IMMERSION by Philip Schaff

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Feb 25, 1889

IMMERSION.

By Philip Schaff

ON strictly exegetical and historical grounds, baptism must be immersion. Without prejudice, no other interpretation would ever have been given to Bible baptism. It is the most natural interpretation, and such we must always give. Immersion is natural and historical; sprinkling is artificial and an expedient for convenience's sake. All the symbolism of the text (Rom. 6:3, 4), and everywhere in the Bible, demands the going under water and coming up out of it to newness of life. Sprinkling has no suggestion of burial to sin and resurrection to holiness. In order to be true to its original meaning, and its vital relation to redemption through Christ Jesus, baptism must be immersion. Why do you wish to get rid of it? Eminent theologians have wasted their learning attempting to defend infant sprinkling. Imposition is not exposition. All the early defenders of Christianity taught that nothing but immersion was baptism, and all the Greek or oriental churches continue to immerse to this day.—Dr. Schaff.