Jump to the Links for the Table of contents

Difficulties About Baptism

by Dr. Douglas Bannerman

Edited, Updated and revised
by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon, May, 2003

This handbook written by The Rev. D. Douglas Bannerman, M.A., D.D., was published originally by The Free Church of Scotland in 1898.

FOREWORD

by The Rev, Professor R. L. MARSHALL, M.A., LL.D., D.D., F.R.Hist.S.

The mode and subjects of Baptism are living issues. It is obvious, therefore, that Christian people should be aware of what the Scriptures can teach us about this Sacrament, and of the nature and history of the controversies which have arisen concerning it.

Two generations ago Professor Witherow published a little book which very substantially fulfilled these needs, and later the Rev. Dr. Lowe's book provided a clear and trenchant exposition of the relevant issues. Both these are long out of print.

One welcomes, then, this re-issue of “Difficulties about Baptism” by D. D. Bannerman. To my mind it furnishes the sincere enquirer with a clear and judicial summary of the subject, setting out simply what we can learn from the Bible, and treating con­cisely the various questions about which there has been dispute.

We are indebted to the members of the Presbyterian Fellowship who have ably prepared this re-issue, and I cordially commend it to the careful and prayerful attention of all interested Christians.

R. L. MARSHALL

PREFATORY NOTE

The object of this little work is two-fold.

First, it seeks to supply something which may be useful to young men and women, who have been led to think specially of the questions: “What is Baptism?” and “Who should be baptized?” and who feel difficulties in connection with them. The Author has supposed himself to be in the presence of an audience of that class, and speaks to them in this book in the direct style which it would be natural for him to use in such circumstances.

Secondly, the book is meant to be of service to ministers and other teachers, who may have occasion to take up the subject in Bible or senior classes, and who wish to meet effectively the sort of difficulties about Baptism which experience shows are apt to weigh most with the young people for whom they are called to care. With this view, the work has been broken up into short chapters, with subdivisions and headings to the main paragraphs, so as to facilitate the study of the subject in a class.

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

D. D. B.

ST. LEONARD'S, PERTH, April, 1898

NOTE—This edition differs from the original only insofar as certain out-of-date references and statistics have been omitted.

Contents

Introductory Chapter

I.—nature of the difficulties

II.—how the difficulties should be dealt with: preliminary considerations

1. Respect due to Baptist denomination

2. Advantages on their side; Baptist Argument simple, and seemingly strong; Appeals to Christian Con­science in Young Believers

3. How far Conscience a Test in such cases: Analogy of Roman Catholic Argument

4. Practical Considerations before taking up Main Question:

First, This is not a Vital or Primary Question at all, but a Secondary one

Second, The 'Baptist View is that of a comparatively small Minority

Third, The Argument in support of the View of the Reformed Church

generally is a cumulative one

Part I.

What is baptism, so far as the outward rite is concerned? How should it be administered?

Chapter I.

Exact question at issue: answer of Christian church generally: answer of the Baptists: presumptions against the latter, ..

1. How far all agree

2. Nature and Extent of the Difference as

to Mode of Baptism,

3. Certain Presumptions against the Baptist Position

Chapter II.

Meaning of words “baptize”, “baptism”, etc., as used in scripture and by writers of Hellenistic Greek gener­ally

1. Exact Point at Issue needs some Scholarship to decide

2. Difference between Assertions in popular Baptist tracts and Admissions by more competent representatives of the Theory

3. Evidence from the Lexicons

4. Evidence from the New Testament

Chapter III

Baptist objections answered

Objection I.—From account of Baptism of our Lord and that of Ethiopian Eunuch

Answer to Objection I

Conclusion on this Point from Scripture

Evidence

Confirmation from earliest Post-Apostolic Reference

Later Developments as to 'Mode of Bap­tism and Significance attached to it

Objection II—From Rom. vi. 3-5, and Col. ii. 12, “Buried with Him in Baptism”

Answer to Objection II

Objection III.—From Matt. iii.15, “Should we not follow Christ into the River?”

Answer to Objection III

PART II.

Who should be baptized?

Chapter I.

State of the question: how far are all Christians agreed as to the proper subjects of baptism

1. How far entire Agreement prevails?

2. Where the Difference comes in

3. Testimony of Origen as to Apostolic Practice of Infant Baptism

4. Facts about “Family” Baptisms in Apostolic Church to be explained somehow

5. These Cases not our main Argument,

but show precise Point of Difference, 57-58

Chapter II.

Outline of main arguments from scripture

In support of infant baptism

I.—Infants of professing believers mem­bers of Old Testament Church, within the Covenant, and recognized as such

II — Their rights once established by Divine authority must be held to continue unless expressly with­drawn, ... 61-63

III.—New Testament evidence from pas­sages regarding 'Baptism and place of children in Church:

1. Matt, xxviii. 19/. Suppose initial

Sacrament of Old Testament Church continued, .

2. Confirmation of Argument from Facts about Proselyte Baptism in our Lord's time

3. Christianity the Completion of Judaism

4. Our Lord's Words and Actions when Babes brought to Him for Blessing. Luke xviii. 15; Mark x. 16

5. Children of believing Parents called “holy,” 1 Cor, vii. 14, .

6. Practical Illustration of how Infant Baptism speaks for itself in the Mission Field

Chapter III

Outline of evidence from church history after apostolic age

Irenaeus; Justin 'Martyr; Origen; Tertullian; President Rooke on Campbellite Baptists as agreeing with Patristic Writers of Third and Fourth Centuries regarding Baptismal Regeneration

Chapter IV

Objections to infant baptism answered, .

Objection I.—”Give a text enjoining In­fant Baptism,”

Answer to Objection I

Objection II;—”Belief should always go before Baptism, Why baptize uncon­scious babes?”

Answer to Objection II.

Conclusion

DIFFICULTIES ABOUT BAPTISM

INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER

I — NATURE OF THE DIFFICULTIES

The Larger Catechism of the Westminster Divines has a valuable section on the Sacraments. It is to the same effect as the corresponding section in the Shorter Catechism, with which most of us are more familiar; but it is fuller and more detailed in state­ment. The language may seem a little old-fashioned, but it is singularly weighty and well considered. The teaching of the Reformed Church Catholic on the subject of the Sacraments in general, and of Baptism in particular, could hardly be better expressed.

“A Sacrament is an holy ordinance, instituted by Christ in His Church, to signify, seal, and exhibit unto those that are within the covenant of grace the benefits of His mediation; to strengthen and increase their faith and all other graces; to oblige (i.e., bind) them to obedience; to testify and cherish their love and communion, one with another, and to distinguish them from those that are without. The parts of a Sacrament are two — the one, an outward and sensible sign,1 used according to Christ's own appointment;

A “sensible sign” means one which can be perceived by our bodily senses, and which appeals to us through them. the other, an inward and spiritual grace thereby signi­fied. Under the New Testament, Christ hath instituted in His Church only two Sacraments — Baptism and the Lord's Supper,

“Baptism is a Sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into Himself, of remission of sins by His blood, and re­generation by His Spirit, of adoption, and resurrection unto everlasting life; and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible Church, and enter into an open and professed engagement, to be wholly and only the Lord's., Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible Church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ and obedience to Him; but infants descended from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ and obedience to Him, are, in that respect, within the covenant, and to be baptized.”

In this little book we are to consider difficulties often felt by young Christians, and sometimes by those of riper years also, about Baptism. These difficulties, generally, arise in connection with one or other of two questions — what is Baptism, what it is, in par­ticular, as regards “the outward and sensible sign used according to Christ's appointment”? and to whom ought Baptism to be administered?

First, What is Baptism? It is agreed on all sides that Christian Baptism, so far as the outward rite is concerned, consists in the solemn application of water, in the name of the Trinity, to the person to be bap­tized. The difference of opinion arises when we ask: How is this to be done? Should Baptism be by immersion only — i.e., by dipping the whole body under water, as our Baptist brethren hold? Or should it be by “washing with water”, as the Westminster Divines teach, in common with all the rest of Christendom — i.e., either by immersion of the person to be baptized in the water, or by pouring or sprinkling of the water upon him, as may be judged most for convenience and edification?

Second, Who should be baptized? Should it be adult believers only, as Baptists hold? Or should it be adult believers, when these have not already been baptized in infancy, on the ground of their parents' Christian profession, and the infant children of be­lievers, when brought by them for the ordinance? That is what the Reformed Church generally holds and practices, all over the world,

It is in connection with one or other of these two questions, or with both of them, that the difficulties are felt. In other and more technical words, they refer either to the “Mode of Baptism”, or to the “Subjects of Baptism”. In the first part of this little work, accordingly, we are to consider the first question: What is Baptism, as regards its mode? going on in Part II to consider the second one — namely, Who ought to be baptized? But before we do so, it may be well to consider for a little from what standpoint, and in what spirit this subject should be taken up.

II — HOW THE DIFFICULTIES SHOULD BE DEALT WITH: PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS

1. Respect due to Baptist denomination

At the outset I would like to say that I have the kindliest feelings towards our respected brethren of the Baptist denomination, I have read a great many books and articles on their side by their leading writers, from Mr, Gale and Dr. Carson to President Rooke and Dr. Clifford, I did so, I think, with an open mind, wishing to know all that was to be said on both sides of this question; but I did not find their arguments at all conclusive. On the contrary, I am fully con­vinced that our Baptist brethren have mistaken the mind of Christ for His Church on the two points which separate them from the great majority of their fellow-Christians. I sincerely regret the separation thus brought about. I am sure that both we and they lose something by it, 'But I recognize, of course, that their views are conscientiously held, and that they are convinced that loyalty to Christ requires them to take up this separate position.

C. H, Spurgeon was seriously alarmed about what he called “the down-grade movement”, or the progress of unsound doctrines among the Baptists; and felt so strongly on the point as to withdraw, on that ground, from the Baptist Union, But, generally speak­ing, the Baptist denomination, in its various sections, has been distinguished — and will, I trust, always continue to be so — for soundness in the great funda­mental truths of the faith, and for a warm evangelical spirit. They have done much good service in the cause of the Gospel at home and abroad. There are names of Baptist ministers and missionaries, such as those of Robert Hall and C. H. Spurgeon, William Carey, and Adoniram Judson, which will always be held in the highest honour in the universal Church of Christ.

2. Advantages on their side: Baptist argument simple and seemingly strong: Appeals to Christian conscience in young believers.

It is not at all surprising that young men and women, who have not hitherto given any special attention to the subject, should feel difficulties when a Baptist tract is put into their hands, or when some zealous Christian friend, who holds Baptist views, begins to argue with them, and to suggest objections to the ordinary practice of the churches which had not occurred to them before. It would show a want of intelligence if they did not now awake to see that there were apparent difficulties, at least, in connection with infant Baptism, and there was a good deal that was plausible at all events — if not conclusive — to be said in support of the Baptist view.

The Baptist argument is very simple, and easily followed. And it may be put in such a way as to appeal strongly to the Christian instincts of a young convert. “You have come to Christ”—it is urged — “and have promised to follow Him. Well, why not follow Him into the river? Was He not baptized as a young man? Did He not say in con­nection with His Baptism: 'Thus it becometh us'— i.e., not Myself only, but all My true followers—'to fulfill all righteousness.'? Did He not say afterwards: 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved'? You 'believe' now. You did not, and could not do so, when you were sprinkled with water as an unconscious babe. Why not go on now to be 'baptized' after the Lord's example and command? You should be 'buried with Him in Baptism'. Is not immersion like burial, whereas sprinkling is not? Is it safe for you to disobey such a clear command of Christ, or to shrink from taking up your cross and following Him in this way?”

Now, every one of these arguments — as I shall have occasion to show presently — is unsound and misleading. They rest upon a misunderstanding and misapplication of 'Scripture texts separated from their connections, and upon a failure to distinguish between things that differ. But they are certainly plausible, and fitted to impress young people who hear them for the first time from earnest Christian men and women, who honestly believe in them, and who have perhaps themselves acted upon them at some cost in the way of family disagreement, or separation from a congregation to which they were truly attached. There is often a great deal to sympathize with and to respect in such cases, however much one may regret the mistaken step.

Christian conscience, especially in a young believer in the glow of his first love, is naturally sensitive to appeals of that sort. The young man or woman does not see how to answer these Baptist arguments. He or she has never, till now, thought particularly about the question. Possibly “their whole argumentative stock-in-trade”, as one writer on the subject calls it,1 is the fact that on three occasions the Apostle Paul is said to have baptized “households” or “families”. That is very soon disposed of; and they feel them­selves controversially “bankrupt”. They begin to doubt whether they may not have been disobeying Christ in this matter hitherto, and whether they will not be acting against conscience now, if they do not take steps for being immersed without delay. They let their hesitation be seen, and that, of course, brings further pressure at once upon them. They are told: “I felt just so for months, or perhaps years, while I trifled with conscience, and put off coming to a decision. It was such a relief when at last I obeyed the 'Lord in simple faith in this matter. I felt so much happier; and you will feel the same, if you only have courage to lay aside 'the fear of man, which bringeth a snare', and to do what the Lord has been showing you to be right,”

3. How jar conscience a test in such cases: Analogy of Roman Catholic argument.

Now, observe, the fact that a certain action brings relief to conscience is no proof at all that the thing done is right in itself. No one who knows the facts of the case can doubt that Cardinal Newman, for example, honestly believed that he was following Christ when he joined the Church of Rome, and accepted the doctrine of transubstantiation, and that of the absolute supremacy of the Pope. Had not Christ said: “This is My Body.”? And was it not our part to receive that in simple faith, in the plain meaning of the words, without seeking to lessen the wonder or explain it away? Had He not said also: “Thou art Peter; and on this Rock will I build My Church. . .. I will give unto thee the keys of the

kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”? Was it not safest — nay, the only safe way — to be in the only Church which claimed to be built on Peter, to give the body and blood of the Lord at all her altars to all her communicants, and to wield the absolute power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven?

Dr. Newman came to feel that he was resisting conscience by remaining longer in the Church in which he was born and brought up, and to which he clung with such true affection; and he tells us in his “Apologia”, and in his “Letters”, what relief of mind and peace of conscience he got by becoming a Romanist. 'But you can all see that that fact did not in the least prove that the step he took was right in itself., Well, it is equally clear that no experience of anyone's getting peace of conscience by being im­mersed, furnishes the slightest proof that the step in itself was a right one.

I have no hesitation in saying that most of you young men and women would find it very difficult to answer an intelligent English Roman Catholic, if you got into discussion with him about religion. He would press you with the arguments that convinced Cardinal Newman and Cardinal 'Manning, and would dispose of some of the common objections to Romanism, which you would be likely to bring forward, very rapidly indeed. The fact is that an educated Romanist in this country, and a Baptist, being both in a minority as regards their distinctive views, are usually much better up on the points of controversy, and the most effective way of putting them from their side, than the average Protestant, who has, naturally enough, not given special thought to the questions in dispute, and has taken things a good deal for granted. 'But that does not prove that either the Romanist or the Baptist is right, or that where they are wrong cannot be clearly shown by those who have given more attention to the subject.

The points of difference between us and our Baptist brethren are, happily, very trifling indeed in com­parison with the great and vital differences between us and the Roman Catholics. But there is undoubtedly a certain analogy in the style of argument in the two cases., So far as the Roman Catholics try to defend their system on the ground of Scripture, as dis­tinguished from tradition and the authority of the Church, they, like the Baptists, rest their argument on two or three isolated texts taken out of their con­nection, and insisted on in a sense which can be disproved from the connection.

4, Practical Considerations before taking up Main Question

The essential question to be settled, both as regards the mode and the subjects of Baptism, is: What is the mind of Christ for His disciples in this matter? But, before we go on to look at the Scripture evidence, I may say that there are three practical considerations which ought to be before the minds of all young Christians who are troubled by the sort of difficulties about Baptism to which I have referred, and which may help them to deal with these difficulties in the right way: —

First, This is not a vital or primary question at all, but a secondary one.— It is not about the essentials of the faith, or the way of salvation. It does not concern “repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ”;1 nor that 'Baptism of the Holy Spirit”, whereby all Christ's true disciples are baptized by the one Spirit into one body in Him,2 As a minister of our Church puts it in an excellent little tract on this subject: “Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and the Baptism of the Holy Ghost are what we need for salvation and for service. Let us seek after these with all our hearts; and then as 'doers of God's will', we 'shall know of His doctrine'.”

The question which we are considering now is simply the outward mode of administering a particular ordinance, and the precise persons to whom it should be administered. It is a question about which there is an honest difference of judgment between Christian men, equally anxious to know their Lord's will, and to obey it. We should see, therefore, that we do not make too much of a difference of this sort. It is not a “term of Communion”, so far as I know, in any Presbyterian Church in the world, for members as distinguished from office-bearers.

I remember hearing C. H. Spurgeon say once, in our General Assembly, where his presence was always welcomed in the warmest way, that he held the Shorter Catechism in the very highest esteem, and used it — if I am not mistaken — as a handbook in his College for the training of young 'Ministers. “He only took the liberty,” he said, “of leaving out one clause of the answer to one Question: The infants of such as are members of the visible Church are to be baptized'!” Well, it is clear that we may easily make too much of a difference of judgment upon “one clause of the answer to one Question” in the Catechism, when we agree so cordially with men like C. H. Spurgeon on all the rest. Should we not at least “agree to differ” about that one clause in a spirit of mutual respect and forbearance?

            Second, The Baptist view is that of a comparatively small minority.—The vast majority of Christians and of Protestants hold a different view from that of our Baptist brethren on these two points:—How ought Baptism to be administered, and to whom? There is something pathetic about the way in which some of their leading representatives speak of this. “Urged,” says Dr. Clifford, “by our judgment of the meaning of the New Testament as to the will of the Lord Jesus, we have dared to differ from nearly the whole of Christendom; and some of us have cultivated isolation lest we should be entrapped into compromise. We have preferred to dwell apart rather than endanger our integrity as trustees of truth. Knowing that catholicity of spirit has sometimes led to disloyalty to intellectual conviction, we rejoice with trembling in gatherings of Christians to promote intimate knowledge of one another, interchange of ideas, and the quickening of a kindly regard, lest it should issue in unwarranted concessions to what is regarded as Pseudo-Baptist error.” (Dr. Clifford in Review of the Churches, 15th December, 1892 p. 157.)

While this is significant and worth considering, it is not, of course, conclusive. It does not decide the question on its merits. It is possible that the immense majority of intelligent Christians in this country, and all over the world, may have mistaken the meaning of the 'Bible teaching about Baptism. It is possible, but it is not very likely. The facts furnish, at least, a good reason why a young man or woman should not come to any hasty conclusion, nor rush into any hasty action on the subject, because they feel difficulties about it, and do not see how to answer arguments or objections which have been brought before them. The facts to which I have referred make it absolutely certain at least that there must be another side to the question than the Baptist one — that it must admit of being answered in a different way by intelligent Christian men; because, in point of fact, the overwhelming majority of Protestant Christians, with their Bibles in their hands, and with the promise of “the Spirit to lead them into all truth” needful for Christ's dis­ciples, have come to one conclusion on this subject, and our 'Baptist brethren have come to another.

Third, The argument in support of the view of the Reformed Church generally is a CUMULATIVE ONE.— It is of great practical importance if we really wish to come to a right conclusion in this matter, that this should be kept in mind, namely, that the argument in support of the view of Baptism held by all the Churches of Reformed Christendom except those of the Baptist order, is a cumulative one, just as the argument for the Divine authority of the Christian Sabbath is. No one who insists on one special method of proof alone — that of direct injunction in so many words — can possibly feel the full weight and force of the argument in support of the Divine obligation of the Lord's Day; neither can he do so as regards the argument in support of the true answer to the question “who should be baptized?” It draws from the whole field of Scripture, from Genesis to Revela­tion. It grows and gathers strength in a man's mind the better he knows his Bible as a whole,— the better he understands the connection between the Old Testa­ment and the New, between the Church in the days when the Gospel was preached beforehand unto Abraham,1 and the Church under the Gospel now.

The argument needs, therefore, a little time and thought to be spent upon it, if we are really to under­stand it and take it in. In the case of the Jews in our Lord's time, and the first disciples in the Apostolic age, there was no difficulty of this sort, as we shall have occasion to show in the second Part, because the transition from the Old Testament Church to the New Testament one was made in a perfectly natural way under their very eyes. But for us, living in the twentieth century from the birth of Christ, if we break away from what Origen — born only some eighty-five years after the death of the Apostle John — tells us was the practice of the whole Church from the Apostles' time as to the Baptism of infants,( Origen. Comment, in Rom. v., sec. 9; Homil, in Lev. viii., sec. 3; in Luc. xiv.) it requires some thought and study of Scripture and contemporary writers in order that we may so put ourselves in the place of the first disciples as really to understand what our Lord's words and actions in this matter means, and could not but mean, to them.

A young believer is apt to be a little hasty and impatient in such circumstances, to take one or two isolated texts in what he supposes to be their natural sense, without troubling himself to look beyond them or to consider their historic connection, and so to draw rash conclusions. Now, the Baptist argument, as I have said already, has a distinct advantage here. It is very simple, easily put, and easily understood. It seems quite convincing, so long as you do not go beyond Matt. iii. 15, Mark xvi 16, and Rom. vi, 4, and while you interpret these verses from the stand­point of the twentieth century instead of from the standpoint of the first disciples.,

If any of you young men and women feel difficulties about 'Baptism, the right and the wise course for you to take is to speak to older Christian friends in whom you have confidence, or to come to your minister or your elder for a little frank talk over the matter at the beginning. That is the time when their words are likely to be helpful to one who really wishes to know the mind of Christ for His people on this point, and not merely to follow his or her own impulses and im­pressions. Young people have repeatedly come to me in that way, and in most cases, I think, I have been able to remove their difficulties, if they came at an early stage. Of course, all who know anything of human nature will see that there is little use in a young lad or girl coming to their minister as to difficulties, after they have been talking for weeks about them to Baptist friends, and have practically made up their minds, and told other people that they meant to be immersed. It would require a very un­usual amount of humility of mind to draw back at that stage, however much evidence on the other side of the question might be set before them.

MODE OF BAPTISM

PART I

WHAT IS BAPTISM, SO FAR AS THE OUT­WARD RITE IS CONCERNED? HOW SHOULD IT BE ADMINISTERED?

CHAPTER I

EXACT QUESTION AT ISSUE: ANSWER OF CHRISTIAN CHURCH GENERALLY: ANSWER OF THE BAPTISTS: PRESUMPTIONS AGAINST THE LATTER.

1. How Far All Agree

CUTTING out of account the members of the Society of Friends (or Quakers, as they are gener­ally called), and any others who may think, like them, that Baptism was not meant by our Lord to be an ordinance of permanent obligation in His Church, we may say that all Christians agree that this Sacra­ment, so far as the outward and visible part of it is concerned, consists in the solemn application of water to the person baptized, in the name of the Trinity. There is also general agreement so far as the symbols and symbolic actions in Baptism are concerned, that these represent the washing away of sins, cleansing or purification through the blood of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, union with the Lord Jesus in His atoning death and risen life, and consecration to Him and to His service. The difference comes in when we ask how the water is to be applied, whether the person to be baptized must be put wholly under the water — i.e., dipped or immersed, or whether he may be baptized as lawfully by pouring or sprinkling.

2. Nature and Extent of the Difference as to Mode of Baptism

The view of the Christian Church, generally, is that, if the symbol of water is preserved, the amount of it is not essential, but is a question to be decided by considerations of convenience and edification.

All Christians admit — Baptists as well as others — that there is a liberty of this sort as regards the other Sacrament of Christ's appointment. The Lord's Supper, as the name implies, was originally held at night, and in connection with a full meal. We hold it now, generally, in the forenoon or afternoon, and we take only a morsel of bread and a sip of wine, Yet Baptists, like all other Christians, call it the Lord's Supper still, and consider that all that is essential in the use of the symbols is preserved. Is it not reason­able to think that we were meant to have the same liberty as to the amount of the element or elements used in the one Sacrament as in the other? Our Baptist friends say, “No; because, as regards Baptism, from the nature of the case, no choice is given us. Here 'the mode is the ordinance'. You may have a 'supper', which is taken in the forenoon, and which consists of a morsel of bread and a mouthful of wine But you cannot have a 'Baptism' unless the person baptized is dipped over the head in the water. We cannot recognize any Christian, however eminent, as a 'baptized believer', unless the ordinance has been administered to him in that particular way.” And most 'Baptists — the immense majority of those in America, in particular — go further, and say, “We cannot admit him to the Lord's Table in our church; and it would be wrong for us to sit down with him at the Communion in his own church.”

Now, it is not fair to meet that position, as is sometimes done, with mere ridicule. It is honestly held by a large number of earnest Christian men and women, because they believe that faithfulness to Christ requires them to take it up. They hold that He meant all His disciples to be baptized by immersion — that they cannot, indeed, be baptized at all in any other way, because Baptism means immersion, and, there­fore, they must obey Him at all costs, and must mark their disapproval of what they regard as disobedience on the part of professing disciples of Christ to His plain command, by “coming out and being separate” from those who disobey—”with such an one no not to eat” at the Lord's Table.

It is not fair, as I have said, to meet such views with mere ridicule., But it is quite fair to point out that there are —

3. Certain Presumptions Against the Baptist Position

(1.) It is not likely that under the Gospel of Christ and the dispensation of the Spirit so much should turn upon a mere point of ritual. For that is what it really is — a dispute about the correct way of per­forming a certain outward rite. The question at issue here is simply this: whether a man is rightly baptized by standing in a river and being dipped over his head in the water, and wrongly baptized — or rather, not baptized at all — by standing in the river and having water poured or sprinkled on his head. We say, “It makes no difference. Eeither way will do.” Our Baptist brethren say, “It makes all the difference in the world. The first way is Baptism, and the second is not.”

(2.) It is not likely that the Divine Founder of a universal religion should have bound all His followers in all time to perform the rite of admission into the fellowship of His disciples in one particular way, which, in some countries,1 is practically impossible for some six months in the year, and in others is highly inconvenient, contrary to the natural habits and ways of the people, and even dangerous to health.

(3.) It is not likely that the result would have been that throughout nineteen centuries the great majority of Christians should invariably have mistaken the meaning of their Lord's command, and so should never have been baptized at all, although honestly believing that they were.

All these things are unlikely., It would need very strong and conclusive evidence to establish a position which involves them. Let us consider now what the evidence bearing on the question really is.

MODE OF BAPTISM

CHAPTER II

MEANING OF WORDS “BAPTIZE”, “BAPTISM”, ETC., AS USED IN SCRIPTURE AND BY WRITERS OF “HELLEN­ISTIC” GREEK GENERALLY.

1. Exact Point at Issue needs some Scholarship to decide

A S put by our Baptist brethren, the question of the mode of Baptism turns entirely upon the meaning of a particular word, or group of words, in the New Testament, namely, the word baptizo, with its deri­vatives. Baptists generally say that it means to im­merse, and only to immerse, always and everywhere, in the New Testament and out of it alike, (Carson, Baptism in its Mode and Subjects. London, 1844, p. 55).

1—The separate ecclesiastical position of our Baptist brethren rests upon the further assumption that, if “Baptism” means “immersion”, that settles the whole question as to the mind of Christ for His Church in this matter. But the analogy of the other Sacrament is enough to show that this is an unfounded assumption. The proper meaning of “supper” is an evening meal. The Lord's Supper arose out of the Passover — which was also an evening meal — and it was held at night, both when first instituted and on other occasions mentioned in the New Testament. But these facts do not prevent the Lord's Supper from being lawfully held, in the judgment of Baptists and of all other Christians, in the morning. Even supposing, therefore, that it could be proved that the proper, or at least the original, meaning of “Baptism” is “immersion”, just as the proper meaning of “supper” is an evening meal, it would not in the least follow that, according to the mind of Christ, His people could only be baptized by immersion, any more than that they could only lawfully hold the Lord's Supper in the evening. In this chapter, however, the Baptist arguments re­garding the mode of Baptism are considered on their own ground, for example, asserts that in the strongest terms; and he is, on the whole, the ablest Baptist controversalist whom I know.

Well, this just comes to be a question of scholarship, and of nicer and more exact scholarship than you might think at first sight; and, therefore, it is not easy to go into it in a popular handbook such as this without seeming pedantic, and being too minute for a good many of my readers., Because, observe, this is a question regarding the precise use and meaning of a small group of words, not in ordinary classical Greek — the Greek which boys learn at school — but in a certain dialect of Greek at a certain age, and as used by a certain class of writers, which differed in many respects from classical Greek especially in its use of certain words. The New Testament, like the famous Greek version of the Old Testament, commonly called the LXX. (or Septuagint), which was our Lord's Bible, and that of all His first disciples, was written not in classical but in what is known as “Hellenistic” Greek — a very important difference.( Reference to any good school dictionary for ordinary Greek will bring out the point here. Turn up Baptizo in Liddell & Scott. Three chief meanings are given—”I., To dip under water; of ships, to sink them; Pass, to bathe; II., To draw water; III., To baptize, N.T.” [4th Edition, Oxford, p. 238]. ) Obviously, therefore, this point in dispute — namely, the exact meaning of baptizo in the LXX., in the New Testament, and in certain other writers who used what was practically the same, or a closely-kindred form of the Greek language, is a somewhat nice question of scholarship, which can only be settled by those who have studied the subject, and are competent to speak upon it.

The question we have now to consider is what the third meaning in Liddell & Scott covers. They do not settle that point for us. They leave us to find out what “to baptize” really means in the N.T. and other books written by Jewish authors in Hellenistic Greek.

Others must be guided on this point, as in similar cases, by the evidence of experts.

2. Differences between Assertions in popular Baptist

tracts and Admissions of more competent representatives of the Theory

Some of the tracts and pamphlets commonly cir­culated by our 'Baptist friends, when they try to handle this question of the meaning of baptizo, supply re­markable illustrations of the truth of the saying that “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”. The authors of these pamphlets, as a rule, do not know enough to know their own incompetence. It is in that class of writings that you find strong assertions that baptizo means to immerse and only to immerse, with the still more amazing assertion that “all scholars admit this”. And therewith these writers often give a list of names of commentators from patristic times and from the Reformation period, whom they declare to be all on their side. Nothing could be more irrelevant and misleading than such references.

When we come, however, to Baptist controversialists whose scholarship is of a higher order, such as Dr. 'Carson and President Rooke, we find considerably .greater caution, and some very noteworthy admissions. Take Dr. Carson, for example, in his able work to which reference has already been made: “Baptizo, I have asserted, has but one signification. . . . My position is that it always signifies to dip, never ex­pressing anything but mode. Now, as I have all the lexicographers and commentators against me in this opinion, it will be necessary to say a word or two with respect to the authority of lexicons. Many may be startled at the idea of refusing to submit to the unanimous authority of lexicons, as an instance of the boldest skepticism.” Dr. Carson proceeds accordingly, at some length, to explain why his readers should in this case follow him rather than the lexicons. Now this is a frank and courageous admission on the part of Dr. Carson., He has “all the lexicons and all the commentators against him in his opinion” on the crucial point of this controversy., And although Dr. Carson goes on to fight vigorously for his opinion, an ordinary jury of intelligent readers may see reason to side with “all the lexicographers and all the com­mentators”, rather than with him and the Baptist writers generally who agree with him.

3. Evidence from the Lexicons

It is unnecessary to give this in detail, in view of Dr. Carson's candid admission that “all the lexico­graphers are against him” A few instances may be enough: —

First, Gases, a learned scholar of last century, a Greek himself and a member of the Modern Greek Church, defines baptizo in his large lexicon as mean­ing— (1) To wet or moisten; (2) To wash or bathe; (3) To draw water. None of these meanings suits the Baptist view,— not even No, 2; for a thing or person may be “washed”, or “bathed”, without being “dipped”. All the meanings of course, except the last, suit our view of the modes of Baptism.

Second, Scapula, one of the great Greek scholars of the Reformation period, says, in his Greek-Latin Lexicon, that baptizo means—”1, To dip or immerse, as when we immerse something in water for the sake of washing or purifying it; 2, to submerge or over­whelm with water; 3, to wash or purify (Mark vii. and Luke xi).” Only the first of these meanings suits the view of the Baptists. Scapula's interpretation of the “Baptisms” spoken of in Mark vii, and Luke xi. if, of course, fatal to their theory.

Third, Grimm's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament defines baptizo, “1, Prop, to dip repeatedly, to immerse, submerge (of vessels sunk, Polyb,; of animals, Diod.); 2, to cleanse by dipping or sub­merging, to wash or make clean with water; in the Mid. and 1 Aor., Pass., to wash one's-self, bathe; so Mark vii. 4, where W.H, txt. rhantisontai—i.e. sprinkle themselves…baptismos, a washing, purification effected by water; so Mark vii., 4-8; of the washing prescribed by the Mosaic Law, Heb. ix. 10.” lit is worth noting that the meaning, “to wash or make clean with water”, is the one given by Grimm in reference to the New Testament passages, with the alternative reading of “sprinkle themselves”, in Mark vii. 4. For baptismos (the word used for Baptism in Mark vii. 4-8, Heb. vi. 2 and ix. 10, and by Josephus of John's Baptism1) Grimm does not give “im­mersion” as a meaning at all, but only “a washing, purification effected by water”, He gives immersion as one of the meanings for baptisma, a kindred word,

Fourth, Dr. E. Robinson, Professor of Biblical Literature in New York, and author of “Biblical Researches in Palestine”, a book which marked an era in Biblical Archaeology, compiled also an excellent Greek and English lexicon of the New Testament. In it he gives the meaning of baptizo in the N.T. as, “1, To wash, to lave, to cleanse by washing...; 2,to baptize, to administer the rite of baptism, either that of John or of Christ.”( Compare also Cremer's Biblico-Theological Lexicon of N T Greek, 3rd English ed., pp. 126-130)

The general result, then, is this: according to the lexicons, baptizo has several meanings — immerse, wash, wet or moisten, wash away, cleanse or purify. Which of these meanings it has in a particular case, or class of cases, depends on the context, or the usage of the writer or group of writers.1 When we turn to the group of writers who used Hellenistic Greek we find that this word, especially as employed by Jewish writers on religious subjects (and all the N.T., writers, it is to be remembered, were either Jews or proselytes), means to wash or purify with water for some religious purpose, in whatever way the water was applied. It may be by putting the thing or the person into the water — i.e. by immersion; or it may be by putting the water upon them — i.e. by pouring, wetting, or sprinkling.

Illustrations of this might easily be given from the LXX,, and other sources. But, for the readers whom I have specially in view, it will be more convenient to turn at once to the New Testament.

4. Evidence from the New Testament

In Mark vii, 4 we have two instances of the kind I refer to in one verse.

(1.) “When they — i.e. the Pharisees and all the Jews,—' come from the market-place, except they wash (literally, as in margin of R.V., “baptize”} themselves, they eat not.”

            That does not mean, of course, that they immersed themselves over the head in water each time before eating. There were no private baths, as a rule, among the Jews of our Lord's time, even in wealthy houses, far less among the people generally. To go to a public bath, even if there had been such institutions — which, “Immerse” is sometimes spoken of in the lexicons as the “proper” or original meaning of baptizo. That the “proper” meaning of a word may often largely, or entirely, give place in the course of time to one of its “secondary” meanings may be easily understood by English readers if they think of such words in their own language as “manufacture” and “blazon”. The “proper” or original meaning of the first of these terms is to make with the hand; we use it always now of things made by machinery. The second meant originally to explain a coat-of-arms; it means now to publish abroad in any way. was the case only in a few Greek cities like Tiberias — would have been, from the Pharisees' point of view, to contract additional uncleanness. What they did was to sprinkle themselves with a bunch of hyssop, or somet