The Perversion of Baptism by W. A. S.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Mar 11, 1909

The Perversion of Baptism

By W. A. S.

THE word baptism, which the evangelists used by inspiration, signifies a burial. The apostle Paul wrote:—

“We are buried with him [Christ] 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.” Rom. 6:4.

It is a profession of faith in the Saviour, who went into the grave for us, and rose again to life. And it is the great object-lesson to teach the truth that the sinner must die to sin and the world, and have a resurrection by the power of divine grace to the new life of obedience. The ordinance is the sign of an actual experience.

The perversion of the ordinance into sprinkling, and that in infancy, takes away the divinely ordained object-lesson, and substitutes mere ceremonialism for experience; for the innocent babe can have had no experience of believing and repenting, which are the necessary conditions to baptism.

The perversion of the ordinance, like most of the changes that came about in the days of apostasy from primitive faith and practise, was by gradual process. Dean Stanley, in his “Christian Institutions,” says that it is not till the third century, in church history, that “we find one case of the baptism of infants.” On the change to sprinkling, he says:—

What is the justification of this almost universal departure from the primitive usage? There may have been many reasons, some bad, some good. One, no doubt, was the superstitious feeling, already mentioned, which regarded baptism as a charm, indispensable to salvation, and which insisted on imparting it to every human being who could be touched with water, however unconscious.

As formalism crept in, men left out the experience of faith, of which baptism was but a symbol and open confession, and assigned to the water of baptism the merit that washed away sin. Then in the case of a dying person, unable to be taken to the riverside or baptistery, we can readily see that it followed naturally enough that water should be brought and poured or sprinkled upon the person, in order that any merit inherent in water so used might be imparted. And if sprinkling water in such a case could regenerate and insure salvation, why, it would be readily suggested, should not the infant be touched with the regenerating water immediately after birth, and so its future salvation be assured? First came the perversion in the doctrine and the misconception of the meaning of baptism, and then the change in the divinely appointed form. But the perversion of the form came into general acceptance much later than most people suppose. Dean Stanley, of Westminster, one of the first scholars of the Church of England, wrote:—

For the first thirteen centuries the almost universal practise of baptism was that of which we read in the New Testament, and which is the very meaning of the word baptize,—that those who were baptized were plunged, submerged, immersed into the water. That practise is still, as we have seen, continued in the Eastern churches. In the Western church it still lingers among Roman Catholics in the solitary instance of the Cathedral of Milan; among Protestants in the numerous sects of the Baptists. It lasted long into the Middle Ages. . . . But since the beginning of the seventeenth century, the practise has become exceedingly rare. With the few exceptions just mentioned, the whole of the Western churches have now substituted for the ancient bath the ceremony of letting fall a few drops of water on the face. The reason of the change is obvious. The practise of immersion, though peculiarly suitable to the Southern and Eastern countries for which it was designed, was not found seasonable in the countries of the North and West. Not by any decree of council or parliament, but by the general sentiment of Christian liberty, this remarkable change was effected. Beginning in the thirteenth century, it has gradually driven the ancient Catholic usage out of the whole of Europe. There is no one who would now wish to go back to the old practise. It followed, no doubt, the example of the apostles and of their Master. . . . But, speaking generally, the Christian civilized world has decided against it. It is a striking example of the triumph of common sense and convenience over the bondage of form and custom.—“Christian Institutions,” pages 21, 22.

It is a very satisfactory statement of the historical facts, with a most unsatisfactory apology for the perversion of a Christian ordinance. For centuries “the example of the apostles and of their Master” was followed generally in the form of the ordinance, and then in the dark days of apostasy this example was set aside. Not only have we the divine example, but the divine command,—“in the very meaning of the word,”—but all this is counted as nothing, and this famous writer and churchman calls it a triumph of common sense. Thus does human tradition embolden men to make void the word of God, and to regard as of no account the example and teaching of Jesus Christ.

However men may fortify themselves with custom and forms, the voice of Jesus still calls: “The kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.” “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”

“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.”

W. A. S.