Objections Answered

Two or three other passages of Scripture remain to be considered to complete your list. The first of them is that in Acts 22:16: “Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins.” This is one of several in which we find baptism closely connected with this same word, “wash.” Thus the Epistle to the Hebrews evidently refers to baptism in the expression, “Having our bodies washed with pure water.” Other similar allusions will occur to you. That these forms of speech show that baptism was understood to be a symbol of purity, and not of death and resurrection, seems too obvious to need argument. And yet, as every reader of Baptist literature knows full well, the staple arguments on that side are these two: (1) The meaning of the word itself. (2) The import of the ordinance as representing Christ’s burial and resurrection. The proof of the latter view is drawn solely from the figurative language found in Romans and Colossians, which we have already sufficiently considered.

But if the ordinance was intended to represent Christ’s burial and resurrection, — if that is its spiritual significance and import, — it seems strange to us that there should be no more frequent, and at least some plain references to that fact; strange that so important a matter should be left in such obscurity. Why was it not said to Paul, for example: “Arise and be baptized, and so represent the burial resurrection of your risen Lord?” It would have been a very proper occasion for it: there never could have been one apparently more fitting. The risen Christ, whom living he.had rejected, had just appeared to him: and if Christ’s burial and resurrection had indeed been the meaning of the ordinance to which he was called to submit, it would have seemed exceedingly natural to bring out that fact distinctly. Or if, instead of that, nothing had been said, it might have been so understood. But we have neither this interpretation on the one hand, nor silence on the other; but on the contrary we have another and different interpretation entirely. “Be baptized; and thus represent in symbol, the cleansing of the soul — by the washing of regeneration.”

Why did not Paul, in writing to the Galatians, when it came directly in his way to set forth the import of their baptism, say: “As many of you as have been baptized to Jesus Christ have thus represented Christ’s burial and resurrection” — instead of telling them that they had thus put on Christ?

Even in the sixth of Romans the direct reference is to their death and resurrection to a new life, while only an indirect reference to the burial and resurrection of Christ is made at all.

Then comes the passage in Acts 1:5: “John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence.” All Baptist writers, so far as I know, attempt to bring even this verse to their aid. But the attempt strikes me as a signal failure. In baptism we are consecrated to the divine service. Water represents the purity which this consecration implies. But the divine power which really consecrates and sanctifies is the Spirit of God. John’s cleansing was with water; but yours shall be with the Holy Spirit, not many days hence.

Dr. Carson fairly represents all the Baptist writers, as far as I know, when he talks about the baptism of the disciples “in wind and fire”; and when he says that “the house was filled with the wind, that the disciples might be baptized in it. Their baptism consisted in being totally surrounded with the wind.” And then, a little farther on he says: “They were surrounded by the wind, and covered by the fire above. They were, therefore, buried in wind and fire.”¹

And so he vacillates: on one page, finding them baptized “in wind and fire”; on the next in the wind alone; on the next again, in both combined. I am not surprised that he should walk thus unsteadily; it is more surprising that so acute a critic should have found even a single foothold for immersion in the passage to which he refers. For it is not said at all that there was any wind whatever; but only a sound, as of a rushing mighty wind. It was not the rushing mighty wind that filled the house — but the sound. And the tongues were not fire, but simply had the appearance of fire.

Dr. Carson, however, is not to be discomfited by any little difficulties of this sort; for “The baptism of the Spirit must have reference to.immersion, and in its literal sense never signifies anything else.² This is n fixed point; and in the examination of the reference in the baptism of the Spirit, nothing can be admitted inconsistent with this.” And so he is even ready to say: “On the day of Pentecost there was a real baptism in the emblems of the Spirit. They were literally covered with the appearance of wind and fire.”

Here is still another mode of baptism — “in the appearance of wind and fire!”

What can that mean? — “the appearance of wind?” — “baptized in the appearance of wind?” The matter is growing more and more complicated! Now if the sacred historian had stated that the wind filled the house, that would have provided for immersion in that — without the fire at all. But as it is only stated that the sound filled the house, and that the sound was like that of a mighty rushing wind, the wind itself is wanting. Dr. Carson seems to have caught a glimpse of that fact at one moment, and hence was reduced to the necessity of baptizing the disciples in the appearance of wind (whatever that may be). Why did he not happen to catch at the real statement, that the sound filled the house, and then he could have immersed them in that? But immersion “in a sound” would have been too thin a disguise, and so he has it “in the appearance of wind and fire!” — a phrase so well-sounding and at the same time so obscure that even the learned author probably never himself detected the absurdity of it.

Understanding the baptism of the Spirit to mean the sanctifying power which should, set them apart to their great work (as our baptism always represents sanctification and consecration), all difficulties disappear. To my mind it is equally a misconception to imagine in this baptism of the Spirit any argument for “pour” or “sprinkle” or “immerse.” It is not the mode of baptism, but the cleansing and consecration which it signifies, that this figurative use of the word brings before us.

There remains, I believe, but one passage that has ever entered into this controversy, to which I have not thus far alluded. It is found in 1 Peter 3:20, 21: “The longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water; the like figure whereunto, even baptism, doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

The only interpretation by which this passage is made to do service to the doctrine of immersion is that which makes the ark a figure of baptism; and as that was surrounded by the waters so are we in our immersion, “the like figure whereunto” making baptism like the ark.

Various reasons might be suggested against this interpretation; but there is one which is utterly fatal to it, and so it is enough to mention that. The reader of the Greek Testament will tell you that the words which are translated “the like figure whereunto” are literally rendered “the antitype to which,” and that the word translated “to which” cannot possibly find its antecedent in the word translated “ark”; because the gender of the noun is not the same as that of the pronoun. The true antecedent is “water” and not “ark.” The apostle simply alludes to water baptism as a ceremony of cleansing, finding its type in the water which cleansed the old world, and through which Noah and his household were saved; taking care to guard his readers against any ritualistic interpretation of his allusion, by saying explicitly that it is not because the ceremony itself really cleanses from the filth of the flesh, but because it fulfills the requirement of a good conscience, in obeying God; Christ, through the power of his resurrection, being our only true Saviour.

You called my attention some time ago to the argument so much relied upon by those holding to immersion only, based upon the “localities where baptism is spoken of as having occurred.” Why did John choose the Jordan unless for immersion? Why did he baptize at Ænon, because of the abundance of water found there, unless it was for the purpose of immersion? (This is not relied upon as their chief argument, but as confirmatory of that; the chief appeal being to the meaning of the word itself.)

The study of the passage relating to Ænon we have already gone through with: it will not be necessary to go over that. When we consider how imperative must have been the demand for an abundant supply of water to accommodate the immense throngs that attended John, independent of the simple rite of baptism, it is easy to see that there is little force in the argument which is based upon the water supply. The other needs, even admitting immersion, would have been many fold greater.

But the appeal to the places where baptism is spoken of is otherwise unfortunate: for when all of the places are taken into the account it will be noticed that in these two alone is there any special supply of water at all indicated.

In Jerusalem, at the Pentecost, when three thousand were baptized in a single day, no special reference is had to any body of water where immersion could have been performed; and, as we have already seen, there was no such body of water in or near Jerusalem, except the pools which furnished the drinking water for the city.

Next comes the case of Philip and the eunuch. They were riding through the country and came to a certain water. The eunuch said: “See, here is water. What doth hinder me to be baptized?” Nothing is said of the quantity of it; it was a running stream — such “living water” as is always required by the Jewish law for their purifyings. There is nothing in the account which implies necessarily that the baptism was by immersion.

Paul’s baptism is the next instance spoken of. Read the whole account as found in the ninth chapter of Acts. Paul was in the house of one Judas, at Damascus. Ananias came to him, by divine direction; laid his hands upon him; “and immediately there fell from his eyes, as it were scales, and he received sight forthwith, and he arose, and was baptized.” Literally, “standing up, he was baptized.” That is the whole story; no allusion to his leaving the house or returning to it. Now, remembering what has been demonstrated, that the word “baptized” had been for centuries used by the Jews to express ceremonial cleansing, whether by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling, it is far more natural to find here sprinkling than immersion. There was plenty of “living water” at Damascus; it was easy to bring it in, and have it applied to the man as he stood, and no necessity of supposing him to repair to the river for baptism. Certainly it must be admitted that there is here no argument from the “localities in speaking of baptism” in favor of the theory of immersion.

Then comes the preaching of Peter at Cæsarea. The Holy Spirit fell on them that heard the word. And Peter said: “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” Does that sound at all like a Baptist baptism? No allusion to their leaving the house of Cornelius, in which Peter had preached, nor to their return. And the expression, “Can any man forbid water?” sounds very much as though the water were to be brought — not as though they were to repair to the seaside for the ordinance.

Then we have the baptism of Lydia and her household. In this case the meeting was by the riverside, “where prayer was wont to be made.” Here Paul preached to those who were gathered together. Lydia and her household were baptized; and she invited the preacher to go and abide with them. The location was not unfavorable to immersion; but there is no indication of her first returning to the city to provide herself and her household with any change of dress for that purpose — no indication of delay, such as all this would have required; and the simple, natural interpretation would preclude any such supposition, when once we have it distinctly in mind that the word does not require immersion.

The baptism of the jailer we have already considered. The “location” is certainly no argument in favor of immersion in this case.

In general I think we are justified in saying that the argument from the localities in which the ordinance was administered is very decidedly and strongly against the theory that it was generally by immersion: and well-nigh irresistible against the supposition that it was always so.

I come now to consider the argument which Baptist writers present to show that the early Christian Fathers believed, and practiced, and taught only immersion, and that, therefore, that is the true apostolic mode of baptism.

As preliminary to the investigation of the facts, I wish to say two things: (1) That it does not amount to much in any case — as all must agree. Whatever men said or did or thought in the second or third or fourth century of the Christian era has no binding authority upon any Protestant Christian. “To the law, and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” The question is, and the only important question, what does the law of baptism require, interpreted according to the sense in which the lawgiver employed the words used? That question we have endeavored to answer, and we think it has been proved beyond all dispute that the word baptizo was understood as a general term, meaning to purify or cleanse, and not as a word of mode at all.

So that, whatever we find that the Fathers understood by it makes little difference. We are as competent to interpret the Bible in the nineteenth century as they of the second or third.

(2) It will be admitted that the Fathers did not, by any means, agree in their teachings upon this subject any more than upon many others. This fact alone sets aside all appeal to them as any authority. They taught and practiced various errors, as we and our Baptist brethren would all alike maintain.

But when, in the argument upon this subject, they insist that the testimony of these early centuries is in their favor, and against the view which I have maintained in these letters, although I do not regard the matter as one of any great consequence whether it is or not, I am compelled by a regard to historic truth to deny their claim; and I think the denial can be supported by the most ample proof.

All but one of the passages which I shall here quote I have taken from a publication of the Bible Union, intended to vindicate their rendering of baptizo by “immerse.” And in all these passages they so translate. But whether such a translation accords best with the context, you will be able to judge for yourself.

I quote them to show that the writers understood baptism to express and symbolize purification and nothing else; and, while it is admitted that immersion was the general mode in which they baptized, these extracts from their writings make it evident that it was not because they understood the command so to require, but because that was their chosen method of purification. So some of them immersed three times, the more thoroughly to symbolize the purification which they understood the ordinance to express.

I place these quotations in the order of time as nearly as I can. The first is from Justin Martyr, born about the close of the first century. He says: “Through the washing of repentance and the knowledge of God, which has been instituted for the benefit of God’s people, we believed and we make known that baptism which he proclaimed, which alone is able to cleanse those who repent... For what is the benefit of that cleansing [baptism] which makes bright the flesh and the body only? Be purified [baptized] as to the soul from anger and from covetousness, from envy, from hatred; and behold the body is pure.” Gr., katharon³

Few of these quotations will need any word of comment to vindicate my translation of baptizo. This certainly not.

Hippolytus, about the year a.d. 200, after quoting Is. 1:16-19 (“Wash you, make you clean... though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow”), says: “Thou sawest, beloved, how the prophet foretold the cleansing of the holy baptism. For he who goes down with faith into the washing of regeneration is arrayed against the evil one, and on the side of Christ; he denies the enemy, and confesses Christ to be God; he puts off bondage, and puts on Sonship; he comes up from his baptism bright as the sun, flashing forth the rays of righteousness.” Certainly this preacher understood his baptism to mean cleansing, not burial.

Cyprian, about a.d. 250, in answer to a question that had been proposed to him as to the validity of baptism performed without immersion during sickness, says: “You inquire what I think of such as obtain the grace in time of their sickness and infirmity — whether they are to be accounted lawful Christians because they are not washed all over with the water of salvation but have only some of it poured upon them. In which matter I would use so much modesty and humility as not to prescribe so positively but that every one should have the freedom of his own thoughts and do as he thinks best. I do, according to the best of my humble capacity, judge thus: that the divine favors are not maimed or weakened, because these sick people, when they receive the grace of our Lord, have nothing but an affusion or sprinkling; when as the Holy Scriptures, by the prophet Ezekiel says: ‘Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean.’ And let not such, if they recover of their sickness, think it needful that they should be baptized again. For in baptism the pollution of sin is not washed away as the pollution of the body is washed away, in an external physical bath: so that there is need of nitre and a bath, or a pool, in which the body can be washed and purified. Far otherwise is the heart of the believer washed; far otherwise is the mind of a man purified from sin, through the merit of faith.”

There is no hint here that baptism represented death and resurrection. It was understood to mean cleansing, hence immersion in water was preferred, when practicable, to represent it more completely. But each one was to judge for himself, understanding always that immersion is not essential. No claim whatever is set up in this letter of the bishop that the word meant immerse. On the contrary, he distinctly recognizes that the man who had been sprinkled had been baptized, though not in the most approved way, as he conceived. You notice that he says distinctly that such are “not to be baptized again,” implying that they had been already baptized once. No Baptist minister of my acquaintance would write such a letter as this; or, if he did, it would be a virtual surrender of his doctrine that only immersion is baptism.

I quote Cyprian as a fair sample of the immersionists of his day; and his view of the matter plainly does not at all sustain the theory of the practice of our Baptist brethren of this day.

Athanasius, about a.d. 328, says: “It is proper to know that in like manner with baptism the fountain of tears cleanses man. Wherefore many who have defiled the holy baptism by offences have been cleansed by tears and declared just... Three baptisms, purgative of all sin whatever, God has bestowed on the nature of men. I mean that of water, and again that by the witness of one’s own blood; and thirdly, that by tears, in which also the harlot was cleansed.”⁴

It takes some boldness to translate “baptisms” here by “immersions"; but Dr. Conant has the requisite nerve! A plainer case to prove that the word means “cleansings,” and not “immersions,” it would be difficult to conceive. Is a martyr “immersed” in his blood or a harlot in her tears? Yet both are here called “baptisms,” showing beyond all question that Athanasius did not understand the word to mean immersion. The whole sentence makes it evident that he did understand it to mean cleansing, or purification.

Chrysostom, about a.d. 350, speaking of the words of Christ, “Can ye drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and be baptized with the baptism that I shall be baptized with,” says: “Here calling his cross and death a cup and a baptism: a cup, because he drank it with pleasure; a baptism, because by it he cleansed the world.”

The same writer, in his discourse on St. Lucian, the martyr, says: “Wonder not if I call the martyrdom a baptism. For here also the Spirit hovers over with great fullness, and there is a taking away of sins, and a cleansing of the soul wonderful and strange; and as the baptized are cleansed by water, so are the martyrs by their own blood.”

Basil the Great, a.d. 350, says: “The Lord dwells in the flood. A flood is an inundation of water, concealing all that lies beneath, and cleansing all that was before polluted. The grace of baptism he calls a flood, so that the soul, washed from sins, and cleansed from the old man, is henceforth fitted for a habitation of God in the spirit.”⁵

Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, a.d. 412. I quote three paragraphs: —

The first is from his commentary on Is. 4: 4. Explaining the words, “spirit of burning,” he says: “The spirit of burning we call the grace in the holy baptism, produced in us, not without the Spirit. For we have been baptized, not with mere water; but neither with the ashes of a heifer have we been sprinkled, for the cleansing of the flesh alone, as says the blessed Paul; but with the Holy Spirit, and a fire that is divine, and mentally discerned, destroying the filth of the vileness in us, and consuming away the pollution of sin.”

With this paraphrase may be compared the following from Book XII of his treatise on worship: “For we are baptized, not in fire perceptible by the senses, but in the Holy Spirit, like fire, consuming away the pollutions in souls.”

The same writer, commenting on John 19: 34, says: “With a spear they pierce his side, and it poured forth blood mixed with water; as though God for us made that which was done an image and a kind of firstfruits of the mystic blessing, and of the holy baptism: for Christ’s verily, and from Christ, is the holy baptism, and the virtue of the mystic blessing arose for us out of the holy flesh.”

The allusion, as Dr. Conant admits, is to the two elements of atonement and cleansing, blood and water, by which we are purified in fact and in symbol, and which our baptism represents.

John of Damascus, a.d. 700, on “Faith and Baptism,” says: “From the beginning the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters; and of old the Scripture testifies to water, that it is cleansing... In Noah’s age God deluged the world by water. By water every one unclean, according to the law, is cleansed, even the garments themselves being washed by water... And almost all things according to the law are cleansed by water... Christ is baptized, not as himself needing cleansing, but that he may whelm sin and bury the old Adam in the water.”

This writer, while being a strong immersionist, nevertheless conceives of the ordinance as representing and typifying cleansing and nothing else.

Theophylact, a.d. 1070, commenting on John 5: 1-4, giving the story of Bethesda, says: “For since a baptism was to be given, having much efficacy, and quickening souls, God prefigures the baptism in the Jewish rites; and gives them also water, cleansing away pollutions, not properly being, but accounted such, — such as those from the touching of a dead body, or of a leper, or other such like things.”

Understanding baptism to mean purification or ceremonial cleansing by water, this sentence is every way intelligible. But understanding it to mean immersion, it is every way unintelligible. For, as we have seen, there were no immersions required under the Jewish law to prefigure immersion under the Christian Dispensation, but an abundance of ceremonial cleansings by water. Moreover a discourse upon immersion would be entirely out of place in a comment upon the healing at Bethesda, a pool in which there was no place for immersion; and still more, the cleansings to which he particularly refers were chiefly by sprinkling. It is evident that it is the use of water for ceremonial cleansing under the two Dispensations alike to which Theophylact makes allusion.