I. ORDINANCE.

      As the body needs its skeleton, the organized government its constitution, and the discourse, whether written or spoken, its outline or plan, so the church demands some simple frame-work to serve as the definite means for Hie extension and propagation of vital Christianity. This frame-work is largely embodied in the idea of ordinance. The ordinances of the church may therefore be said to makeup its formal constitution. The simplicity of this Constitution is very apparent when we observe that it includes only two features. The one is the initiatory rite known as baptism; the other, the perpetual sacrament known as the Lord's Supper or the Eucharist. The one marks off in a [28] definite, external, and specific way the entrance of the believer into the Christian communion; the other keeps constantly, from the day of that entrance down to the day of death, the great central facts of his religion before the mind of the Christian.

      There is the strongest psychological reason for the existence of such an ordinance as baptism, aside from its place in the constitution of the church. When an individual is convinced of the truthfulness of Christ's message, when he earnestly repents of his past sinful life, when the internal change of will which is the first and fundamental factor in his conversion has taken place, then a trite psychology demands that his feelings and belief should find some definite form of external expression. This form should be explicit, solemn, and of such a character as to be impressive, and yet simple enough to admit of wide adaptation. It should possess an easily understood meaning, but one of deep significance as well. In short, it should be psychologically just what it actually is in the objective frame-work of the church.

      If we understand baptism as the initiatory ordinance of Christianity, and that obedience to the ordinance is therefore necessary before becoming at least in the fullest formal sense a Christian, we understand readily enough the significance attached to it throughout the New Testament narratives. Practically everywhere, baptism is linked with conversion, and nowhere in the sacred books is there even a hint that anyone claiming to be a Christian was not baptized. Philip had no hesitancy in baptizing the eunuch immediately upon his profession of faith in Christ; Paul baptized the Philippian jailor the same hour of the night; Peter insisted upon prompt baptism for the three thousand who were converted on the day of Pentecost; and Paul, despite his miraculous conversion, was baptized, as soon as he regained his sight, by Ananias of Damascus. The idea that baptism does not constitute as essential step in entrance upon Christian fellowship finds no comfort in the pages of revelation.

      To those who adhere to what may be styled distinctively mechanical theology, the ordinance occupies a still more important place. Coupled with the remission of sins on the day of Pentecost and elsewhere, it becomes a manifest condition of salvation. Often, on this account, baptism, is esteemed more significant than even the possession of the Christian virtues and graces. To be baptized becomes the sine qua non of salvation; and having been baptized, too often there is little else apparently which demands attention. The danger of such a legalistic view-point requires little emphasis or explanation. Baptism, however indispensable as condition of formal admission to the church of Christ, carries with it no such miraculous power as will perform the impossible transmutation of an external rite into an element of Christian character. The obedience which prompted submission to the ordinance is indeed an element in character development and must receive full value as such; but no religious rite possesses significance, save as a means to an end independent of itself. To be a Christian in the full and complete sense of the term, one must be baptized; but one may easily be baptized, at least in the formal sense, and never be a Christian.

      The place of baptism as the initiatory ordinance of the church becomes therefore exceedingly simple and easy to understand. The last step in conversion, the expression in action of the volitional acceptance of the Christ, the symbol of an earnest and honest stepping across from an old life to a new life, the seal of a sincere determination to embody the Christ ideals from day to day, its value and position are at once apparent. No Christian can afford to slur or slight such an ordinance, any more than he can afford to make of it more than it claims of itself to be. There is no conceivable reason, short of physical impossibility, which a man claiming to be a Christian can give for not being baptized. To refuse obedience to a law and at the same time pretend to respect and serve the law-giver is contradictory and absurd. That baptism is not everything in the Christian religion is no more true than the fact that it possesses a value and significance which demand consideration and respect.

      The necessity and value of baptism as an ordinance lead to a further consideration of its symbolic character. It is certainly conceivable that an ordinance, as such, does not demand the symbolic feature; but it is manifest that such a feature adds greatly to the significance and impressiveness of the ordinance. Granted the value of the symbolic reference, granted also the possibility of easily securing it, and its presence would seem to be almost infallibly predicated. In other words, while the Founder of the Christian religion might have selected any form of obedience to serve as the [29] overt and initiatory rite admitting men to his church, it is none the less true that the rite which would most impressively symbolize the central fact or facts in his system would be the rite which we should expect him to choose. Blind obedience is good, as far as it goes; but a reasoned obedience brings forth far more of the richest treasures of the soul and is better. The religion of Jesus Christ is fundamentally and always a reasonable religion. That it transcends human reason may well be admitted, but at no point does transcendence ever involve contradiction, and nowhere is that reasonableness better illustrated than in the symbolic features of the Christian ordinances.

II. SYMBOLISM.

      From what has been written already, the manifest probability of a symbolical character attaching to the ordinance of baptism is, we take it, sufficiently clear. It seems proper that at this point our appeal Should be made directly to the Scriptures themselves, in order that they may sustain or disprove the antecedent probability of the symbolism indicated. The inquiry may be, in all fairness, limited to the New Testament. This is not to infer that prophetic evidence of value may not he found in the Old; but inasmuch as the New contains the only full and detailed account of the Christian religion, any impression produced by a careful study of the evidence which is therein presented could only be confirmed by the Old. That it should be contradicted by the latter is a manifest impossibility; for were such a thing involved in the study, its only effect would be to discredit all testimony upon the subject. There exists no necessity therefore for our pursuing our inquiry beyond the limits of the New Testament.

      Perhaps the most significant symbolic reference to baptism in the Scriptures is that contained in the sixth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. The passage in full, reads as follows:

      "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 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."

      Obviously the symbolism of the initiatory rite of Christianity is very fully and beautifully expressed in these words. In the fifteenth chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians the great Apostle to the Gentiles characterizes the Gospel briefly as the death, the burial, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If then the central facts in the Gospel are death, burial and resurrection; and if these are all expressed in the act of baptism, as the Epistle to the Romans declares, no more fitting or beautiful symbolism could be imagined. Baptism thus becomes in its very action a profession of faith in the great central facts of the religion which it represents. It is noticeable, moreover, that there is another feature contained in the passage quoted above which is worthy of careful attention. Not only does baptism fittingly symbolize the death, the burial, and the resurrection of the Christ himself, but it likewise symbolizes the essential experience which every convert must pass through in order to become a Christian. Fundamentally this experience means a death to the old life of sin, and a resurrection to the new life of righteousness, of freedom, and of service in the glorious sunlight of the Christ. Evidently the apostle had this in mind, when he spoke of walking "in newness of life," while the argument of the context is largely if not entirely, based upon the same idea. We have buried the old life, is the thought, and have arisen to walk in the new.

      There is still another, perhaps more remote but none the less beautiful symbolism suggested in the Scripture quoted above, which appeals with peculiar power to every human being. There must come a time in the experience of all when the Valley of the Shadow is reached and when earthly life is no more. In the presence of that hour, how consoling, the reflection that in the solemn rite of baptism there was symbolized for us not only that death and burial which we share with the Christ, but likewise that glorious resurrection which is his gift, to us and to all who follow him.

      Whether, therefore, we consider the matter from what we may style the religious, the ethical, or the personal point of view, the symbolism of the ordinance remains equally beautiful and impressive. No man who understands the significance of this symbolism can be other than solemn in its presence. No ceremony in the world is quite so [30] impressive as a true baptism. How much it means, how simple it all is, and yet how profound! The Divine wisdom is assuredly manifest in the establishment of such an ordinance.

      In the Epistle to the Colossians there is a similar symbolic reference. The passage referred to is found in the second chapter and from the eleventh to the thirteenth verses inclusive:

      "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.

      "And you, being dead through your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, you, I say, did he make alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses."

      Very clearly here the symbolical character of the ordinance is manifest. Again we are "buried with him," and again we are "risen with him." Death, burial, resurrection--without these there is no Christian religion, and these are all embodied in the ordinance of baptism.

      In the third chapter of the Gospel of John, in the famous conversation with Nicodemus dealing with the subject of the new birth, the language is used with which we are all so familiar: "Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." There seems to be very little doubt that these words refer to baptism. Perhaps the emphasis is intended to he placed on the spiritual rather than the formal element in the terms of admission to the new kingdom; but the symbolism is still one of a birth to a new life, and a death to an old one. To be born of water and of the spirit, as in the Epistle to the Romans, is to rise from the baptismal grave to walk henceforth in newness of life.

      It would seem that the passages quoted above should be sufficient to indicate the expressive symbolism of the initiatory ordinance of the church of Christ. That which we have been led to expect from a psychological point of view, we find the scriptural writers asserting from the point of view of fact. Could Paul have been mistaken when he referred to the ordinance as he did? And even though it may be possible, as it is possible no matter how plain a passage may be, to so interpret these significant words of Romans and Colossians as to change their apparently obvious meaning in order to advance a particular theological theory, is it well that such a thing should be done? It is significant that the great majority of commentators upon these passages find it impossible to make such a change. To merely recite the names of those who belong to this class would be tedious. The list includes among others, Grotius, Beza, Bloomfield, Koppe, Rosemuller, Calvin, Locke, Barnes, Wesley, Whitefield, Whitby, Macknight, and Chalmers. The language of the last named is typical of all the rest:

      "The original meaning of the word baptism is immersion; and, though we regard it as a point of indifferency, whether the ordinance so named be performed in this way or by sprinkling, yet we doubt not that the prevalent style of the administration in the Apostle's days was by an actual submerging of the whole body under water. We advert to this for the purpose of throwing light on the analogy that is instituted in these verses. Jesus Christ, by death, underwent this sort of baptism by an immersion under the surface of the ground, whence he soon emerged again by his resurrection. We, by being baptized into his death, are conceived to have made a similar translation. In the act of descending under the water of baptism, to have resigned an old life, and in the act of ascending to emerge into a second or new life--along the course of which it is our part to maintain a strenuous avoidance of that sin which as good as expunged the being we had formerly; and a strenuous prosecution of that holiness which should begin with the first moment that we were ushered into our present being, and be perpetuated and made progress toward the perfection of full and ripened immortality."--Lectures on the Epistles to the Romans, chapter VI:4.

      The symbolical character of the ordinance of baptism is therefore indicated at least with sufficient clearness to establish a presumption from the New Testament. The authorities already quoted would seem to demand this much consideration. It is readily and gladly conceded that further investigation may invalidate or destroy the presumption referred to, but for the present it is surely fair to at least concede the presumption. More than this we do not ask at the present juncture.

III. THE TESTIMONY OF LANGUAGE.

      From what has been written, it will be observed that the symbolism of the New [31] Testament interprets the ordinance of baptism in a very specific and definite way. Embodying the great central facts of the Christian religion, the death, burial, and resurrection of its Founder, pointing directly toward the moral and ethical change in the individual which is characteristic of every true conversion, and casting a halo of hope and light over the tomb which yawns before each Christian, no further explanation would seem to be required. In the absence of contradictory testimony, surely the presumption afforded by the symbolic evidence as to the character of baptism should be of the highest significance. It must be conceded, however, that in the presence of contradictory material, the strongest presumptive argument becomes almost if not entirely valueless. It is, therefore, right and proper to inquire if there is any contradictory evidence to disprove the presumption afforded by the passages already quoted from the Epistles to the Colossians and the Romans, and by the symbolic view of the ordinance, throughout.

      First perhaps among such possible evidence would be that drawn from the direct meaning of the term itself. Baptism, as is well known, is a word transferred almost bodily from another language and it is therefore exceedingly important that its significance in the language from which it has been transferred should be fully understood. It is not the purpose of the writer to give all elaborate resume of the meaning of the Greek baptizw, or of any of its derivatives. With the presumption already established by the symbolical argument, all that we care to discover is whether there is anything in the original meaning of the word which will seriously dissipate that presumption. This much would seem to be no especially difficult task to accomplish. The root meaning of baptizw is almost universally conceded to be the idea involved in submerging or plunging. If there is any reputable Greek lexicon which takes an opposite position, we have yet to be informed of its existence. There are lexicons which give as secondary or derivative meanings, to wash, to cleanse, and the like; but these meanings are at no times incompatible with the idea of submersion. The word is found quite frequently in ancient writers outside of the New Testament, such as Lucian, Plutarch, Strabo, Polybius, and Epictetus. In all cases where it is found the meaning is either to submerge, or, at the farthest, something which does not in the slightest measure contradict the idea of submerge. Occasionally baptizw and kindred words may be rendered to wash, to dye, or to cleanse; but as washing, dyeing, and cleansing may all be performed by submersion, and in fact usually are so, there is nothing which precludes the meaning indicated.

      It may be said, however, that the classical use and the New Testament use of the word are two different things, and that no valid argument may therefore be drawn from the former as applying to the latter. Were this true, and it is admitted that it may be true, still the burden of proof that the meaning in the New Testament is really different from the meaning in classical Greek would seem to be with those making the assertion. No proof to this effect has so far been produced. On the contrary the word as used in the New Testament is perfectly in harmony with its context when rendered submerge, and at no time does the meaning appears strained or forced. The word baptism, or in the original baptisma, occurs twenty-two times in the New Testament. The other related words occur a little over one hundred times. In no case will it do violence to the context to interpret the word given in the text with the idea involved in submerge or immerse.

      It would not only be tedious but the writer deems altogether profitless to present any elaborate analysis of passages proving the facts just stated. Such tabulations have been prepared frequently and may be easily worked out by anyone possessing a New Testament, either in the English or the Greek. As already stated, so far as we know, there is practically no denial of the root or primary meaning of the word.

      The problem with us at this point, it should be remembered, is not whether there is any other possible or permissible meaning for baptizw than the one suggested by the symbolic significance of the ordinance. On the contrary, we have been trying to discover whether the meaning is such as to impair the presumptive evidence already established. Making every possible allowance, it is certainly true that there is nothing in the literal meaning of the word, in either its original or derived form, which will justify overthrowing the presumption. If anything, it is strengthened by an appeal to the linguistic argument, rather than the reverse. Baptism can always be translated submerge without doing violence to the context. Whether it may not also, [32] at least at times, be translated otherwise is, at the most, an open question. However the latter question may be decided, the presumptive evidence derived from the symbolic significance of the ordinance remains unimpaired, and this alone constitutes the inquiry toward which our attention has been directed. A second item of evidence would be that derived from the translation of the original word into other languages. The Greek baptizw, as we have noted, is not translated in our English Bibles, but simply transferred. In many other languages, however, it is translated. In substantially all cases where this is done, the word used is one which signifies to immerse or plunge, in the language in question. An exception to this rule is that of the Slavonic dialects, where the word krestili, meaning to make the sign of the cross, or to cross, is used. As is well known, however, the Slavonic peoples almost universally immerse so that there is no real change of meaning understood. Among the languages to which reference has been made are the following: Arabic, Syriac, Ethiopic, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic, and Early Latin. In some cases the word used may mean wash or cleanse as well as immerse or plunge, but the latter is the primary meaning. As is commonly known, the Anglo-Saxon terms used, dyppan and fullian, have the idea of both dip and cleanse. The Icelandic word skira means also to cleanse, and the Persian shustan has the idea of washing or cleansing. In none of these cases, however, with the exception of the Slavonic, is there any contradiction of the idea of immerse, while in the great majority of cases the word used is one which means directly to submerge or plunge.

      There is, therefore, no argument to be derived from translations of the word baptizw into languages other than the English, which will in the slightest measure invalidate the presumption based upon the symbolic significance of the term.

      A third argument may be derived from an examination of English translations. Should an English version be found in which the word baptizw is rendered in such a way as to contradict the idea of submersion, value might attach to such a discovery. A careful survey of all the versions published in English, which the writer has been able to secure or inspect, has not revealed a single instance in which the word is rendered in such a manner. Among the editions included are those of Wycklif, Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, Anglo-Rhemish, and a host of lesser known versions. A few of the latter render baptizw directly immerse, but the overwhelming majority simply transfer the word from the Greek into English. There is therefore nothing whatever in any English rendering to interfere with the antecedent presumption already indicated.

IV. THE TESTIMONY OF AUTHORITIES.

      When one consults authorities in regard to the question of baptism, he finds the situation something like the following: A large majority agree that the ordinance was originally performed by immersion; a much smaller number think that it may have been performed in some other way, as well as by immersion; and a still smaller number assert that it actually was performed in some other manner at times. All, however, substantially agree that immersion certainly represents an original, if not the original, mode.

      It is to be noted, of course, that very many of those who assert, in the strongest terms, that immersion was the original mode, were not themselves immersed. Their reasons for this action have been, for the most part, that they did not consider the mode to be of special significance and that the church in later times had the power to change it. The destruction of the fundamental symbolism involved in the ordinance does not seem to have occurred to men of this class. We shall not presume to cite even the names of a large number of authorities; the testimony of a few, however, may be of some value.

      The language of the early church fathers, while not at all times specific, decidedly favors the view that they practiced immersion. Barnabas, one of the oldest of them, writes: "We indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up, bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear of God and trust in Jesus in our spirit."¹

      The First Apology of Justin, written about A. D. 140, gives the following under the section entitled Christian Baptism: "I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many [33] as are persuaded and believe that which we teach and say is true and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing in (or with) water. For Christ also said, 'Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'"²

      Tertullian, about A. D. 204, uses the following language: "There is no difference whether one is washed in a sea or in a pool, in a river or in a mountain, in a lake or in a channel; nor is there any difference between them whom John dipped in the Jordan and those whom Peter dipped in the Tiber."

      Origen writes thus in his commentary on Matthew; "Man, therefore, through this washing, is buried with Christ, is regenerated."

      Chrysostom, in commenting upon the language of St. Paul in regard to baptism, says: "To be baptized and plunged, and then to emerge or rise again, is a symbol of our descent into the grave, and our ascent out of it; and therefore Paul calls baptism a burial."

      Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Ambrose, Cyril of Jerusalem, John of Damascus, and others of the Fathers use similar language. Eusebius, writing of Novatian about 251 A. , says: "Being delivered by the exorcists, he fell into a severe sickness; and as he seemed about to die, he received baptism by affusion, on the bed where he lay; if indeed we can say that such a one did receive it.³

      Both Calvin and Luther agreed entirely as regards the original mode of baptism, although, as was the case with the reformer of Geneva, the Lutherans did not embody their leader's view of the original character of the ordinance in actual practice. Luther writes as follows: "Baptism is a Greek word, and may be translated immersion, as when we immerse something in water, that it may be wholly covered. And although it is almost wholly abolished (for they do not dip the whole children, but only pour a little water on them), they ought nevertheless to be wholly immersed, and then immediately drawn out, for that the etymology of the word seems to demand. Washing of sins is attributed to baptism; it is truly indeed attributed, but the signification is softer and slower than can express baptism, which is rather a sign both of death and resurrection. Being moved by this reason, I would have those that are to be baptized to be altogether, dipt into the water, as the word doth sound, and the mystery doth signify."⁴

      Among modern reformers, Wesley and Whitefield both acknowledged immersion as a primitive mode of baptism. Whitefield in his notes on Romans 6:3-4, uses this language: "It is certain that in these words there is all allusion to the manner of baptism which was by immersion, which is what our own church allows." Perhaps few authorities more distinguished in his own field than Grotius could be named. Grotius says: "That this rite was wont to be performed by immersion and not by perfusion appears both by the propriety of the word and the places chosen for its administration (John 3:23; Acts 8:38), and by the many allusions of the Apostles, which can not be referred to sprinkling (Romans 6:3, 4; Col. 2:12). The custom of perfusion or aspersion seems to have obtained sometime after, in favor of such who lying dangerously ill were desirous to dedicate themselves to Christ. These were called Clinics by other Christians. See Cyprian's epistle to Magnus to this purpose. Nor should we wonder that the old Latin fathers use tingere for baptizare, seeing the Latin word tingo does properly and generally signify the same as mersare, to immerse or plunge."⁵

      Salmasius uses similar language: "Baptism," he says, "is immersion and was administered in former times according to the force and meaning of the word."⁶

      Among other authorities who take the same position may be named Casaubon, Dionysius Petavius, Vitringa, Hospinianus, Zanchius, Alstedius, Witsius, Gurtlerus, Baddaeus, Venema, Vossius, and Scholz. Bishop Bossuet states the case on this wise: "To baptize signifies to plunge, as is granted by all the world."

      From the view-point of symbolism, no less, than the testimony of language, of literature and of history, the results reached are therefore the same. There is one certain, undeniable, apostolic [34] baptism--one which no Christian can dispute or ever has disputed. There is a tremendous weight of authority which attaches to the words of the preacher who proclaims such a baptism. Nowhere in the world are people more deeply concerned in securing absolute certainty than they are in matters pertaining to religion. Any substitution for the apostolic baptism must always weaken the authority of both preacher and church. Christianity cannot but lose by such a substitution. What the church should insist upon is indeed the greatest possible freedom in regard to thought and opinion, but likewise the greatest possible certainty in regard to action and ordinance. An ordinance partakes of the nature of a law, and the best laws are those which are most specific and admit of the least variation or equivocation in the process of administration. There can be no true restoration of the New Testament Church, which does not restore its "ordinances" as well as its "doctrines and its fruits." The ideal of the church must ever be the Pauline goal, ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM.

[DH 28-35.]