Is there only one Mode of Baptism?

Were love, in these the world's last doting years,
As frequent as the want of it appears,
The churches warmed, they would no longer hold
Such frozen figures, stiff as they are cold;
Relenting forms would lose their power, or cease,
And e'en the dipped and sprinkled live in peace;
Each heart would quit its prison in the breast,
And flow in free communion with the rest.

Cowper.

Opening my entry door, on my return, several faces looked out to welcome me, all in the house having waited till a late hour, with surmises as to the cause of my long absence, and then all dispersed, except the venerable, and not yet aged, grandmother of little Bertha. With her it was always pleasant to talk.

Mr. M. Have you had no company this evening? I was in hopes that the Moores would come in, as they promised to do.

Mother. They have been gone nearly an hour. Mr. Moore wished to read husband's letter, so Bertha lent it to him.

Mr. M. Father will be glad to know how much good his letter is doing. Cousin Eunice would be glad to see it, and I wish to read it again, for I find that I am likely to need more instruction, if I am to discuss the subject as I did this evening with Mr. Kelly.

Mother. Was he at home? I hope you did not get into a controversy about baptism; for, of all things, nothing dries up religious feelings like that.

Mr. M. The subject has taken too practical a hold upon my feelings to have that effect. I find myself more and more led to believe that God gave his church an appointed form of baptism, and that that form was sprinkling; for I search the New Testament in vain for a single case where immersion seems to have been practised. I believe that, under the operation of early tendencies, of which Paul writes to the Thessalonians, the church began to prefer immersion as more sensuous, making a stronger appeal to the passions. But I believe, with the New Testament for my guide, that immersion was not practised by the apostles themselves. The word baptize had, even in the Saviour's time, to go no further back, come to mean a thing done irrespective of the mode. How would it sound, "I have an immersion to be immersed with, and how am I straitened?" &c. "Are ye able to be immersed with the immersion that I am immersed with?" I believe that sprinkling was the original mode of Christian baptism. And it seems to me unlikely that God would appoint an ordinance, and not appoint, by precept or example, the mode of it. I believe that the mode of baptism was appointed, as well as the rite itself, and I see no instance of baptism in the New Testament by immersion. Pouring, whether more or less copiously, has this probability in its favor, in addition to the impression which the narratives make, viz., The Lord's Supper typifies the death of Christ. Burying in baptism, then, would be superfluous; it is more likely that the form of this other sacrament would represent something else, and that is, the Holy Spirit's cleansing influence, because Christ speaks of being "born of water and of the Spirit," thus associating water with the Spirit. We moreover read of "the water and the blood," water thus being distinguished from blood. Now, the Holy Spirit is always named in connection with being poured out. We are baptized with, not in, the Holy Ghost. It would do violence to our feelings to hear one speak of our being immersed in the Holy Spirit. So that I fully believe in sprinkling as the original New Testament mode of baptism. And, still, I am inclined to agree with your friend, the professor, who spent New-year's evening with us, and has just published a book on baptism.

Mother. What ground does he take?

Mr. M. He writes somewhat in this way: As to the mode, I believe it to be unessential; for it seems to me contrary to the genius of Christianity to make a particular form of doing a thing essential to the thing. What else is there in Christianity, if we are to except baptism, in which modes are regarded or made essential? It is not so, he says, with the Lord's Supper, surely; the upper room, night, sitting or reclining, unleavened bread, a particular kind of wine, and all such things, are not regarded by any as necessary to the ordinance. It is very interesting, he says, to notice, that, whereas the old dispensation prescribed the mode of every religious act, minutely, and a departure from it vitiated the act itself, Christianity threw off everything like prescriptive modes altogether. Considering the attachment of the human mind to forms and ceremonies, he knows of nothing in which Christianity shows its divine origin and supernatural power more, than in its sublime triumph, so immediately, in the minds of great numbers, over forms and ceremonies. We can hardly conceive, he says, what a revolution a Jew must have experienced in giving up Aaron, and altars, and times, and seasons, and all the minute regard for his religious ceremonies, at once. Even if it were the original practice to baptize only by immersion, he cannot think that Christianity could have enjoined it as the only proper mode of applying water, in signifying religious consecration. Bread and wine, eaten and drunk decently and in order, in any way whatever, constitutes the Lord's Supper; water, applied to the person, by a proper administrator, in the name of the Trinity, constitutes Christian baptism; but, had the New Testament required us to recline, and lean on one arm, and take the Lord's Supper with the other arm, insisting that this posture is essential to that sacrament, or had it specified the quantity of bread and wine, he thinks it would have been parallel to the uninspired requirement of a particular mode in applying the water in baptism.

"Baptize," he further remarks, it is said, means immerse. Suppose that it does. Supper means a meal; therefore, one does not "eat the Lord's Supper," unless he eats a full meal; for, if baptize refers to the quantity of water, supper refers to the quantity of food and drink in the other sacrament. He then seems to exult, and says, "I am glad that I am not in conscientious subjection to any mode of doing anything in religion, as being essential to the thing itself."

Mother. What answer can be made to this?

Mr. M. It is a very common ground, and a convenient one, to answer the argument from baptizo, and the early practice of immersion in the Christian church after the apostles. No doubt the early Christians satisfied themselves with this reasoning, in departing from the apostolic practice of sprinkling. But I prefer to adhere strictly to the New Testament model. There is no immersion there. Now, is it allowable to depart from the original mode? This could not be done in the first initiating ordinance of the church,—circumcision. A departure from the prescribed rule would have vitiated the ordinance. But, does not Christianity differ essentially from the former dispensation in this very particular, that it does not make the mode of doing a thing, essential? Yet, it may be said, Human ordinances are all strictly binding in the very forms prescribed. For example: "Hold up your right hand," says the clerk, or judge, to a witness; "you solemnly swear—." Let the witness, instead of holding up his right hand, if he has one, and can move it, capriciously say, "I prefer to hold up the left, or to hold up both. I wish to show that modes and forms are unimportant." He would be in danger of contempt of court. If so small a departure from the mode of swearing would not be allowed, much less would he be permitted to kneel, or to lie on his face, unless he were some devotee. No; there is a prescribed form, and he must yield to it. It is also said, that, if there were cases in the New Testament in which it were doubtful, at least, whether immersion were not practised, we might argue in favor of mixed modes. But immersion is baptism, in my view, because a person who is immersed is sure to get affused; and, affusion with water is all of the baptism which seems to me essential. Leaving those who first departed from the apostolic mode of baptism by sprinkling, to answer for themselves, no one, of course, will deny that those who conscientiously think that they ought to be baptized by immersion, are acceptable with God, as well as others who are of a contrary persuasion. Paul speaks of "divers baptisms." There began to be such in his day. He speaks also of the "doctrine of baptisms" (plural), showing the same thing.

But I came near forgetting one thing, which I wished to say, which is, that, in reading the Bible last evening, I found a new encouragement in taking infants to the house of God.

Mother. I should like to hear anything new on that point. I thought that everything had been exhausted which referred to that subject.

Mr. M. I mean that it was new to me. Luke says that the parents of Jesus brought him to Jerusalem "to present him to the Lord," and that, arriving there, they brought him into the temple to do for him after the custom of the law. Now, I always carelessly thought that this meant circumcision.

Mother. Of course it does; I always thought so.

Mr. M. No; for he had already been circumcised, when he was eight days old. "And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, they called his name Jesus." Then the next verse speaks of a subsequent act: "When the days of her purification were accomplished they brought him to Jerusalem." Mary could not have come to Jerusalem on the eighth day; but, on the second occasion, she was present; for Simeon addressed her. So that we have the example of the infant Saviour, in bringing our infants into the temple; and, if we are scrupulous as to following the Saviour in ordinances, we may as well begin by following him into the temple, with our infants.

Mother. It is beautiful to think of Jesus, even in his infancy, as an example, and that he was forerunner to the infants of his people, while yet in his mother's arms.