That evening Sterling opened the discussion: "Miss Dorothy, I have listened in these discussions to what are evidently stock passages of the immersionists. But let us go deeper into the matter."
"But why do you call them stock passages of the immersionists?" asked Dorothy in surprise. "I did not get them from any immersionists. I told you I thought I saw passages in the Bible teaching immersion and you said no. I was asked to show these passages and I have been showing them."
"Very well, we will not dispute on that point, my fair debater, but I will try now to show you that it was impossible that immersion could have been intended in these Bible passages. I think I can show you that certain baptisms could not have been immersions."
"Good for you," said the father. "Now the contest is getting spicy. Show that immersion was impossible and you have won the day."
"Father, you speak as if Mr. Sterling and I were engaged in a battle. My only desire is to learn what the Bible teaches about baptism, and I shall certainly follow its command as nearly as I can, cost what itmay. Why do you say immersion was impossible, Mr. Sterling?"
"Because in the account of the baptisms on the day of Pentecost we are told that three thousand persons were baptized and that of course could not have been done by immersion in one day."
"Were they all baptized in one place?" asked Dorothy.
"Yes, all were baptized at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost after a great sermon by the Apostle Peter."
"How many persons did the baptizing?" asked Dorothy, as if she was trying to picture the scene.
"That is not stated."
"Let us have the passage, Sterling. My curiosity is excited," said Mr. Page.
Sterling read from Acts 2:41: "Then they that gladly received his Word were baptized and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls."
Dorothy read the verse over carefully and then remarked: "Why, that doesn't say they were all baptized on the same day. Notice it says there were added to them on the same day about three thousand. Why may not some of the number have been baptized before that and during Christ's life?"
"That is a fact," said the father, looking over the passage. "The verse does not say that they were all baptized that day; but do you suppose, Sterling, that it would have taken a great deal longer to immerse them than it would to have sprinkled them? Not ifthe sprinkling ceremony that I saw was a sample of the way the three thousand were baptized. Do you not have a ceremony connected with sprinkling just as they have one connected with immersion?"
"Oh, yes, there is always a little ceremony connected with the sprinkling."
"Who did the baptizing that day?" asked Dorothy.
"Good for you, daughter," said the father. "That is a stunner. One man would have had quite a job on his hands whether he sprinkled or dipped that host of folks. But with several baptizers it was a different proposition."
"Oh, father, why do you speak so jokingly about these Bible matters?"
"You are right, Dorothy. Forgive me. I always make a muss of it when I tackle religion. I'd better call in my tongue before I get into trouble."
"I repeat my question," said Dorothy: "Who did the baptizing on that day?"
"I guess that Peter, one of the apostles, did it."
"Oh, yes," said Dorothy, "there were twelve apostles, were there not? And if they all took part in the baptizing, that would have made it much easier. And I notice back here in the fifteenth verse of the preceding chapter it says there were one hundred and twenty disciples there when Peter preached his sermon and that three thousand were converted."
"Hello," said the father with a smile, "you keep on and you will get more than enough people to baptize two or three times three thousand persons."
"You don't imagine," said Sterling with a smile,"that the one hundred and twenty disciples all took a hand in putting the three thousand under water? That would have been a spectacle indeed."
"I think it would have been a spectacle no matter how it was done," said Dorothy.
"Another thing," said Sterling: "Supposing that they had enough administrators for the ordinance that day, where could they have performed the baptisms? Do you think they all marched off to the river Jordan? Of course not. But they did not need to go off anywhere in order to be sprinkled. Besides, what about a change of clothing for the three thousand persons if they were all put under water? Remember most of them—according to the account—were strangers from different countries visiting Jerusalem."
"I hope," said Dorothy, "that they had not come from their different countries without some change of clothing."
"Isn't it true," asked the brother, "that over in these Eastern lands, with their loose garments and their sunny climate, they could have arranged for a dipping if they had so desired it? But that other point mentioned by Mr. Sterling has not been answered."
"What is that?" asked Dorothy.
"He asked where in Jerusalem could so many have been baptized?"
"Does it say they were baptized in Jerusalem?" asked Dorothy.
"No, it does not say so, but do you think they went off to a river?" asked Sterling.
"The passage does not state. But are you sure there were not places in Jerusalem where they could have been immersed?" asked Dorothy.
"Wait," said the brother, "let me get an encyclopedia." He went to the shelf and was soon examining the article on Jerusalem. "Here is a long article on Jerusalem," he said, running his eye down the pages. "Hello, here is something about its water facilities. Here is a reference from Strabo in these words 'Jerusalem a rocky, well-enclosed fortress; within, well watered; without, wholly dry'."
"Now you are making discoveries, son," said Mr. Page. "Give us some more about the water."
"Here is another statement. Dr. Robinson states there were six immense public pools in the city, the largest being five hundred and ninety-two feet long and two hundred and seventy-five feet broad."
"That is enough, son," exclaimed the father. "Sterling, history seems on the side of the immersionists there. I think that five hundred and ninety-two foot pool could have taken care of the whole three thousand."
"I think the important question," said the brother, "is the meaning of the Greek word originally used for baptism. In other words, does the word baptize mean to sprinkle or to immerse? When the people in Christ's day used the word, what did they mean by it—sprinkle or immerse?"
"That hits the target exactly," said the father. "What does the word baptize mean? Let's see, I think you said that the Bible was written in Greek."
"The New Testament was," said Sterling.
"The question is, then, what word did the people use in Christ's day in talking about a baptism? When Christ told the people to be baptized, what word did he use and what did that word mean? Did the Greek word which he used for baptism mean for the people in that day 'immerse' or 'sprinkle'? When they heard the word from him, did they think of immersion or of sprinkling?"
"'Baptizo', or baptize, is the word which he used," said Sterling.
"But baptize is our English word that we use. What was the Greek word which Christ used and which meant baptism?" asked Roland.
"That is the point," said Sterling. "'Baptizo' is the Greek word, and the people who translated our English from the Greek Bible did not translate the Greek word 'baptizo' into any English word, but simply put the Greek word 'baptizo' or baptize into our language as it was without translating it. You see, if they had translated it 'immerse', that would have made the Presbyterians mad, and if they had translated it 'sprinkle' that would have made others mad, and so they did not translate it at all, but simply put the Greek word 'baptizo' in the English Bible, leaving each person to translate it as he thought proper."
"But why did they not translate it?" said Dorothy, as if vexed by their neglect. "It must mean something, and if they translated the other words, why did they not translate this word right, no matter who might have liked it?"
"They ought to have done so," said Sterling, "and they ought to have put the English word 'sprinkle' instead of the Greek word 'baptizo'."
"Oh, I see," said the father. "I guess the Presbyterians, when they came to translate the word into English, would put it 'sprinkle', and those who believed in dipping would translate it 'dipping'."
"That's it exactly," said Sterling. "The translators, in order not to offend the different denominations, agreed not to translate the word at all, but simply to put the Greek word 'baptizo' in the English Bible and let each one translate it for himself as he thought proper."
"Can't we find out what that Greek word 'baptizo' means?" asked Dorothy.
"Certainly, here is the Greek scholar," said Mr. Page turning to his son. "Tell us, Roland, what did the Greeks understand by that word 'baptizo' when they used it?"
"I must get my Greek lexicon for that." And upstairs he hurried and soon returned with Liddell and Scott's Greek and English Lexicon. He turned to the word "baptizo" and read its meaning as follows: "To dip repeatedly, to dip under."
"What is that?" exclaimed the father, almost bouncing out of his chair, "'to dip under'?"
"Here it is on page 130."
"It seems to me," said the father, "that would settle it. If the Greek word that Christ used meant to dip under, what right has anyone to say that baptism is to be done by sprinkling?"
"What do you do with a passage like this in 1 Cor. 10:2?" said Mr. Sterling—"'were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.' They were all baptized, but do you see any immersion in that? It refers, you know, to the time when the Israelites passed through the sea dry shod with a cloud over them. They were baptized, but they were surely not immersed, for they would have been drowned."
"I did not know of such an event," said Dorothy. "What do you mean by saying that they went through the sea dry shod?"
"God banked up the waters on both sides and let them walk through untouched by the water."
"Did you say the waters were banked on both sides of them and that a cloud covered them?"
"Yes."
"Isn't that a picture of immersion? The ground was under them, the water on both sides and the cloud covered them. It was much more like an immersion than a sprinkling."
"Hold on," said Sterling. "The cloud was not over them, but back of them. The cloud was always either before or behind them, but never over them; consequently they were not covered up and the water did not even touch them—unless perhaps they were sprinkled by the spray from the wall of waters."
"Let me see the passage," said Dorothy. She turned to Exodus 14:21. "But look!" she exclaimed, "it reads, 'and the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea'."
"You don't think, Miss Dorothy, that they actuallyplunged into the middle of the sea?" asked Sterling with a smile.
"Of course not, Mr. Sterling; and yet their position in that sea gave the idea to the writer of their being in the midst of the sea. To his mind it looked as if they were covered or buried in the sea, and that is immersion. The Old Testament writer calls it a baptism and the Old Testament historian speaks of them as being in the midst of the sea. Which does that look more like—sprinkling or immersion?"
Sterling was getting excited. It seemed to him that Dorothy was moving further and further away from him, and he imagined he saw a chasm opening between her views and his own. But he braced himself for the struggle. To him the mode of baptism was by no means a life and death matter, but Dorothy seemed to recoil from the practice of sprinkling. Sterling cheered himself with the thought that he had certain passages to show her that would turn the tide. He said to her with a confident ring in his voice:
"Miss Dorothy, I have an arrow here from the Bible quiver which I think will give the death blow to the immersion theory and prove beyond the glimmer of a doubt that pouring is the scriptural mode of baptism."
"I thought you believed in sprinkling; why do you say 'pouring'?"
"We make no distinction between sprinkling and pouring. They are practically the same thing. I want now to show you a statement from Christ himself indicating that he believed that pouring was the mode of baptism."
"Do let us have it," said Dorothy.
"In the first chapter of Acts Christ said to the apostles: 'Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.' The day of Pentecost, which came not many days hence, was the day which he was talking about. He tells them they would be baptized on that day with the Holy Ghost, and I can show you that this baptism was done by pouring."
"Hold a bit," said the father. "Let me see if I get that point. You say Christ promised that the apostles would be baptized on a certain day with the Holy Ghost, and that when this promised baptism came to pass it came not by immersion, but by pouring. Is that your claim?"
"You have it exactly correct."
"All right, and now for your proof."
"Ten days after Christ ascended to Heaven this baptism of the Spirit came. The disciples were in an upper room and were waiting for this baptism of the Spirit that had been promised, when suddenly the Holy Spirit came. But how did it come and in what way were they baptized? It was poured on them. Don't forget that. When the outsiders, bewildered at the strange manifestation, asked what it meant, Peter stood up and explained it by saying: 'This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel.' In other words, Peter said it was what Joel the prophet long ago had prophesied would come to pass. And what did Joel say would happen? Listen to Peter: 'And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, that I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh.'"
"Hello, daughter, he has the dots on you there. The verse declares for pouring."
"Certainly," exclaimed Sterling. "He does not use the word immerse, but says 'I will pour out of my Spirit'. That was the form that the baptism took—pouring—and Peter was quoting the prophecy to explain the baptism. And look here in the thirty-third verse; he continues in the same strain by saying 'having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth, this which ye now see and hear."
"Let me see that passage," said Dorothy. She looked it over intently and in a few moments said: "Mr. Sterling, notice the whole account. It doesn't read as if the Spirit was poured on them as you would pour a little water on a person in baptism. A previous verse reads: 'Suddenly there came a sound from Heaven as of a rushing mighty wind and it filled all the house where they were sitting.' And in the fourth verse it reads: 'And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost.' Think of that, Mr. Sterling. The Holy Spirit came not in a few drops by pouring, but came so abundantly that it filled the house and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit. I guess if you were to pour water on a person as the Spirit came upon these persons the person would be drowned. The disciples were surrounded by the Spirit, and that looks like immersion rather than like pouring."
"But not too fast," said Sterling. "It does not say that the Holy Spirit filled the house. It speaks of the wind, but it does not say even the wind filled thehouse, but simply a sound as of a wind. It was therefore only a sound that filled the house, and sound could not fill the house because sound has no existence except in the ears of those who hear it. Where, then, is your immersion? You say they were immersed in sound that day, and you call that baptism of the Spirit?"
"Mr. Sterling," said Dorothy in surprise, "you amaze me. The writer must mean that the Spirit filled the house. I saw in my reading this week a foot note that the wind in Scripture often symbolizes the Spirit."
"Certainly," spoke up the brother. "Pneumain Greek means both 'spirit' and 'wind'."
"Is that so?" exclaimed Dorothy eagerly. "That makes it plain. It was the wind that filled the room and they knew it by sound. They heard this sound like a wind and it filled all the house—notice, 'all the house'—and this wind symbolized the Spirit and it was called the baptism of the Spirit, and it certainly looked more like an immersion than a pouring. Why, Mr. Sterling, I think it would lose all its impressiveness if you make it simply the coming of a few drops of the Spirit on them."
"Just listen to that," said the father with a laugh. "She is actually trying to turn your guns on you, Sterling, and to make this verse prove immersion rather than pouring."
"I note one striking fact," said Sterling, "and do not forget it. The passage speaks of pouring, and I do not see the word immersion."
"But I see the picture of immersion," said Dorothy."The important fact about that scene seems to me to be the abundant way in which the Spirit came. It was a rushing, in fact, a mighty wind. It filled all the house. Suppose some people were in a room and water was poured on them in such a deluge that the room was filled with the water. Wouldn't that look like an immersion rather than like pouring?"
"No," said Sterling; "you don't immerse people by pouring water on them and covering them up. You don't put the water around them, but you put them in the water. You must put them in the water to have an immersion, but nothing like that was done on that day. Besides, in an immersion you not only put the person in the water, but you bring him up again out of the water to show a resurrection as is claimed. There was nothing like this on the day of Pentecost in the baptism of the Spirit. The disciples were not plunged into the Spirit and they were not taken immediately up out of the Spirit again. If you should use water in baptizing people as the Spirit was used that day, then you must pour water on the candidate until he is covered up, and then instead of taking the candidate immediately up out of the water you must let him remain submerged."
"Sterling," said Mr. Page, "you are getting in some good licks. I don't see that that baptism that day was exactly like either pouring or immersion. It was like an immersion in that they were surrounded by the Spirit, but not like it in any other respect; and it was like a pouring because it came down on them."
"Why, Mr. Page," exclaimed Sterling, "it is actuallycalled a 'pouring'. The word 'pour' is used. Joel prophesied that the Spirit would be poured out on them. How could you wish it plainer than that? And it was called a baptism of the Spirit."
"Daughter, what have you to say to that?"
"But let me add another word," interrupted Sterling. "People are mistaken in saying that baptism was intended to be a picture of a burial and a resurrection. The real truth intended to be taught in baptism is that the power and grace comes from above, comes down on the person and has its origin in Heaven, and I think the idea of divine grace coming down from above is a higher truth than the idea of something that the person himself experiences."
"I think the truth pictured in immersion is much greater," said Dorothy. "It is not only the idea that the person has died to his old life and risen to a new life, but it also points to Christ's death and resurrection and puts the two together and says that, as Christ died and was raised, even so the Christian must have the same experience. I don't see how you can have a more glorious truth than that. Your idea in pouring is that grace comes on the person and comes in a few drops, but in immersion you have not merely grace come down, but the giver of grace, Christ himself come down—in fact, come down to death and rising again. Oh, I think it is a wonderful double picture showing Christ and the converted soul bound together in these experiences of death and resurrection. Besides, Mr. Sterling, where does the Bible say that baptism was intended to show forth that truth about grace coming from above?"
"I don't know that it says so in express terms, but the ceremony of pouring indicates it and the descent of the Spirit shows it."
"Of course the Spirit when he first came had to come down," said Dorothy. "If Christ promised to send the Spirit from Heaven to baptize the disciples, of course the Spirit had to come down before he could surround them, but it does not seem to have been the fact of his coming down that was the impressive fact that day, but the overwhelming way in which the Spirit came and surrounded them. That is what the writer used a good many words to describe."
"You will notice," said the father, "that it says that not only was the house filled, but the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit."
"Yes," said Dorothy, "it says that the wind filled the house and the disciples were filled with the Spirit. The idea seems to be that the Spirit came so abundantly that day that he not only filled all the house, but filled the disciples themselves. That was the great fact, the overwhelming abundance of the Spirit."
"I still remind you that Peter calls it pouring," said Sterling.
"Dorothy, he has not surrendered, you see; his guns are still firing," said the father with a smile.
"Mr. Sterling," said Dorothy, "but your pouring is not like the pouring that day. When you pour the water in your baptism, does it come down with a rushand fill the house? The passage does not teach your form of baptism, because you do not imitate it."
"Immersionists do not imitate, in all respects, the baptism of Christ," said Sterling, "for they do not all baptize in a river as he was."
"Neither did the apostles when they baptized in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost," said Dorothy. "We have seen that they probably baptized in some of the immense pools in the city. And look here," examining the passage about which they had been arguing, "isn't this interesting? Here in the margin of the passage which we have been discussing are the words 'in the Spirit' as if he had promised to baptize them in the Spirit."
"What is that?" exclaimed the father.
"Here where Christ promised that he would not many days hence baptize them with the Holy Spirit it reads on the margin 'in the Holy Spirit', and a baptism 'in' the Spirit was surely by immersion."
"I guess," said the brother, "that the Greek word translated 'in' there on the margin is the word 'en'. Let's see your Greek Testament, Mr. Sterling." He examined it and found that the original word was "en."
"It is 'en' and it means 'in', and the right reading of that passage is 'ye shall be baptized in the Holy Ghost'. Here, look at this. In this Revised Version it reads just that way. If you had read it that way at first in your King James' Version of the Bible it might have saved you all this argument."
"You must remember, Mr. Sterling," said Dorothy,"that I did not bring this passage up to prove immersion, but you brought it up to prove pouring. You spoke very positively about it, but I think you found that if it represented the coming down of water it was like a cloudburst more than anything else."
Sterling was compelled to admit to himself that the Pentecostal baptism was more a picture of immersion than of pouring. He turned the conversation now into another line.
"Even granting," he said, "that immersion is the baptism practiced in New Testament times, it has never seemed to me to be such a prodigiously important matter."
"Oh, Mr. Sterling," said Dorothy with some impatience, "I can't understand such a remark. What do you mean by the word important? If Christ was immersed and commanded it of his followers; if the early Christians were all immersed, and immersion, as Paul indicates, was selected as an outward picture of the spiritual baptism that takes place in conversion, then how can you say it is not important?"
"The fact is, Miss Dorothy, I have never made an exhaustive study of the matter of baptism. I never thought Christ laid any stress upon form, but rather upon the condition of the heart."
"If it is simply a matter of the heart, why baptize at all? Maybe the whole matter is unimportant," said Dorothy. "Would your church like to give up baptism altogether?"
"By no means."
"Would your church accept any kind of baptism except sprinkling or pouring?"
"No, I am sure it would not."
The matter had reached a puzzling stage for Sterling. The question stared him in the face as to whether he had been Scripturally baptized. In infancy he had been sprinkled, but he had to confess to himself that the Bible teaching seemed to lean towards immersion. In fact, in the recent investigation and discussions he had hardly been able to see anything else but immersion.
He did not return to his office that afternoon, but spent the time at his home searching through the Bible. The discussions at the Page's had filled his mind with passages about immersion, but upon later reflection he felt sure that the trend of Scripture pointed strongly to sprinkling and pouring, and with this thought in mind he turned to his Bible study.
In their discussion on the next morning Dorothy remarked: "Mr. Sterling, let me tell you what I did. I looked up the passages that had the word 'baptize' in them and in each case I put the word 'sprinkle' in the place of the word 'baptize' and it surely made curious reading."
"Good for you, daughter," said Mr. Page. "That was an ingenious procedure. Let us have the passages to see how they sound. It ought to be a perfectly fair method, because if baptize means to sprinkle then you ought to be able everywhere to put the word 'sprinkle' for the word 'baptize' and it would read all right. That's a fine idea, and now for the passages."
Dorothy began with the account of Christ's baptism: "'Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John to be sprinkled of him'."
"That sounds all right," said Sterling.
"Here is the next one," said Dorothy: "'I have a sprinkling to be sprinkled with and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!' Just imagine Christ speaking of his sufferings in that way, Mr. Sterling. His sufferings were not a sprinkling. But here is another: 'And John also was sprinkling at Aenon near Salem because there was much water there.'
"Again: 'John truly sprinkled with water, but ye shall be sprinkled with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.'"
"That doesn't sound natural," said the father, "to be sprinkled with the Holy Ghost. That would have been a rather light affair."
"Mr. Sterling," said Dorothy, "you remember you said the baptism on the day of Pentecost was by pouring. Suppose you put the word 'pour' in this passage and read it, 'John truly poured with water, but ye shall be poured with the Holy Ghost not many days hence'. You could not speak of anybody being poured. You could speak of water or the Spirit being poured, but not of a person being poured. It would not be proper to say you shall be poured with anything. Something could be poured upon you, but you could not be poured with something. That is another reason why the baptism of the Spirit at Pentecost could not have had reference to pouring, because from this passage, you see, it would not make sense to put the word 'pour' in it. And besides, Mr. Sterling, I think you are uncertain whether baptism is by pouring or sprinkling."
"Give us another passage," said the father; "they are quite interesting."
Dorothy continued: "'And they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch and he sprinkled him."
"Let us have another passage," said the father.
Dorothy continued: "'Therefore we are buried with him by sprinkling into death.'"
"Oh, my," said Mr. Page, bursting into a laugh, "where did you ever see anyone buried by sprinkling a few drops of earth upon him? Say, Friend Sterling, how did this idea of sprinkling get into so many churches? It certainly does not seem to have a single leg to stand upon."
"I can give you some passages where the word sprinkle would sound natural; for example this passage: 'Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel unto every creature, and he that believeth and is sprinkled shall be saved.' That sounds just as natural as if it read 'he that believeth and is immersed shall be saved'."
"Maybe so," said Mr. Page, "but it sounds just a little limp to me. Besides, you could hardly put the word 'pour' in that passage. If you want to make a real point you must give some passage where the word 'sprinkle' would sound natural and the word 'immerse' would seem out of place."
"Yes," spoke up Dorothy. "Can you give us such a passage, Mr. Sterling?"
"I have such a passage and it will show that immersion could not have been the mode of baptism."
"Out with it," said Mr. Page.
"It is the words spoken to Saul. It reads: 'Arise and be baptized.' Now that baptism could not have been an immersion. Saul was evidently seated and he was told to arise or to stand up. What was he to stand up for? To be sprinkled, of course. You would notask a man who was seated to stand up to be immersed."
"He would have to stand up before he could be immersed," said Dorothy. "Why could it not read, 'Arise and be immersed'? Maybe they went off to be immersed. And notice the first part of the verse. It reads: 'Now why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.' Those first words 'why tarriest thou' explain the other part. In the first place, he had to arise; that is, to get up in order that he might go off to some place where he could be immersed. In the next place, he tells him not to tarry, not to wait, but to arise and be baptized."
"Good for you, daughter. It does look as if you were telling him not to delay his baptism, but to get up and attend to it."
There was a lull in the conversation for a moment, and then the father asked: "What kind of baptism did they have in the churches just after the apostles died? Don't we find anything in history about the kind of baptism that was practiced?"
Dorothy spoke up promptly: "I was reading in the library yesterday in some of the encyclopedias about baptism and I copied something about that very point you mentioned. Let me get it."
She hurried to her room, brought the book and read as follows: "'Not less than sixty of the ancient baptisteries are found in Italy alone, of which seven belong to the fourth century, four to the fifth, eleven to the sixth and fourteen probably to the seventh.' Thenafter describing these baptizing pools found in these ancient church buildings the writer continues: 'Now baptisteries such as described above are found in all parts of ancient Christendom, and their presence makes it impossible to doubt the form of baptism in the patristric and medieval churches. Such structures were plainly intended for immersion. Their size and form and arrangement entirely preclude the idea of their use for sprinkling or pouring.'"
"That is a great point. What were those baptizing pools doing there in the churches if they were not for immersion? If the churches in the fourth century baptized by immersion, it surely must have been because that mode had been handed down to them from the beginning."
"There is one argument against immersion that I have not mentioned," said Sterling.
"Exactly," said the father with a smile. "You are going now to bring out your Imperial Guards. You've been holding them back for the last assault, I suppose. All right, trot them out, Sterling."
"Oh, father, what awful figures you use about these Bible matters."
"That's right, daughter, call me down. I will jump the traces every now and then, and I beg pardon. And now, Sterling, what is that argument against immersion that you have not mentioned?"
"It is this: Immersion cannot be right, for it would make infant baptism impossible."
"Infant baptism," exclaimed Dorothy with a verypuzzled look. "You don't mean that you baptize infants?"
"Certainly."
"Why do you baptize infants?" asked Dorothy, with an expression almost of horror on her face.
"It is one of the sacred ordinances of the church and is really one of the most beautiful and effective."
"Do you mean little children just two or three years old?" asked Dorothy.
"Yes, indeed, and often only a few weeks old. Where have you been that you have never heard of infant baptism?"
"I never heard of it. You know I have been to church very little in my life and have known almost nothing about church matters and have had no one to tell me. I am very sorry it has been so, for I feel I have missed a great deal. But, Mr. Sterling, I do not remember seeing anything in the Bible about sprinkling infants. I must have overlooked it."
"You must have overlooked it, for it is taught very plainly."
"Infant baptism?" she said in a questioning, puzzled tone. "Mr. Sterling, the little infants do not know what you are doing to them. I thought the baptism of a person was a picture of what had already taken place in that person. It looks strange to baptize an infant, and besides I should think you would drown the little things to put them under the water."
"Ha, ha," exclaimed Mr. Sterling with a laugh. "Not too fast. We do not put them under the water; we sprinkle them."
"Of course. I ought to have known that, for you baptize by sprinkling. But do tell me some more about it. Why do you do it, Mr. Sterling?"
"It is one of the most sacred ordinances of the church. I wish you could witness the ceremony. But I see we will not have the time to go into the subject as we ought. It is a great subject, and if you do not object we will take it up tomorrow night. I hear no objection and so the motion is unanimously adopted."
Sterling felt as if the battle had been going against him so far as winning Dorothy was concerned. But he did not despair. He girded himself afresh for his task. He decided, however, that instead of attempting single-handed to defend the doctrine of infant baptism, he would seek reinforcements and call in his pastor, Dr. Vincent.
The Doctor was regarded as an encyclopedia of Presbyterian lore. Sterling visited him and told him that Dorothy Page, the daughter of his friend and neighbor, had recently been converted and was concerned about the subject of baptism, and that she was strongly turning towards immersion. "I am dreading, Doctor," said Sterling, "that if she insists on immersion she will be drawn into the Baptist church and we would all regard that as a disaster."
"Did you mention infant baptism to her?" inquired the Doctor. "You know the Baptists would deny to infants this rite and would deny to parents the privilege of such dedication of their children in baptism. That fact ought to keep her from the Baptist heresy, and if that fails to save her from it then surely theirdoctrine of close communion will settle the business with her."
"We are to take up the subject of infant baptism tonight. We began it last night, but were interrupted before we got fairly launched upon the discussion, and yet not before Miss Dorothy had made some remark about infant baptism showing she thought it a curious practice. I am sure, Doctor, you could set her right."
"I will come if you think I can be of service," he said, for he saw an anxiety on Sterling's face that he could not understand.
That evening Sterling and the old Doctor arrived. The Doctor was acquainted with all the Pages except Dorothy. After a preliminary skirmish in the conversation Dorothy remarked:
"It is very kind in Mr. Sterling to be trying to instruct me in these church matters, for I feel very ignorant. He and I have not agreed on all points, but the discussion has helped me greatly."
"I think Miss Dorothy is afraid to take me as her guide as she is trying to climb these heights of Bible truths," said Sterling with a faint smile, "and I have brought over a more skilled and experienced leader."
"Maybe she will not endorse your selection," said the Doctor with a smile at Sterling.
"I see you are making me out as being not only hard to please, but also very ungrateful to my friends. You will find me a very interested and appreciative listener, Doctor, to anything you may be kind enough to say to me."
"We are to talk about infant baptism tonight, and, Doctor, if you are willing, I suggest that you give the reasons for this practice," said Sterling.
"You are laying out quite a program for me. Iwill attempt, however, to bring it within brief compass. The first fact I would mention is Christ's treatment of the little children."
"Did he baptize them?" broke in Dorothy.
"Hold on, daughter," said the father. "You open up your artilleries too soon. The Doctor was merely making a skirmish."
"Pardon me, Doctor Vincent. I ought not to have broken into your remarks so abruptly, and yet I am sure you understand that I ask because I am deeply interested."
"Break in at any time and I shall be glad."
She repeated her question: "Did Christ baptize the little children?"
"We are not told expressly that he did, but we read in Matthew 19:13 that when the little ones were brought to him the disciples sought to prevent it."
"Just as a good many people would do today," said Sterling.
"Yes," continued the Doctor, "but Christ said, 'Suffer little children and forbid them not to come unto me, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven'."
"Maybe they were bringing the little children to him for him to baptize them," said the father. "What about that, Doctor? Doesn't it tell what they brought the children for?"
Dorothy had turned to the passage and remarked: "Yes, it tells what they brought the children for. They brought little children to Christ that he might put his hands on them and pray. There is nothing there about baptism. It looks plain that theydid not bring them to be baptized, because it simply says 'to put his hands on them and pray'."
"At any rate," said the Doctor, "it showed Christ's tenderness for little children. The point is this: He said 'of such is the Kingdom of Heaven'. Think of that. It is a remarkable statement about the little ones."
"What did he mean by the words 'of such is the Kingdom of Heaven', and what have they to do, Doctor, with baptism?"
"A great deal, my daughter. They mean that the little child has the heavenly nature."
"I think that is a beautiful idea, but what has that to do with the baptism of infants?"
"Why, this: If anybody is entitled to baptism, surely a little child with its heavenly nature is. We may make mistakes in baptizing old persons who claim the right of baptism, but never can we be mistaken in the case of a little child."
"I can understand about the beautiful nature of a child before sin has taken hold of its will," said Dorothy, "but why that little helpless one should be baptized I cannot understand."
"I thought you were deciding all these questions by the Bible," said the father. "What does the Book say about it, Doctor? Do you baptize them because you think it is appropriate to baptize the sweet little ones or because you think the Bible commands it?"
"It is from the Bible alone that we get the authority."
"Where is it commanded in the Bible, Doctor?" asked Dorothy.
"It is not definitely commanded, but it is implied in many ways. We baptize grown people who profess to be born of the Spirit of God and to be regenerated by his grace. How much more, therefore, should we baptize an infant who does not need to be regenerated, because, according to Christ's own words, it possesses the heavenly nature. It is often claimed by our opponents that infants must not be baptized because faith and repentance—in other words, regeneration—must come before baptism. All right, I answer; the infant possesses those necessary qualifications for baptism. It does not need regeneration. It already, according to Christ's own words, possesses the heavenly nature and needs not to go through the process of regeneration. In another place Christ said: 'Unless ye become converted and become as a little child ye cannot see the Kingdom.' There you see conversion is compared to the condition of the child nature. Christ said a person desiring conversion must become like a little child. Now we know that a converted person is entitled to and must receive baptism. Why, then, could not a child be baptized?"
"Doctor Vincent," said Dorothy, "it seems to me that the whole matter hinges on the question as to who was commanded in the Bible to be baptized. Does Christ say that all persons having the heavenly or child-like nature must be baptized? If so, why did he not baptize the little ones the day they were broughtto him? It looks as if the disciples did not know anything about baptizing the little ones."
"No, they seemed to know very little about Christ's attitude towards children."
"Let me ask this question, Doctor," said Dorothy. "You spoke of the heavenly nature of the infant. When an infant is baptized and grows up, does the baptism cause the heavenly nature to stay with the child?"
"Not necessarily."
"What good, then, does the baptism do? Do you mean that a baptized infant might grow up to be a fearful villain?"
"Yes, it is possible."
"Well, do the baptized infants have a less tendency to sin than the unbaptized infants?"
"No. I can't say that the baptism itself has any effect on the infant. Neither does it have any effect on the grown person that is baptized and disgraces his baptism received in later life."
"But is there not this difference, that in the case of grown people you baptize only those who desire baptism, but in the case of infants you do not make such distinction?"
"It seems to me," said the father, "that the important question is, who in the Bible are commanded to be baptized? Does the Bible say that infants must be baptized or not?"
"No," replied the Doctor, "it does not say that."
"Well, who are entitled to baptism?"
"Let me get my concordance," said Dorothy, risingfrom her seat, "and look at the passages about baptism so as to see who are commanded to be baptized."
She began with the aid of the concordance to pick out the passages having the word "baptize" in them. She read: "'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.'"
"Hello!" said the father. "Who said that?"
"Those are the words of Christ," said Doctor Vincent.
"That looks as if a person had to believe before he could be baptized. But give us another one, daughter."
"Here is one: 'When they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized both men and women.'"
"There it is again," exclaimed the father, "believing coming before baptizing."
"And notice," said Dorothy, "it says they were baptized 'both men and women', but it does not say 'and children'. But here is another: 'See, here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized? And he said, if thou believest with all thy heart thou mayst be baptized.'"
"There it is again," spoke up the father. "If he believed then he could be baptized. Evidently that writer considered believing essential to baptism."
Dorothy read on: "'Many of the Corinthians hearing believed and were baptized.' Isn't it strange? Every time it is those that believed that were baptized. Here is another: 'Then Simon himself believed also, and when he was baptized he continuedwith Philip.' And again: 'Then they that gladly received his Word were baptized.' They do not use the word 'believe' in that passage, but the words 'gladly received his Word', and these are practically the same; they not only heard his Word, but received it, and received it gladly."
"Oh, they were genuinely converted," said the Doctor. "There can be no doubt about that. It occurred on the day of Pentecost and those converts continued in the apostles' doctrine and bore good fruit."
"You see, Doctor," said Dorothy, "that those who were baptized in New Testament times first believed. You say that infants ought to be baptized because they have the heavenly and converted nature; but the Bible does not say that. Those who were baptized first believed. Now an infant cannot believe. I do not feel, Doctor, that I know a hundredth part as much of the Bible as you know, but don't you think that Christ meant by those words about little children and the Kingdom of Heaven that they must cultivate the qualities of a little child and that the child nature was a type of the heavenly nature? He did not connect this with baptism."
"Did you know that whole families were baptized?" asked the Doctor. "Many times baptisms were administered in homes not simply on those who believed, but on the whole family, young and old."
"But are you sure, Doctor, that there were infants in those families?"
"Not absolutely sure, but almost; at any rate theburden of proof is on those who deny that infants were in any of those families."
"Show us some of the accounts of family baptisms," said the father. "It does look a little curious, daughter."
They turned first to Acts 16:13-15: "'And a certain woman, named Lydia, a seller of purple of the city of Thyatira, which worshiped God, heard us, whose heart the Lord opened that she attended unto the things that were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized and her household she besought us, saying.'"
"How do you know there were any infants in her household? It does not even say she was married," said Dorothy. "She was a seller of purple and maybe she was an unmarried woman working for her living. At any rate I do not see that you can prove that she had any infants in her household."
"It looks to me," said the father, "as if that woman was a working woman and as if her household were her fellow-workers, and that there were probably no infants among them."
"Here is another passage," said the Doctor, "in 1 Corinthians 1:16: 'And I baptized also the household of Stephanus.' Will you affirm there were no infants there? How many households do you think I could baptize without hitting upon an infant? Why do you exclude infants?"
The brother was busy looking through the concordance to see if he could find out something more about this Stephanus and his household, and in a few moments he exclaimed: "Here is some light on the household of Stephanus in 1 Corinthians 15:15. It reads: 'Ye know the house of Stephanus.' There you have it again—'the house of Stephanus'. That must have been an interesting house: 'Ye know the house of Stephanus, that it is the first fruits of Achaia and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints.'"
"You see, Doctor," said Dorothy, "it seems that that household were intelligent people and acted for themselves, and therefore were not infants. Just notice what it says—that the house of Stephanus were 'the first fruits of Achaia'. What does that mean—'the first fruits'?"
"Why, the first fruits are the first grain that is gathered in a harvest."
"Oh, I see. Then the members of Stephanus' household were the first ones to accept Christianity in Achaia, and if they accepted Christianity of course they were not infants."
"But it may have meant that they were the first ones in Achaia to be baptized—'the first fruits' in that sense—and if so, there could have been infants in the house."
"But notice what comes in the next verse: 'And that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints.' You don't think, Doctor, he would speak of infants addicting themselves to the ministry of the saints, do you?"
"It looks as if you will have to surrender on that point, gentlemen," said Mr. Page. "I am a novice inBible teaching, and yet it does seem plain that that household were intelligent folks—the first to be converted in Ach——"
"Achaia," spoke up Dr. Vincent.
"Thanks for the word, the first fruits of Achaia, and they also 'addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints'. I don't think you had better look for any young ones in that bunch."
"I give you another household," said the Doctor. "It is in Acts 16:33. It is in the story of Paul and Silas' experience in prison and the conversion of the jailer at midnight. It reads: 'He took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes and was baptized, he and all his straightway.' Now, my fair debater, I suppose you will declare in most solemn tones that there were no infants in the jailer's family. May I ask for your verdict on that point?"
"Look here," said Dorothy, who was examining the passage: "It says plainly that all of them 'did believe'."
"Stop, daughter," said the father. "You are joking about that."
"Listen to the next verse," she said: "'And when he had brought them into his house he set meat before them and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house."
"Take down your flag, gentlemen," exclaimed the father impulsively. "Your guns are silenced. The jailer believed in God with 'all his house'. Well, I guess that means that all his house believed with him, and they must have been very sprightly infants andquite overgrown to have joined their father in that believing."
"It says they all rejoiced also," said Dorothy. "And look at the verse preceding: 'And they spake the Word of the Lord to all that were in the house.' That came before they were all baptized. They 'spake the Word to all'. Notice the 'all', to all that were in the house. I guess that 'all' that were in the house must have been old enough to understand his preaching if he spoke the Word to all of them. Doctor," she asked, "do you think you can find an infant in that attentive, believing, rejoicing household?"
"Read us about another household baptism," as she noted that the Doctor seemed to be closing the Bible.
"This completes the list of household baptisms. I think they are sufficient."
"But, Doctor, not one of these households are said to have had children in them, and if they did have children the children must have been old enough to believe, because it is stated in the case of every one of them that those that were baptized believed or received the word that was spoken. They were all old enough to hear, to understand and to believe the Word."
"From all the passages which I have heard in these discussions," said the father, "one thing seems to stand out very plainly about baptism, and that is that in the Bible times faith had to come before baptism."
"If this is so," said Dorothy, "then infant baptism is unscriptural, because it is a baptism without faith. Infants can not exercise faith."
"Daughter," said the Doctor, "you are mistaken. I can show you that in the case of every infant baptism there is always a faith that precedes the baptism."
"What do you mean, Doctor?" asked Dorothy in great perplexity.
At this moment the telephone bell rang and Dorothy was called to speak to a girl friend, who extended to her an invitation for a carriage ride on the next afternoon. In a few moments the conversation was resumed.