Water Baptism
Zion's Advocate, Vol. 39, No. 10, October 1900.That this ordinance is taught in the New Testament no one will question. That it was intended to be perpetuated is evident from the commission given by the Saviour to preach and baptize, and from the fact that the apostles, acting under that commission, did continue to practice it. This commission was given just before Christ ascended to heaven, which shows that it was designed for the dispensation then introduced. No change of dispensation has taken place, so the commission has never been revoked. The promise of the presence of Jesus to the end of the world clearly implies the perpetuity of the commission. True ministers of the gospel, now acting under that commission, are bound by it to preach the gospel and administer baptism. In this investigation of the subject we wish to consider the following points: 1. What baptism is. 2. Who are to be baptized. 3. What its design is. 4. Who are authorized to baptize.
1. What baptism is. Baptism is an act. If it cannot be determined what that act is, as some assert, then no one can know how to obey it. But no command is given in the Bible that no one can know how to obey. The act expressed by the word baptism can, therefore, be ascertained from the teaching of the New Testament. The word baptism is not really a translated word in our Bible. It is rather a modified form of the Greek word baptisma. This is the substantive or noun form, and is defined by Dr. Parkhurst, An immersion or washing with water. The verb form is baptizo, and is defined by the same noted scholar, To dip, immerse, or to plunge in water. All standard Greek Lexicons so define these words. The New Testament was first written in the Greek language. The Greek word for sprinkle is rantizo. This word is not used anywhere in all the New Testament to express the act of baptizing. If sprinkling were the act of baptism the Greek word rantizo would have been used. Ekcheo is the Greek word used to express the act of pouring. This word is not used in the New Testament to express the act of baptizing. This shows very conclusively that pouring is not baptism.
The signification of a word may be determined, if there be any question as to its meaning, by putting its supposed synonymns in its place in a sentence where the word is correctly used. Take the word baptism, and suppose there is some doubt in regard to its real meaning as used in the Scriptures. Suppose we wish to determine whether its meaning is to sprinkle, to pour, or to immerse. This can be done by substituting these supposed meanings for the word baptism in any text. That supposed meaning which does not destroy the meaning of the text is the true meaning. We will take the 12th verse of the second chapter of Colossians: "Buried with him in baptism." "Buried with him in sprinkling," and "Buried with him in pouring," would both destroy the sense of the passage, while "Buried with him in immersion," would not. Hence immersion is the true meaning of baptism in this text. The same test may be made by taking Rom. vi. 4. The word immersion may be inserted instead of the word baptism in any passage found in the New Testament, and the sense will not be destroyed.
The doctrine of the gospel embraces the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. In the sixth chapter of Romans, Paul teaches this doctrine in speaking of Christ's having died and having been raised from the dead, and of the death of his people to sin and their resurrection to a new, spiritual life. He then says, "But God be thanked that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you." This form of doctrine is again taught in I. Cor. xv. 2, 3: "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures: and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures." Now the form of this doctrine is seen in immersion, but not in sprinkling or pouring. To obey this form of doctrine, we must be immersed, as that is the only way in which it can be obeyed.
In obeying this form of doctrine we are required to be immersed only once. Some practice trine immersion, but Christ was not buried three times, nor do we go down into a state of death three times. To say that we must be buried once in the name of the Father, once in the name of the Son, and once in the name of the Holy Ghost, is a denial that these three are one, for the three separate acts declare them to be three. The practice of trine baptism, then, not only destroys the real figure of baptism as a burial, but denies the unity of the Trinity, a fundamental doctrine of the gospel.
What a beautiful object lesson this is! It brings to mind the burial and resurrection of Jesus, and represents our own death to sin and resurrection to a union and communion with him, and shows our own hope of being finally raised from the grave from a state of corruption to a glorified state in the heavenly world. This act, performed by the penitent, trembling child of God, is a perfect reproduction of the pen picture which inspiration gives of Philip and the Eunuch going down into the water, and of the blessed Saviour going up straightway out of the water. It is thus that the Jews were baptized of John in Jordan, confessing their sins. These examples can be imitated, and the commandment of Jesus obeyed, only by being immersed.
Dr. Mosheim, a learned Lutheran historian, speaking of the baptism of the first century, says, "The sacrament of Baptism was administered in this century without the public assemblies, in places appointed and prepared for the purpose, and was performed by the immersion of the whole body in the baptismal font." Mosheim's testimony is against the practice of his own church, which proves his sincerity, and makes his evidence in the case very strong. As immersion was the practice of the churches during the first century, before the corruptions of the world had been introduced into the service of Christ, it follows that immersion was commanded by the Saviour and practiced by the inspired Apostles.
Sprinkling and pouring for baptism had their origin in the belief held by the Roman Catholics that baptism was essential to salvation, and was allowed at first in the case of unbaptized sick persons who were not able to be immersed. "A. D. 753, Pope Stephen III was driven from Rome by Atulphus, king of the Lombards, and put himself under the protection of Pepin, king of France. During Stephen's residence in the monastery of St. Dennis, some monks of Cressy, in Brittany, proposed to him 19 questions, one of which was, 'If pouring water on the head of the sick and dying would be baptism?' To which he replied, that in such cases of necessity, pouring would be baptism. From this decision arose the private baptism of the sick by pouring, but immersion, trine or single, was still universally administered to the healthy. But it soon became a question what degree of sickness should prevent immersion; and as many infants died soon after they were born, and some even before, the doctrine of baptismal salvation drove the priests and monks among the midwives, and introduced indecencies which I forbear to mention. The want of water at hand, and the want of suitable tubs to dip in, together with other circumstances not necessary to mention, led the priests to plead for pouring instead of dipping; but this doctrine of Rantizing (sprinkling) was so repugnant to the feelings of the Catholics themselves, that they never obtained a public act in favor of it, until A. D. 1311, when the council of Ravena, in Italy, by the Pope's authority, declared dipping or sprinkling indifferent. While the Catholics had control of England, they uniformly immersed; and the Episcopal Rubric which was established by law in Elizabeth's reign, reads, "Then shall the priest take the child into his hands and shall say unto the Godfather and Godmother, name this child. And naming it after them, if they certify that the child may well endure it, he shall dip the child in water, discreetly and warily, saying, N., I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. But if they certify that the child is weak, it shall suffice to pour water upon it.'" - The Convert's Guide to First Principles.
It may thus be seen that sprinkling and pouring sprang from the false notion of baptismal salvation. The Roman Catholic church, the "Mother of harlots," is the originator of this heretical practice, which has been taken up by her children and grand-children, the churches of modern times.
"John Knox with other refugees, returned to Scotland, A. D. 1559, and brought with them Calvin's book and new doctrine of sprinkling, and it was established by law with the rest of their creed, A. D. 1560; and from Scotland it spread into England and America. But still the law of the church of England enjoined dipping, and in the Presbyterian assembly of 49 Divines, convened at Westminster, (near London,) A. D. 1643, the subject was keenly debated for several days, and finally decided by a vote twenty-five for sprinkling, and twenty-four for immersion. And even this small majority was obtained at the earnest request of Dr. Lightfoot, who had acquired great influence in that assembly." - Dr. Brewster's Ed. En. Article Baptism.
"The practice of aspersion or sprinkling was brought into the church by Popish school men; and our dissenters have it from them. The school men employed their thoughts how to find out a reason for the alteration to sprinkling: and brought it into use in the twelfth century." - John Floyer, Essay on Baptism.
Much more testimony could be given, but we deem this sufficient. In the face of these plain facts it does seem strange that churches will continue to practice sprinkling and pouring. They are so different from the true mode that they are not even counterfeits. No spiritual lesson is taught, no form of doctrine is obeyed, by having a little water sprinkled or poured upon the head.
J. R. D.
Copyright c. 2003. All rights reserved. The Primitive Baptist Library.
