it is no longer a duty. Where the will
to obey is present, but providential circumstances render outward
obedience impossible, Christ takes the will for the deed.

2. It is often dangerous to health and life.—We reply that, when
it is really dangerous, it is no longer a duty. But then, we have
no warrant for substituting another act for that which Christ has
commanded. Duty demands simple delay until it can be administered
with safety. It must be remembered that ardent feeling nerves even
the body. “Brethren, if your hearts be warm, Ice and snow can do
no harm.” The cold climate of Russia does not prevent the
universal practice of immersion by the Greek church of that
country.

3. It is indecent.—We reply, that there is need of care to prevent
exposure, but that with this care there is no indecency, more than
in fashionable sea‐bathing. The argument is valid only against a
careless administration of the ordinance, not against immersion
itself.

4. It is inconvenient.—We reply that, in a matter of obedience to
Christ, we are not to consult convenience. The ordinance which
symbolizes his sacrificial death, and our spiritual death with
him, may naturally involve something of inconvenience, but joy in
submitting to that inconvenience will be a test of the spirit of
obedience. When the act is performed, it should be performed as
Christ enjoined.

5. Other methods of administration have been blessed to those who
submitted to them.—We reply that God has often condescended to
human ignorance, and has given his Spirit to those who honestly
sought to serve him, even by erroneous forms, such as the Mass.
This, however, is not to be taken as a divine sanction of the
error, much less as a warrant for the perpetuation of a false
system on the part of those who know that it is a violation of
Christ’s commands. It is, in great part, the position of its
advocates, as representatives of Christ and his church, that gives
to this false system its power for evil.

3. The Symbolism of Baptism.

Baptism symbolizes the previous entrance of the believer into the communion of Christ’s death and resurrection,—or, in other words, regeneration through union with Christ.

A. Expansion of this statement as to the symbolism of baptism.

Baptism, more particularly, is a symbol:

(_a_) Of the death and resurrection of Christ.

_Rom. 6:3_—“_Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into
Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?_” _cf._ _Mat
3:13_—“_Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan unto John, to
be baptized of him_”; _Mark 10:38_—“_Are ye able to drink the cup
that I drink? or to be baptized with the baptism that I am
baptized with?_”; _Luke 12:50_—“_But I have a baptism to be
baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!_”
_Col. 2:12_—“_buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also
raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised
him from the dead._” For the meaning of these passages, see note
on the baptism of Jesus, under B. (_a_), pages 942, 943.

Denney, in Expositor’s Greek Testament, on _Rom. 6:3‐5_—“The
argumentative requirements of the passage ... demand the idea of
an actual union to, or incorporation in Christ.... We were buried
with him [in the act of immersion] through that baptism into his
death.... If the baptism, _which is a similitude of Christ’s
death_, has had a reality answering to its obvious import, so that
we have really died in it as Christ died, then we shall have a
corresponding experience of resurrection. Baptism, inasmuch as one
emerges from the water after being immersed, is a similitude of
resurrection as well as of death.”

(_b_) Of the purpose of that death and resurrection,—namely, to atone for sin, and to deliver sinners from its penalty and power.

_Rom. 6:4_—“_We were buried therefore with him through baptism
into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through
the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of
life_”; _cf._ _7, 10, 11_—“_for he that hath died is justified
from sin.... For the death that he died, he died unto sin once:
but the life that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Even so reckon ye
also yourselves to be dead unto sin, but alive unto God in Christ
Jesus_”; _2 Cor. 5:14_—“_we thus judge, that one died for all,
therefore all died._” Baptism is therefore a confession of
evangelical faith both as to sin, and as to the deity and
atonement of Christ. No one is properly a Baptist who does not
acknowledge these truths which baptism signifies.

T. W. Chambers, in Presb. and Ref. Rev., Jan. 1890:113‐118,
objects that this view of the symbolism of baptism is based on two
texts, _Rom. 6:4_ and _Col. 2:12_, which are illustrative and not
explanatory, while the great majority of passages make baptism
only an act of purification. Yet Dr. Chambers concedes: “It is to
be admitted that nearly all modern critical expositors (Meyer,
Godet, Alford, Conybeare, Lightfoot, Beet) consider that there is
a reference here [in _Rom. 6:4_] to the act of baptism, which, as
the Bishop of Durham says, ‘is the grave of the old man and the
birth of the new—an image of the believer’s participation both in
the death and in the resurrection of Christ.... As he sinks
beneath the baptismal waters, the believer buries there all his
corrupt affections and past sins; as he emerges thence, he rises
regenerate, quickened to new hopes and a new life.’ ”

(_c_) Of the accomplishment of that purpose in the person baptized,—who thus professes his death to sin and resurrection to spiritual life.

_Gal. 3:27_—“_For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did
put on Christ_”; _1 Pet. 3:21_—“_which_ [water] _also after a true
likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of
the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience
toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ_”; _cf._
_Gal. 2:19, 20_—“_For I through the law died unto the law, that I
might live unto God. I have been crucified with Christ; and it is
no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me: and that life
which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is
in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me_”;
_Col. 3:3_—“_For ye died, and your life is hid with Christ in
God._”