The Obligation of Immersion

“It is well known that Baptists not only reject infant baptism as an unauthorized innovation, but also reject (though with far less concern) the modern substitution of sprinkling, for the entire immersion of the body, originally practiced in the administration of baptism; and except in the case of the sick, universally observed throughout Christendom for thirteen hundred years. Nor do they act without reason. Indeed they cannot do otherwise, with all the evidence before them. For the obligation of immersion, as identified with baptism itself, and essential to its specific spiritual purpose, they urge the admitted signification of the word ‘baptizo’; the necessity of adhering to the ordinary meaning of words in the interpretation of laws; the places where the rite was originally performed; the phraseology employed in describing the administration; the undeniable example of Christ himself; and the metaphorical allusions of the sacred writers when explaining the spiritual import of baptism; all which, they say, confirm the meaning to be immersion, and necessarily exclude every other. No valid objections have ever been brought forward against the combined force of this evidence…The Baptists (with the exception of the Mennonites…) regard it as one part of their mission to uphold, and as far as possible, to restore throughout Christendom, the original institution of Christ, in its entire form and spirit. While frequently misunderstood on this point by other Christians, they profess to be removed by their fundamental principles, farther than all others, from superstition and bigotry; inasmuch as they attach no saving efficacy to sacraments…” (“The Illinois Baptist,” 19th Century)