By Jeff Paton
Editor’s Note: I found this book to place its
argument in a different order than most on the subject. I personally liked the
way the order is approached, since it establishes the Scriptural usage of the
word “baptizo” early on, and uses it as a launching pad in which to make his
Any discussion on the issue must not start with
men’s opinions of definitions, but with the definition of the words as the
Inspired Spirit moved these writers to pen the facts down for us. Much ignorance
and strife could be easily dispelled if we started with Scripture as our
ultimate authority for the meaning of Baptism.
writer of this Book is a believer in baptism
with water. He writes to confirm like believers, and, if possible, to
convince others that this is the better way. The Church is to see eye to eye.
She is to reach this unity by clearer views. It is hoped this work may
contribute something to this glorious result. The writer would neither injure
nor disband the beloved Christians calling themselves the
THE ONE BAPTISM
baptism with water was practiced by the Apostles, baptism
by the Spirit is mentioned more often. Dr. Pepper, a Baptist writer, says
truly, Gospel and Ordinances are the same thing in two forms. If all our
Baptist friends had held this truth, Prof. Dagg would not write, "Now there
is a baptism of the Spirit; if water baptism
is a perpetual ordinance, then there are two baptisms instead of
one." Nor would Dr. Carson so mistake as to write, "If there is such a
thing as infant baptism, there must be two
baptisms." Infant and adult baptisms are no more
two than American and English are two. Nor should another author, R. Ingham,
conclude, "If this one baptism was
by the Spirit, then Paul was guilty of an omission, nay, of a
misstatement." The Fathers taught truly (as Jerome) "since all have
been baptized into one body, they have received the same Spirit." And
Ignatius writes, "There is one baptism, that
which is given into the death of our Lord."
one baptism is the blessed work of the Holy Spirit
baptizing us into Christ and so into His body the Church. He who wrote to the
Ephesians, “there is one baptism”, wrote the
same truth more fully to the Corinthians. By one Spirit are we all baptized into
one body, and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. 1 Cor. 12:13. In Gal.
3: 27, he writes that this baptism is into Christ.
one baptism is effected by the Holy Ghost. The
Greeks said that wine-drinking baptized, taking an opiate baptized; so the
Apostle follows Greek usage, saying in connection with baptism,
we drink into one spirit. Many copies leave out the preposition into.
Thus it is exact Greek usage to say the baptism was
by drinking the one Spirit.
THE SPIRIT—ITS MODE
ARE THE MODAL ACTS OF THIS BAPTISM?
Baptist friends try to warn us off from making such an examination, saying (Dr.
Carson) "it is a figurative expression. Believers are said to be immersed
into the Spirit, not because there is anything like immersion
in the manner of the reception of the Spirit,"—there can be no likeness
to it in the literal baptism."
can we draw from Dr. Carson’s phrases?
The one great baptism which Jesus affects by His
Spirit is only figurative, not real, like man's baptism.
This figurative baptism is a figure that can have
no correspondence to that which is figured—a figure which has no likeness to
the reality. What man, in his reason, ever used such a
figure? How wrong to impute such a violation of propriety to the Holy Spirit!
His writing "immersed into the Spirit" contradicts Scripture. We are
baptized into Christ, not into the Spirit. The Spirit is the baptizing agent,
not the receiving element. Dr. Carson errs here as he does about Pentecost baptism,
calling it immersion into emblems of the
Spirit. What kind of thinking leads an immersionist
to contend for an immersion into emblems? This is
as ridiculous as the Doctor's idea of
But the gravest error of such writing is calling the baptism
of the Spirit figurative. If there is
anything most positively real, real in the experience of Christians and
essential in the teachings of our Lord, it is this very baptism
of the Spirit. The two great transactions revealed in Scripture are 1st,
the death of Christ to save sinners, and 2nd, the application of that
death in the blood of sprinkling by the Holy Spirit. Let
no man depreciate the chiefest of God's doings.
despite the warning not to investigate, we examine the modal acts ascribed to
the Spirit. As it is the one baptism of which
water baptism is the symbol, its modal acts may be
said, I baptize with water, Jesus shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Here
the contrast is not in the mode, but in the instrument. Both John and Jesus baptized,
one with water, the other with the Holy Ghost. Our Lord said, Acts
11: 16, “John baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy
Ghost.” Peter says, Acts 11:15, the “Holy Ghost fell on Cornelius and
friends as on us at the beginning.” Causing the Holy Spirit to fall on
Cornelius was the same in mode as that of Pentecost. This baptism
was effected by the Spirit's being poured
out, Acts 2:17. This was prophesied by Joel. Peter says that
prophecy of pouring out the Spirit was that day
fulfilled. This baptism was
by pouring out, Acts
10: 45, or falling upon, Acts 10: 44. So the Samaritans, Acts 8: 16, 17,
received the Holy Spirit by his falling
upon them. Ez. 11: 5, says, The Spirit fell upon me. Prophets and
Christians received the Spirit by his falling upon—being poured upon them. And
this is called a baptism by John and Peter and
by our Lord. Are they competent witnesses? The Baptist claim of "No
dipping, no baptism," is
a direct disclaimer of Jesus’, John’s and Peter’s competency.
John 16: 7, our Lord said, I will send the Comforter. Acts 2: 33, records
"having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed
forth this which ye now see and hear. Again the baptism
of the Spirit is called an anointing, Acts 10: 38. God anointed Jesus with the
Holy Ghost. Pouring oil upon kings anointed them for their office. Pouring
the Spirit upon Jesus was his anointing. So he is called The Anointed; in
Greek, Christos; in Hebrew, Messiah.
Anointing is then the equivalent of the Spirit's coming upon— baptizing him.
word often describes this modal act. In Matt. 3:16, Jesus saw the Spirit descending
like a dove. And in John 1: 33, John the Baptist saw
the Spirit descending from
heaven. Here the descent of the Spirit was Christ's baptism
by the Spirit, and the proof that he should baptize with the Holy Ghost.
Here the modal act was the descent of
the Spirit. So common is this idea of Spiritual baptism,
that a Baptist Conference in
confirms this view to consider that purifying in the Old Testament is effected
in the same way. Is. 52: 15, “He shall sprinkle many nations.” Ezek. 36: 25,
“I will sprinkle clean water upon you.” Hos. 14: 5, “I will be as the
dew.” Ps. 72: 6, “He shall come down like rain.”
do the dear friends, whom we would wish to have see eye to eye with, believe
these texts describe the modal acts of the Spirit? Let “baptize with water,”
have the same modal acts as Scripture shows of the Spirit’s mode, and the
barrier between churches is cast down. If
baptism with water is made like that of the
Spirit, then the water should be poured out, caused to fall on, to sprinkle, to
descend as dew, as rain, as pure water.
view is confirmed by considering that the record always is baptism
in, water. The water
is always like the Spirit—the instrument. Baptisms
may be into Paul, into Moses, into Christ's death; but there is no record of a baptism
water. It is vain to say baptize has the power to carry one under water,
when the constant usage of Scripture makes the baptizing instrument descend.
The Greeks also used baptize where there was no immersion
in water. They said one was baptized with wine
and taxes and tears and questions and grief’s and vice. They understand baptize
to indicate a change, not in one mode, but in any mode. Chrysostom, the eloquent
Greek preacher, said John was baptized by putting his hand in baptism
on the head of our Lord. The Fathers said that
all waters were baptized by the baptism of
Jesus. They did not mean immersed, but consecrated. Do men now know Greek better
than the Greeks? Would
Scripture describe the one baptism of the Spirit as a descent, a falling upon, a pouring out, if a valid baptism
the exact reverse?
this position is strengthened by the representations of our Lord's baptism,
in the most ancient churches. In them all, John stands pouring water upon
Jesus. Some of these pictures are believed to have been made in the fourth and
fifth centuries. Constantine and the Empress are represented as sitting in a
bath, while Eusebius pours the water of baptism. As
the Corinthians exaggerated the Supper, so
position is confirmed also by the "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,"
that wonderful book compiled, it is supposed, about A.D. 150. Chapter 7 teaches: "Now concerning baptism,
so baptize, speaking first all these things, baptize into the name of the
Father and Son and Holy Spirit, with
living water. If thou hast not living water, baptize with reference to other
water; and if thou art not able with cold, with warm. If
thou hast not both, then pour upon the head water into the name of the Father
and Son and Holy Spirit. And before the baptism, let
the baptizer and the baptized and some others, if they can, fast: But command
the baptized to fast one or two days before." Living water, John 4: 10,
means water not stagnant, a type of grace.
the instrument, water, is given in the very form used in the New Testament. It
is with water, not in,
nor into water. As our Lord
baptized with the Spirit, so John and the twelve and the early Church baptized with
water. If the Spirit was poured,
or sprinkled, or shed forth, or descended, then reason would teach that the
other instrument, water, be applied in like manner. If not, then baptize has one meaning in connection with the Spirit
and an entirely opposite meaning connected with water. If not, then
things equal to the same things are not equal to one another. If not, then
baptize with the Spirit covers one set of actions, as giving, pouring,
sprinkling; but with water, an incongruous set of actions, as form a procession,
march to some water, descend into it, and immerse the un-immersed part into the
water. Surely there is nothing in such an operation like pouring out, shedding
forth the Holy Spirit. But things equal to the same thing must be equal to one
another. Dr. Carson and friends have said a thousand times, “baptizo
always means the same thing.” Some say dip; others say immerse, and others
plunge. While they jostle each other and are all equally positive, yet they all
agree that baptizo ought to have one
consistent meaning. Now, the constant use
of it, in describing the work of the Spirit, forbids any such modal acts as
marching to the water, dipping in water. The Bible teaches
modal acts that are utterly opposite to the Baptist scheme. The
Scriptures teach that the believer does not go to the Spirit, does not descend
into the Spirit, is not immersed in the Spirit. But the Spirit descends, comes,
falls upon, is poured out. Surely baptizo
cannot cover one set of actions in spiritual baptism
and a perfectly opposite and contradictory set of
actions when water is the instrument. We
hold our Baptist brethren to their proclamation: "Baptizo has one meaning in all literature—in all
administrations." And let them say “Amen,” when we say that in the
"one baptism," baptizo
means the application of the Spirit to the candidate, never
the opposite; and in the profession of spiritual baptism,
the modal acts must correspond—the water must
The great body of Christians has throughout history, administered baptism
Scripturally, when causing water to descend.
"The definite act theory—putting one under water"—is at variance
with all Scripture, which uses many clear words to show how the baptizing media is applied to the person, not the person applied to the media.
The definition of baptism in the Baptist
Confession, "dipping the whole body under water," is wrong. Since in
Scripture there is no dipping under the Spirit, then
there should be none under water.
Messrs. Booth and Wayland saying baptism is
"the immersion," are in conflict with
the meaning of baptizo in Scripture.
Dr. Conant errs saying "baptizo means simply put into or under water." Baptisms by the
Spirit are without water. The Greeks used the word to denote the influence of an
opiate and wine and taxes and debts and doubts and grief’s. What folly to say
it means simply to put under water. The Bible
has not a record of baptism under water.
word “baptizo” occurs about eighty
times in the New Testament. It describes baptisms effected by the Spirit—by
John—by the Apostles, by Ananias and by Paul.
the Spirit poured out upon Cornelius
and friends made Peter say, "Who can forbid water that these should not be
baptized who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" The baptism
of the Spirit, then, was the model and the reason. The baptism
of Saul, when blind and fasting for three days, was effected by Ananias
coming and saying, "Why tarriest thou; arise and be baptized: And, rising
up, he was baptized" Acts 9:18. This is the literal translation,
indicating the standing posture in Saul's baptism.
baptism of the eunuch was at some water in the
consider the inconvenience of an immersion for one
who was at once to ascend his chariot to ride. And no traveler has ever found in
the path described in Scripture, any body of water, river, or creek, or any
other evidence that there was at any time enough water to perform an immersion.
There are springs, but no lake or river. The very exclamation, see water,
indicates a limited quantity. This evidence, along with the fact that he had
seen the type of our high priest sprinkle for purification, and the fact that
the eunuch was reading the prophecy which said Jesus should sprinkle, makes it
very evident that the eunuch would expect to be baptized as he saw purification
the example of the baptism of three thousand at
Pentecost; how was it administered? The Apostles saw the multitudes baptized by
the Spirit falling on them. Could
they think of professing that work without causing water to descend? If
Jesus baptized by pouring out the Spirit, the apostles should baptize by pouring
we should seriously consider the improbability of the hated disciples being
allowed to use the city reservoirs! Besides the Jewish leaders hatred of the new
sect, imagine how untenable it would be for a people so fastidious about
purifications, would allow three thousand converts away from Judaism to be
plunged into their very own fountains, a veritable testimony against them!
baptism can be executed sometimes by immersion,
there were no conditions for such a baptism in
that mountain city that was under the control of such bitter enemies of Jesus
Christ. But baptism is executed in pouring out the
Spirit and sending tongues of fire upon the heads of the disciples, so said John
and Jesus. How improbable that the twelve
would have this work professed by an immersion which
had nothing in common with what was promised and with what they had seen!
Jesus said, ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, he meant that very work of
Pentecost. Is baptism then
essentially the act of putting under water? Joel and John and Jesus and Peter
testify to a baptism where the Spirit fell and
where tongues of fire sat. Are they not sufficient witnesses?
Cor. 10: 2 teaches that all
John 5: 8 says the Spirit and the water and the blood bear witness, and these
three agree in one. The Spirit is shed forth— poured
out—the blood is sprinkled. Now how can water in an immersion
agree with the Spirit or the blood? Immersion
makes the water contradict the mode of applying
both. Does Jesus shed His blood and pour out His Spirit? To agree with that
work, then, water should be applied also. The Greek Bible
used by the Apostles (the LXX) says
Nebuchadnezzar was baptized with the dew. Origen, one of the most learned of the
Fathers, says that Elijah's altar was baptized. Neither Nebuchadnezzar nor the
altar were dipped. Did the seventy who translated the Hebrew into Greek
understand Greek? Was Origen behind the times to think and call Elijah's altar
baptized? How absurd to say "no immersion, no baptism."
Greek Fathers and the Greek Classics, with the cloud and the sea, thunder their
negative to the monstrous statement.
11: 38, Jesus was invited to dine with a Pharisee who marveled that before
eating he did not baptize (E baptiza),
Mark 7: 2 has the same charge against the disciples for
eating with hands unwashed. Tradition required that one should cleanse himself
oft or diligently or up to the elbows. “Yea, they eat not when they come from
the market except they baptize themselves” (baptizontai).
The Syriac Bible, for
hundreds of years, used rantizontai—sprinkled
themselves. This is evidence that the
9: 10, informs us that in the Jewish service there were divers baptisms. They
could not be divers (Greek diaphorois,
diverse, different) if they were a simple immersion.
Baptisms were administered in different
ways in the Jewish ceremonies. There is not an immersion among
them, and yet they are baptisms (baptismos).
Heb. 9 specifies baptism by sprinkling blood and
water and ashes—affirming that they purified the flesh as Christ's blood
purges the conscience. Num. 19: 16-20, directs how to purify one defiled from
the dead. Take running water and put it to the ashes of the burnt heifer and
sprinkle the impure for his cleansing. Josephus, 4: 4, 6, calls this ceremony
baptizing from the dead. Did Josephus understand the Jewish religion? Is putting
running water to the ashes of a heifer and sprinkling the unclean an immersion?
Josephus says it was a baptism. Where
washing the body was part of the ceremony of purification, still the sprinkling
was the most essential thing. See Num. 19. And their washings for forty years in
the desert were not and could not be immersions. In the
whole Scriptural history of the human family, “divers” washings are almost
completely without a mention of an immersion.
New Testament uses about eighty verbs ending in zo.
Like baptizo, they have many meanings. Katharizo is translated to purge, to cleanse, to purify; euaggelizo,
by preach and five other words; emphanizo,
by show and nineteen other words; chorizo,
by put and thirteen other words. Why must
baptizo be limited? Dr. Conant,
it is said, uses about forty words to translate the classic baptizo.
How wrong, then, to affirm that this word in baptism must
mean only an immersion! Baptizing from the
dead did not mean an immersion; baptizing tables
did not mean an immersion; baptizing Elijah's
altar was not an immersion. Divers baptisms were
not all immersions. If Moses baptized almost all things by sprinkling blood and
ashes and water, what folly to affect a wisdom superior to Moses, saying,
"No immersion no baptism"!
Bathing in the crowded camps and in the waterless desert could not have
been an immersion.
the appeal is carried from the court of Scripture to the usage of the Greeks. To
that court we will go. Look at the definition of baptizo in twenty-two lexicons. One of the most common is merge.
This is its meaning when followed by the preposition into. This is the
force of the word when the baptism is into Christ,
into Moses, into Paul, into the Church. It is not a plunge into Christ, not an immersion
in His blood, not a dip into the Church. If we were merged in water as we
are in Christ, we should be devoted to and permanently
fixed in the water. One stream is merged in another when it unites and flows in
the same channel. There is no merging of believers with the
is also translated bathe and wash.
These verbs are executed by washing the body or the feet or the hands. They were
common among the Jews from Sinai to the
is also translated from the classics by immerse. But we see that this
meaning agrees neither with Jewish washings, "nor
traditional purifications, nor with the baptism
of the Spirit. While it is one of many
definitions of the word, we see it is entirely inadequate to answer
for baptizo in its religious uses.
how unreasonable is it to pitch upon one meaning out of more than a dozen and
say, they are not in the
and Scott define baptizo, " dip
in or under water, sink, bathe, soak in wine, fall into debt, puzzle with
questions; 2, draw water or wine; 3, baptize." Suppose a sect should take
puzzle as the meaning, and insist that asking questions executed baptism.
Or suppose a sect took soak in wine, what a nice religion that would
make? Or take falling into debt as a baptism, how
very pious would many people and churches be found? The truth is, baptizo
denotes a change by some controlling influence as wine, an opiate, tears, water,
taxes, grief’s, etc. To be baptized is to come under the influence of that
which baptizes. In ritual purification it is with water to be devoted to God.
The quantity has no more influence in effecting a baptism
with water than the length of the sentence has in a baptism
by question. A tax of fifty dollars may baptize one as easily as a
tax of a thousand. A small seal may authenticate a deed
as well as one spread over half a sheet. The water is a sign of spiritual
purification, a profession of the work of the Spirit, of cleansing by the blood
of sprinkling, a token of the "one baptism."
Dictionary defines baptizo, ('
dip in, sink, immerse, draw water, wash, lave, cleanse, middle and passive,
voice wash one's self, i. e., hands or persons, perform ablution. 2. Baptize,
administer baptism." Of these various
meanings, who would not prefer wash to denote purity? Robinson gives "dip
in " as one meaning. When the Baptist Confession was made, they seized upon
this meaning. But Booth, a Baptist, writes, "This makes our sentiment and
practice ridiculous." Yet the ridiculous dip is the practice under the name
the word “supper”, in Greek, was the principal meal. Yet the Holy Spirit
calls the memorial of our Lord's death a supper. The Corinthians made a feast of
it, taking the word in its widest meaning. They were
corrected for their literality. But how much like them are those who make the
other sacrament an immersion?
But if this extreme meaning must be taken, as in the dark ages, let the washing
be thorough, as then, men washing nude men, and women their companions, before
the minister sprinkled the candidate, as then was done, saying, I baptize thee.
With them, as among the Jews, the washing was a preparation for the more
dictionaries, we see, decide that baptizo
has many meanings. We trust it is evident enough that we are not bound by any
dictionary to execute baptism by any particular
word of the sixteen given as English equivalents. Robinson's last definition is
baptize. This is the word in the Latin, Italic, French and English Bibles. Why
try to put any other in its room? Dr.
Carson, the most able Baptist writer, after saying baptizo signifies "dip, never expressing
anything but mode," added wisely, "I have all the lexicographers and
commentators against me."
Dictionaries give from six to sixteen meanings to the word. Baptist authors
write out these meanings and then found their creed and practice on one of them;
and then affirm, if any other meaning is allowed, it is such a willful sin that
it excludes you from the
have examined baptizo in dictionaries.
They do not limit the meaning to immerse. Robinson and others say it means to
draw water. May we seize on that definition and make baptism
the act of drawing water? How much better his other definition, to
cleanse, to wash? Then the application of water harmonizes with the cleansing
professed. Our Lord washed the disciples' feet to denote that they were clean,
This was not an immersion. Pilate washed his hands to denote innocence. This was no immersion. We have Old Testament and New Testament, we have dictionaries, commentators and churches—we have Greeks, Romans and Jews all agreeing that baptism is a ceremonial washing. Why divide the kingdom for another meaning?
Pet. 1: 2, Elect unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. 1
John 1: 7, The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin. Heb. 9: 14, How
much more shall the blood of Christ purge your conscience from dead works to
serve the living God? What does Jesus do? He sprinkles His blood—He washes us from our
sins—cleanses from all sin—purges the conscience. What did John the Baptist
call this work? Is he good authority? John called it a baptism.
What did Jesus call the outpouring of the Spirit upon the one hundred and
twenty? Is He a credible witness? He called it a baptism.
He used baptizo to describe
that work. Is baptism then a dipping and nothing
but dipping? Is the Holy Ghost in fault in calling purification with the Spirit
and with blood a baptism? Must we go blindly
against all Scripture and all learning to enter the fold of Christ?
18: 5, 2, writes of John's baptism, "The
washing with water would be acceptable to God, if they made use of it, not in
order to the putting away or the remission of some sins only, but for the
purification of the body, supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified
by righteousness." What did water signify in John's baptisms? Josephus says
the purification. Josephus, is there any purification by immersion
in the laws of Moses? None. Josephus, what was Jewish law for purifying?
Bathing the body and sprinkling the water of separation? Num.19. Josephus did
not understand John to sing,
"Ho, every son and daughter,
Here's the gospel in the water."
Strong's able work on Theology is marred by the
assertion of such absurd statements as "Christian baptism
is the immersion
of a believer in water." "The mode is immersion
only." "Christ's baptism
was consecration to death." Jesus said it
was to fulfill all righteousness. He therein devoted himself to His life-work,
not to death. True death was the end of that work. But it is to contradict the
record to say His baptism was
consecration to death.
Strong affirms that "baptism denoting
influence without intus-position (immersion) is a
figment of the imagination."
can a scholar write such a sentence, when he knows that the Greeks used baptizo
to denote the influence of wine and debts and taxes and sleep and vice and
opiates. Is it a figment of the imagination that wine baptizes without an immersion,
or that sleep stupefies, or an opiate affects one without an immersion
in the stupefying drug? When the Greeks for a thousand years used baptizo
to denote a change produced in the mind by grief and by fears, and by questions
and by debts and by taxes, what folly is it to affirm that baptizo
means an immersion! Prof. Strong relies for
proof upon the partial admission of some who are not Baptists. Judge how much
such admissions are worth against the texts and dictionaries before quoted. We
say partial admissions, because many did not intend to give full sanction
to immersion, but,
like the dictionaries, to say that one meaning of baptizo
is to immerse. Prof. Strong quotes Dean Stanley; yet Dean Stanley told the
Baptist brethren, in
it seems the great mind of Dr. Strong, like others, can quote meanings of baptizo
conflicting with immersion and then complacently
assume, against all the Greeks, baptizo
means to immerse only. Prof. Strong says that baptism
without intus-position (immersion)
is a figment of the imagination. The New Testament speaks of the baptism
of tables, of divers baptisms, of the baptism
New Testament very often speaks of the work of the Spirit as a baptism.
We have seen that the modal acts of this baptism are
utterly opposite to immersion. He descends, is
poured out, comes as rain and as dew. Nebuchadnezzar was wet with the dew;
baptized is the word in the Greek Bible used by
our Lord. Prof. Strong translates "baptized in water and in the
Holy Spirit." En, in the New Testament, is used over three hundred
times before words to denote instrumentality.
are evangelized by the Spirit, not in; sanctified by, not in; filled with, not
in, led by, not in, justified by, not in. How it contradicts the usage of
Scripture to say, baptized in, not by the Spirit? Read 1 Cor. 12:
13, with this idea. "For in one spirit are we all baptized into one
body." Was it in or by one Spirit, the baptism
was effected? What strange changes immersion requires?
When the preposition en is used over three hundred times, translated by, or
through, or with; yet immersion must make it
violate this usage.
Strong summons Dr. Coleman as witness that immersion was
the practice of the early churches. Hear him, page 367: "The
Church soon lost the spirituality of her religion and the simplicity of her
ordinances, in endless strifes about forms and ceremonies. Perhaps the
first of all her departures from the institutions of Christ and His apostles was
to insist upon immersion as emblematic of the
suffusion of the Holy Spirit and the only valid mode of administering the
ordinance. Certain it is that this soon became the prevailing mode of baptizing.
Other changes soon followed,'' etc. How
many witnesses like this would establish immersion?
we are not shut up to translate baptizo
by immerse, is manifest also from such facts as these:
Some dictionaries do not give immerse as its meaning. Could this be its most
essential meaning, and lexicographers not know it?
Comparing the frequency of its occurrence, we see that dictionaries give the
preference to other words. Twenty of them give immerse four times; baptize, six
times; perform ablutions, eight times; merge, eight times; lave, fourteen times.
Immerse cannot be its most essential meaning, else the dictionaries would give
it oftener. A merging is not an immersion, else
why do they give merge? To perform ablutions, with Jews and pagans, differed
from an immersion. Else why give this meaning
eight times to immerse four? To lave, the world over, is oftener performed
without than with a dipping. If baptizo meant essentially immerse, why do
dictionaries give so many other definitions? See also the varied uses of baptizo.
The Greeks said men were baptized with wine, debts, taxes, questions, opiates,
sea, milk, fire, sword, spirit, grief, disease, oil, sins, sleep, vice. What did
they mean by such baptisms? Did they mean that men were immersed in wine and
swords and oil and opiates? Nay; but they meant to indicate the influence from
these agents. So baptism by the Spirit means His
influence upon us. So baptism with water means
devotion by its ritual use to God. Baptized by wine, taxes and grief's means
affected by their influence. Baptized into the death of Christ means coming
under the influence of his death, so as to die unto sin and live unto
righteousness. Baptized into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is to be
devoted to the triune Jehovah. The water of baptism is,
then, a symbol of the work of the Spirit applying the blood that washes us from
our sins. All sects agreed in England defining baptism to
signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ and our partaking of the benefits of
the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord's. As our Baptist
brethren make baptizo their
stronghold, we turn on it definitions given by Greek dictionaries. Suidas, of
the tenth century, gives pluno, to wash, as the essential meaning.
a member of the Greek Church, in his large dictionary in two volumes, defines
baptizo by three Latin words: 1, Brecho,
to wet, to bedew, to moisten; 2, Lavo,
to wash, to bathe ; 3, Antleo, to
draw, to pump water.
How true was the confession of Dr. Carson, "I have all the lexicographers and commentators against me." Yes, the Greeks give no aid to the men that assume immerse as the essential meaning of baptizo. They do not give immergo, immerse, as even one of its meanings! How utterly impossible is it that immerse is its most essential meaning if a quarto Greek lexicon did not record it! How wonderfully wise have men become that can define Greek better than men that spoke Greek—better than men that wrote the dictionary of their native tongue!
EN—BAPTIZE IN AND WITH
en—with places, means baptize in,
as Enon, Salim, Bethabara, the Jordan, beyond
Baptizo en means "baptize
with," when used with the baptizing instrument— as water, Holy Spirit,
cloud and sea. 1 Cor. 10: 2, baptized en—with—the cloud and with the sea. It is the same form
as in the gospels. The Bible has no instance of in
water. It is always with water. Some texts omit the preposition,
using only the instrumental dative (hudati)
with water. If immersion in water was the only
right baptism, then the Scripture is wrong in
using the instrumental dative! At least, we ought to find one record of such a baptism,
if such only is valid. Bible baptisms are
with the Spirit poured out, or with water to profess it, or with the sea on
either hand, or with the cloud in the rear while the feet of
words mark the result of baptism. Being baptized
into Christ's death means that we share the benefits of that death; Being
baptized into Christ's body means that we are made members of His body. Gal. 3:
27, the baptized into Christ have put on Christ. They are in Him, having His
righteousness. Being baptized into forgiveness means the state of forgiveness.
Being baptized into the remission of sins and into repentance and into Paul and
into Moses are expressions of the state of the baptized towards Moses and
Paul and repentance.
Bible has no record of baptized into water.
Eis hudor is not found
in the Bible. But our immersion
brethren in thought and intention and in practice
always insert into water. Is it not an unwarrantable license to add into
water when Scripture never uses
If immersion into
water was the sine qua non of baptism,
surely we should have
had one example. Our brethren disagree about the meaning of the prepositions
used with baptizo as well as about the verb itself. Some say eis means in ; some, into;
others, unto; others, in reference to.
While they contend with each other for
diverse meanings for the verb and for the prepositions, yet they agree that one
must be covered to the last hair with water in order to a valid baptism. And all this without an instance of
it in the diverse baptisms of Scripture. Baptism
into Christ's death,
that great work of the Holy Ghost, is belittled to make it a profession of his
death and absurdly the candidate is assured that his submission represents
Christ on the cross!
word is used four times. In Mark 7: it means the ceremonial purification of
pots, cups and tables. In Heb. 6: 2, it is used with doctrine, as if doctrine
qualified baptisms, just as repentance did in John's ministry. The doctrines
mentioned just before were repentance and faith. Heb. 9: 10 means ritual
purifications in Jewish service. Among these ablutions it was required that one
bathe his body, wash his garments and be sprinkled with the water of separation.
Num. 19. But there is no immersion in Judaism. Baptismos
gives no support to the theory,—“no dipping, no baptism.”
word is used twenty-two times. It describes the ministry of John, as when the
Pharisees came to John's baptism. They came to
more than a dipping. It also describes the suffering of our Lord. His agony in
Gethsemane—His death on
under the Old Testament was usually effected by sprinkling ashes, water or
blood. Priests were purified by washing hands and feet at the door of the
tabernacle. Jesus said of His washing Peter's feet, If I wash thee not thou hast
no part with me. Peter then cried out, Not my feet only, but my hands and my
head. He reasoned, If some washing is good, then let me have more. Baptists are
not followers of John, but of Peter. They practice baptism
into water—John practiced baptism with water.
They use bapto eis, he used baptizo
en. The Fathers' writings show that even when they used immersion,
in some cases they baptized the sick upon their
beds. They held that all waters baptized. They fell into Peter's error in
practice, yet they never taught
that the mode of applying the water was essential. Some added exorcism and
anointing, and trine immersion,
one for each person of the Trinity. What did they mean by baptize? They meant
bringing a person into a holy state by the water and Spirit co-acting upon the
person. They thought washing the body would absorb more virtue. Therefore, they
made not an immersion only,
but a real washing.
many years the Baptists did not immerse. They assert that the English Baptists
made the change in 1641. Till then this sect practiced baptism
as did other churches. They seem to have introduced immersion
one hundred years after their origin in
brethren, of course, have some texts which they use to justify their theory. One
is that John baptized in
A second Baptist reason for immersion is Col. 2:
12, buried with him in Baptism. It reconciles many
to the sad experience of immersion that they not
only imitate Christ's baptism, but that they are
buried with Him, so come nearer to Him in baptism.
But Christ is in heaven, not in
mill-ponds. He was buried over eighteen hundred years ago
—we cannot be buried bodily with him; moreover, his burial was in a room hewn
out of a rock into which Joseph carried his body and rolled a great stone
against the door. There is nothing in immersion like
the burial of Jesus. Moreover, a brief
statement is always to be interpreted by one more full. Rom. 6: 3 tells us we
are baptized into Christ's death; verse 4, buried with him by baptism
into death; verse 5, planted with him; verse 6,
our old man crucified with him; verse 8, died with Christ. Can any of these
things be affirmed of water baptism? Neither
does Col. 2: 12 teach anything about water baptism.
The Apostle says we are complete in Christ,
circumcised in His circumcision, buried with Him in "the baptism,"
raised up in Him, quickened with Him, all trespasses forgiven. Are these
attributes of water baptism, even
if in an ocean? Nay, but they are attributes of "the" one baptism.
"The" is in the Greek. If it had
been translated it might have saved many from error. Col. 2 teaches us we have
all in Christ by faith, which is the operation of God. How absurd, then, is it
to say we are buried by dipping and are raised up by faith! But few would ever
get out of an immersion if
this was the way of escape. Buried with Christ in "the baptism"
has no more water in it than had baptizing the one hundred and twenty with
tongues of fire. The baptism that
buries us with Christ is the same that crucifies us and raises us up and makes
us complete in Him. Water has nothing to do with this baptism
but to profess it.
great dependence is placed on
buries us? Ans. Our baptism—by baptism.
When did Christ die? Ans. Over eighteen hundred years ago. Can we be
buried bodily with Him in time? Certainly not. Can we be placed bodily in
Joseph's tomb? Certainly not. How then are we buried with Him? In the sense that
He died and was buried and rose for us. What baptizes us into his death? The
Holy Spirit's work. Who administers this baptism?
Our ascended Savior. How does He baptize? By sending, pouring out the Spirit.
What does the Spirit do for us? He baptizes, merges into Christ. What is the
benefit of this baptism? It
makes us complete in Christ? Can water baptism effect
such a result? Never. What
relation has water baptism to
this spiritual work? It can only symbolize and profess it. Can we be buried in
water with Christ? Nay, He is in heaven. Can we die on the cross with Jesus?
There was none with Him. Can we rise bodily out of water with Him? This is
impossible. What is meant by dying with Him, being dead with Him, crucified with
Him, complete in Him, buried with Him? It means our perfect union with Him in
His sufferings for us, so they were as good to us as our dying under the penalty
and rising to a new life. What buries us with Christ? The baptism
by the Holy Spirit. Ought water baptism
to represent Christ's burial? Nay. Of all things
His burial by Joseph has no special significance except to assure us of the
reality of His death. Ought baptism to
represent His death? Nay. The supper is to show forth His death.
Another Baptist reason for immersion is 1 Pet. 3:
21. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth
now save us. Noah is figured to have been immersed in the flood and drawn out,
so Christians now immersed in water are drawn out saved. But Peter says our baptism
is not a washing away of the filth of the flesh, but it is the state of
the conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Peter connects this
saving work with the finished redemption of our Lord. Moreover, Noah was not
immersed. The antediluvians only were immersed, and our brethren themselves own
that the baptism of the Spirit alone can save.
Peter, then, like Paul, was not speaking of a water baptism
that cannot save, but of the baptism of the
A fourth Baptist reason is found in 1 Cor. 10: 2. All
A fifth Baptist reason for immersion is the baptism
of the Eunuch. He had been to
A sixth reason given for immersion is John 3: 23. Much
water. Why much water if it were not for immersion?
The answer is found in the preceding verse recording that Jesus and the crowds
attending his ministry were also in the same region. He was now
making more disciples than John, John (4: 1.) Much water would be needed
for the two great congregations. Enon in Hebrew means fountains. It is the
plural of en—fountain. Jesus and John could assemble multitudes in that part
A seventh reason given for immersion is John 3:
5—born of water. The other part of the verse is born of the Spirit. We
have seen that the Spirit works by coming upon, descending, pouring upon. If
this is giving a new creation—a birth into the kingdom—then birth by water
should be professed by pouring out, causing to descend. Nicodemus was an
inquiring Jew. He found that outward ordinances had not satisfied; he came to
ask what farther was necessary. Jesus guides him at once to a purification by
the Spirit. It was not yet time to say, all Mosaic observances are ended. But it
was time to say that a man must have more than water purification; he must have
with it a spiritual purification—so be born of water not only, but of the
Spirit. There was no immersion for
purification as there is no immersion
into the Spirit.
ALL ancient pictures known represent Jesus as standing when baptized
by John. When he received the baptism of the
Spirit he was going up from
shall we seize on one position, and say baptism must
be administered to one standing? That would make us like some seizing upon one
meaning of baptize. What folly to legislate that in baptism
the baptized must stand! Did not Saul stand? Does not Luke use the word
seventy-nine times, so we can be sure of our posture? Very true— true, this
word forbids an immersion. But yet there was a baptism
of the Spirit filling the disciples, and with tongues of fire resting
upon them where they were sitting. Even when the error had crept in that
water and Spirit must co-work, yet they baptized the sick upon their couches.
But the theory "no dipping; no baptism"
was not true in any of these baptisms. There
is no record of a baptism in lying down. Sitting,
standing or walking are Bible postures.
BAPTISM OF CHILDREN
Baptist brethren deny that children^ have any such right to ordinances in the
New as they had in the Old Testament— that the door of the gospel church
breaks all family relations—that we enter the Church without wife or child.
And all because it is written "he that believeth and is baptized."
They insist that faith in the candidate must precede baptism,
because in this one verse faith is mentioned first.
take the great Commission, Matt. 28, translate it literally. “Go disciple all
nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe.” Here
baptizing is put before teaching. Must we baptize before
we teach? 1 Cor. 6: 11, Ye are washed, ye are
sanctified, ye are justified. If the order of words is an authority, first baptism,
then sanctification, then justification. Is this the divinely appointed order?
Here and in the great Commission our brethren agree with us that the order is
not authoritative. Why then rule the children out of the kingdom by a catch at
words? Better take the order baptize, teach, as in Mat. 28, or wash, sanctify,
in Paul's epistle to
brethren assume that the New Testament made such a change in the administration
of God's grace, that the Church is a new institution and the conditions of
membership are changed. But the New Testament and Old alike teach that the
virtue of an ordinance is the state of the heart.—Circumcision denoted the
heart's devotion. Why cannot the same principle be applied to the baptism
-of children? While God commanded the heart to be
circumcised, yet he required circumcision of the flesh on the eighth day. When
the Old Testament calls
the New Testament addresses commands to parents and children as equally in the
Church. Eph. 6: 4, Bring up your children en, not eis, in, not
into the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Luke 18: 16, Of such is the kingdom of heaven, i. e., the kingdom belongs to
them. Yet must they be excluded from the very badge of membership? Yea, denied
any membership? The effort is made to neutralize this text by saying the
kingdom belongs to the childlike. See the wrong of this interpretation. Brephos
is the word that described the infant Savior in the manger. The plural is brepha.
When parents brought such to Jesus (brepha is the word) and the
twelve resisted them, Jesus said, suffer the little children to come unto me and
forbid them not. The Apostles thought baby-blessing wrong. But the Master
corrected their carnal reasoning. He imparts spiritual blessings to babes, and
He says the kingdom of heaven belongs to them. Sad if it is now unlawful to
bring them to Jesus. Jesus baptized babes with His Spirit. Is it wrong to
profess that spiritual work?
consider children were in the covenant of works and fell in Adam. Was the
covenant to work only for their condemnation? Is not grace to abound to them
even as the evil of the fall has afflicted them? Has the covenant principle no
application to them but for ruin? If death reigned by the sin of one, shall not
grace reign through our Lord Jesus Christ? Is not this the doctrine of the Holy
Spirit in Rom. 5? Is it eternal law that the iniquity of fathers can be visited
on children and yet there is no counter-principle of visiting the good of
consider that God has always included children in covenant-dealing. As with Adam
so with Noah, Abraham and David. When.
that principle was repealed, why is there not only no record of it, but no
complaint about it? Jewish converts
were very slow to give up ceremonial observances. But
did they give up all the rights of their children without a whisper of
complaint? How impossible!
also that there is no such break between the Old and
the days of the prophets, God said, "Thou hast taken thy sons and thy
daughters whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed; . . .
thou hast slain my children." Ez. 16: 20, 21. Are not children born unto
God now as well as then? Was it wrong then to turn them
over to idols and yet not wrong now to deny that they belong to God?
also that all the historic churches, Greek, Roman, Armenian, Coptic, baptize
their children. Some retain also circumcision. How
came infant baptism into them all, unless from the
teaching of Apostles. Origen says they received it from the Apostles? The
error then was rife that water co-acted with the Spirit in cleansing the soul.
Tertullian advised delay, to have the greatest benefit in sweeping away
accumulated sins. But the very advice to
delay proves the existence of the rite. If there was no such practice, would
a sane man ask that it be postponed? And
when his reason for it was a mere superstition that baptism
effaced guilt, how absurd to make such advice weigh more against baptism
than the writings of all the Fathers for it.
the practice of the Apostle of the Gentiles. When
Cor. 1: 16 teaches that Paul baptized the family of Stephanas; but did not
remember baptizing any other family, because Christ sent him not so much to
baptize as to evangelize. Stephanas was a disciple present with Paul when he
wrote to the Corinthians. It is certain from 1 Cor. 16: 15 he was a believer.
Paul baptized not Stephanas, but his family. And when he adds, after oikon
of Stephanas, tina allon, it shows how
customary was family baptism. He baptized his
family, but did not recall any other family. He thanked God that he baptized
only Crispus and Gaius, lest people should say he had baptized them into his own
name. Did this imply that baptism was withdrawn
from adults? He baptized two adults and one family, and did not remember a
Paul salutes families, commends Noah's faith in building an ark to save his
family. Peter says the like figure saves us. But how it grates upon that
likeness to say the family is excluded!
Peter's work first opening the Church to the Gentiles. The angel promised
Cornelius, Peter shall speak words to thee by which thou shalt be saved and thy
family. Acts 11: 14. And Peter seeing the Spirit fall upon Cornelius and family
and friends, arranged that they should be baptized. Acts 10: 44,48.
Did Peter do wrong in baptizing the family with Cornelius and kinsmen? Did the
angel misunderstand the constitution of the Church? Did he promise too much,
saying Peter shall tell thee words by which thy family shall be saved? How
evident is it that neither the apostles nor angels yet knew that children were,
turned out of the
18: 5 commends receiving little children as receiving Christ. Are they then
unfit to receive the outward sign that they belong to him?
Was there ever a shepherd who thought it a profanation to put his mark upon his
lambs? Has Jesus recalled the command, "feed my lambs?"
3 teaches that the blessing of Abraham has come on the Gentiles, that to Abraham
and his seed were the promises made, that if we be Christ's, we are Abraham's
seed and heirs according to the promise—that the law four hundred and thirty
years after the covenant cannot disannul it. Does this change, then, the
foundation-principle of the Church? Has the Gospel taken away what the law could
not do? Paul taught the opposite. In all God's covenants parents acted for their
offspring. Parents could lay up iniquity for their children. Job 21: 19.
Children from the days of Abel to Zacharias could suffer for the parents' sins,
lie in exile for them, and confess them. Dan. 9. But is there nothing in
contrast with this evil ?—" His blood be on us and on our children,"
was the imprecation.
and again we are assured the seed of the righteous is blessed; that God loves
children for their parents' sake, that He claims that, as the souls of
parents, so the souls of children are His. Ez. 18: 4.
The objection that the babe is unconscious, has no more weight against infant baptism
than it has against circumcision, than it had
against Christ's blessing infants, than it had against presenting the infant
Saviour to the Lord. If the sign of devotion was good from Abraham to John the
Baptist, is it not as good to Gentiles, who, as stones, have been raise up as
spiritual children unto Abraham? If Abraham's faith brought blessings to his
race —if David's secured favors for his seed—if parents' faith in Egypt
saved the first born— if the Syrophenician's brought health to her
daughter—if Jairus' brought life to his dead child, and if the centurion's
faith brought healing to his slave, cannot faith now bring anything to children?
Are such narratives misleading and delusive? Do they not confirm the
command," disciple," baptizing and teaching all nations? Yea, when our
Lord has assembled His people at the last, He will apply this principle, saying
to the Father, "behold, I and the children which God hath given me."
Heb. 2: 13.
brethren object, there is no command.
is no command to be called Baptist, none to publish a Baptist Bible,
none to immerse. There is no command to pray in families, none
to observe the first day of the week, none for women to commune. But all
God's covenant dealings imply this filial relation, all governments recognize
it, all the Apostles taught it, and all their churches practice it to this day.
Let children first believe. Answer:—
The brepha infants were not required
first to believe; the first born in Egypt had not first to believe;
the infant Jesus had not first to believe before circumcision; the infant Jew
now in exile has not first to believe before it suffers; the Syrophenician's
daughter had not first to believe, nor
had Jairus' dead child first to believe. Has not a parent's faith as much
power now? Can Dr. Anderson and Prof. Curtis write of the Jailer's family "it
is explicitly affirmed that they were all believers?" Had those brethren
read their Greek Testament they would find believing agreeing with Jailer only.
So the Jailer and
history of the Apostles in the Acts extends to 63 A.D. One has counted
forty-eight names of converts in the New Testament. The baptism
of seven of them is recorded, and with them four families. If this
ratio four to seven is applied to the forty-eight, it gives twenty-seven
families baptized. But the ratio may have been even more. Not only did the four
Crispus, Lydia, Cornelius and the Jailer, accept infant baptism,
but the Eunuch is reported to have returned home, established a Christian
Church, which to this day baptizes infants. Some followers of Simon Magus also
baptized their children. Saul, another of the seven, we find baptized children.
So the proportion of four to seven may be six to seven.
with four to seven for the ratio, in one hundred thousand converts there would
have been fifty-seven thousand families. Here is one of the sources of the rapid
growth of the early church. Parents took their children with them into the
kingdom, and trained them for Christ. May not loose notions about children's
obligations now hinder the growth of the Church? Are not multitudes justifying
their neglect of worship by this evil theory that parent's faith and example
cannot obligate children?
Dwight has collected the following' testimony from the Fathers. Was he able to
weigh such evidence?
Justin Martyr writes of persons made disciples of Christ from their infancy.
That infancy was from the year 70 A.D., so in the days of the Apostles..
Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, John's convert. He writes of the great
pleasure he had in hearing Polycarp repeat the teachings of our Lord as John
taught him. He writes, Christ came "to save infants
and little ones and children and youths and elder persons who are born
again." By born again, President Dwight says Irenaeus " means baptized
as he elsewhere shows." Here was a witness only a few years after John.
Origen, born 184. The Church hath received the tradition from the Apostles that baptism
ought to be administered to infants.
Cyprian writes of the decision of sixty-six ministers in council at
Gregory Nazianzen exhorts parents to offer their children to God in baptism.
Augustine, of the fourth century— "The whole Church practices infant baptism.
It was not instituted by Councils, but was always in use." "Had not
read of one Catholic or heretic who maintained that baptism
ought to be denied to infants." "This the Church has always
Pelagius—"Who can be so impious as to hinder the baptism
are seven of the leading writers of the Church from the Apostles down to the
fourth century. What folly to deny all this evidence because Tertullian asked
that baptism be delayed in the case of children
and youths and unmarried people! Where does the doctrinal anomaly exist?
who has studied history a great deal finds:
For four hundred years Tertullian was the only one asking delay.
For the next seven hundred years none asked for or even delayed baptism.
In 1120 a sect arose denying infant salvation and so, by inference, ruled out
infant baptism—a sect soon immersed into
In 1522, five years after the Glorious Reformation, the Anabaptists revived the
moreover, on the graves of children are engraved all the peculiar appellations
of Christians. They are called by the very names the Holy Spirit gives to
Christians. They are called holy, believing; said to repose in the bosom of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; repose in peace among the saints—in the peace of the
Lord Jesus. If Paul distinguished Christians by such terms as holy, believing,
faithful saints, what did Paul's converts mean when they wrote these words on
the graves of their little ones? The catacombs of
RELATION OF BAPTIZED CHILDREN TO THE CHURCH
is no difficulty in understanding that children are in the State, with rights
and duties. Why cannot children be "of the kingdom" in the same way?
They are under the care of the Church, are to be trained up for Christ. As soon
as they have the qualifications as in the State so in the Church they are to
perform the duty of members. In the
How wrong is the charge "that piety is not required," "that these Churches receive members without conversion."
It is in accord with apostolic practice to transfer Baptizo,
not to translate it.
There is no duty, then, resting upon the Church to expend millions to introduce
immerse or dip. These words do not respond to Baptizo
in its varied meanings. The effort to make them has signally failed even with
Baptists. They misuse their own Bible, after
expending millions for it.
Baptism for party divisions is misused. Unity is
the Bible idea of "the one baptism."
A baptism to be the badge of division, is contrary
to the essence of Scriptural baptism, which is
"all into one body."
When the Pharisees made a handle of Jesus baptizing more disciples than John,
Jesus retired from Judea into
If the authority of dictionaries is allowed its force, if the one baptism
by the Spirit is the model, if the example of Apostles is followed, baptism
must be with, not into, water, and families as well as
individuals must receive baptism.
The Church erred by adding exorcism, oil, white robes, processions and nude
washings to the simple ordinance.
There is no consistent agreement among Baptist writers differing about Baptizo
and the prepositions used with it. Truth is consistent. Error originates
God's people, — called elect, chosen, beloved, family,—always embraced
children with covenant privileges. When the New Testament calls His people by
their new name (Isa. 62: 2)—Christians—the Church yet does not lose its
identity. When the natural branches are broken off and
the kingdom taken from unbelieving Jews, then the Gentiles are made the
inheritors of the promises made to
The Westminster Assembly of 1644, after hearing the Baptist members two or three
days plead for immersion as one mode of baptism
wisely rejected it.