There still remains to be discussed, in connection with baptism, one thing more—the manner of administering it.

In relation to this matter there is much division among professed believers of the Bible. One class maintaining that the immersion of the whole body in water is the only manner in which baptism can be administered; that immersion, in fact, and immersion only, is baptism. Others, however, while they admit that immersion is baptism, claim that it may be performed in some other manner, by sprinkling or pouring water on the candidates for the ordinance.

Both parties appeal to the original Greek from which baptism and the verb baptize is derived, one insisting that it means immersion, and to immerse only; while the others insist that in some connections the words in the original may mean sprinkling or pouring as well as immersion and to immerse. And as the commandment given to the apostles to baptize all nations^[A] is given without any reference to the manner in which the ordinance is to be administered, they maintain it is immaterial whether it is done by immersion or by sprinkling or pouring.

[Footnote A: Matt. xxviii, 19.]

It cannot be denied that an array of respectable testimony may be drawn up in favor of both theories; but when the meaning of the terms are interpreted in the light of the practice of the early Christians, those who received the doctrine of baptism from the apostles and other servants of Christ—nay, if interpreted by the manner in which these very apostles administered the ordinance—it is evident that immersion alone is the proper method for baptizing for the remission of sins, and initiation into the Church of Christ, whatever other signification may be attached to the words in other connections; for nothing is more evident than that immersion is the manner in which baptism was administered by them.

Of John the Baptist it is written: "And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the River Jordan;"^[B] and to this agrees also the testimony of Matthew.^[C]

[Footnote B: Mark i: 4.]

[Footnote C: Matt. iii: 5, 6.]

Again it is said of him that he baptized "in Ænon near Salim, because there was much water there".^[D] And it is said that "Jesus, when he was baptized went up straightway out of the water;"^[E] from which it is evident that he had been down in the water. From these circumstances, that is, from his baptizing in Jordan, and near Salim "where there was much water," and from Jesus going up out of the water after his baptism, there can be no question but John baptized by immersion; and there is nothing to lead us to suppose that he baptized in any other manner.

[Footnote D: John iii, 23.]

[Footnote E: Matt. iii: 16; Mark i: 10.]

Take an account of a baptism which took place after the crucifixion of Messiah, and we shall find the same method of administering the ordinance observed. I allude to the baptism of the chamberlain of Queen Candace, by Philip. This person was met by Philip in the highway, and being invited to ride in the chamberlain's carriage he taught him the Gospel. On belief taking hold of the chamberlain, as they came to certain water, he inquired of Philip what hindered him from being baptized. To which Philip answered: "If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest. And he answered and said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit caught away Philip that the eunuch saw him no more."^[F]

[Footnote F: Acts viii: 36-39.]

There can be no two opinions as to the manner in which the eunuch was baptized—it was by immersion. It would seem, too, that had Philip been aware of any other method, that is, had he understood that sprinkling or pouring would answer the purpose, he never would have put himself and the chamberlain to the inconvenience of going down into the water. It is a fair inference, under all the circumstances, that Philip knew of no other method of baptism than by a burial in the water.

We have already referred to baptism being spoken of as being "born of water,"^[G] and to those paragraphs I call the attention of my readers again. It will be seen that immersion best carries out that idea; indeed, it is only by immersion and being brought forth out of the water, in which a person is brought from one element (water) into another (air), that a birth is represented. Sprinkling or pouring does not represent a birth.

[Footnote G: Chapter xxi.]

In writing to the saints of Rome, Paul says; "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection."^[H]

[Footnote H: Rom. vi: 3-5.]

In writing to the saints of Colosse, the same apostle reminds them that they had been "buried with him [Christ] in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God who hath raised him from the dead."^[I]

[Footnote I: Col. ii: 12.]

In these passages the terms "buried" and "planted" are in plain allusion to the manner in which the saints had received the ordinance of baptism, which could not have been by sprinkling or pouring, as there is no burial or planting in the likeness of Christ's death, or being raised in likeness of his resurrection in that; but in immersion there is, and hence we conclude from all these circumstances that baptism among the saints of God in those days was by immersion, and by immersion alone.

Turning to other sources than the scriptures for information, we shall find that the statement that immersion alone was practiced by the early Christians, say for at least nearly three centuries, is sustained by the most respectable testimony.

Speaking of baptism in the first century. Dr. Mosheim says: "In this century, baptism was administered in convenient places, without the public assemblies; and by immersing the candidates wholly in water."^[J]

[Footnote J: Mosheim's Church History (Murdock), third edition, Vol. I, page 87.]

Of the second century, the same learned author says: "Twice a year, namely, at Easter and Whitsuntide, * * * baptism was administered by the bishop, or by the presbyters acting by his command and authority. The candidates for it were immersed wholly in water, with invocation of the sacred Trinity, according to the Savior's precept."^[K]

[Footnote K: Ibid, p. 137.]

Indeed, the first deviation from baptizing by immersion, occurs in a case recorded by Eusebius, as happening in the third century. He alludes to it in these detracting terms: "He [Novatian] * * * fell into a grievous distemper, and it being supposed that he would die immediately, he received baptism (being sprinkled with water), on the bed where he lay, (if that can be termed baptism): Neither when he had escaped that sickness, did he afterwards receive the other things which the canon of the church enjoineth should be received."^[L]

[Footnote L: Eusebius Eccl. Hist. b. vi, ch. 43.]

Even down to the close of the thirteenth century baptism by immersion was the rule and sprinkling and pouring the exception.

Notwithstanding all these arguments, which are in their character so conclusive, many worthy people there are whom they fail to convince. What does this fact argue? That those who fail to understand that baptism must be by immersion are woefully ignorant, or their understanding willfully perverse? No; I would suggest that to them the evidence is simply insufficient and unauthoritative, and that the fact of it being so argues that there is need of some further instruction from the Lord on the subject than is contained in the Bible; that there is need of further revelation from God to settle the question.

In ushering in the Gospel in this dispensation the instruction so much needed was given in April, 1830, and is as follows: "The person who is called of God, and has authority from Jesus Christ to baptize, shall go down into the water with the person who has presented him or herself for baptism, and shall say, calling him or her by name—Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. Then shall he immerse him or her in the water, and come forth again out of the water."^[M]

[Footnote M: Doc. and Cov., sec. xx: 73, 74]

The Book of Mormon is equally plain on this point. When Jesus gave authority to his servants among the Nephites to baptize, he said to them: "Verily I say unto you, that whosoever repenteth of his sins through your words, and desireth to be baptized in my name, on this wise shall ye baptize them: behold, ye shall go down and stand in the water, and in my name shall ye baptize them. And now behold, these are the words which ye shall say, calling them by name, saying. Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. And then shall ye immerse them in the water and come forth again out of the water. And after this manner shall ye baptize in my name."^[N]

[Footnote N: III. Nephi xi: 23-27.]

There can be no question as to how baptism should be administered after such instruction as this; while the very pressing need of such a revelation to the Christian world is a great evidence in support of its divine inspiration.