05.04.2013 Views

The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology - Saint Mary ...

The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology - Saint Mary ...

The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology - Saint Mary ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

We shall close this part of our discussion with the words of two wellknown<br />

authors of the Lutheran Church in America. Dr. Schmucker, in his<br />

Popular <strong>The</strong>ology, says, very truly: “<strong>The</strong> question is not whether Baptism<br />

by immersion is valid; this is not doubted...But the question is whether<br />

immersion is enjoined in Scripture, <strong>and</strong> consequently is an essential part of<br />

Baptism, so that without it no Baptism is valid, though it contains every<br />

other requisite. On this subject the Lutheran Church has always agreed<br />

with the great majority of Christian denominations in maintaining the<br />

negative, <strong>and</strong> in regarding the quantity of water employed in Baptism, as<br />

well as the mode of exhibiting it, not essential to the validity of the<br />

ordinance." "<strong>The</strong> controversy on this subject (the mode of applying water<br />

in Baptism) has always been regarded by the most enlightened divines,<br />

including Luther, Melanchthon, <strong>and</strong> Chemnitz, as of comparatively inferior<br />

importance."<br />

Dr. Benjamin Kurtz, in his work on Baptism, after showing very<br />

conclusively that Luther was not an immersionist, closes his discussion<br />

with these words: "We leave our readers to judge for themselves, from the<br />

foregoing extracts, what amount of credit is due to the objection made by<br />

some of our Baptist brethren, that Luther believed in the necessity of<br />

submersion to the exclusion of effusion, or that he was not decidedly in<br />

favor of children's being baptized. To our more enlightened readers we<br />

may owe an apology for making our extracts so copious, <strong>and</strong> dwelling so<br />

long on this subject; but the less informed, who have been assailed again<br />

<strong>and</strong> again by this groundless objection, without ability to refute it, will<br />

know better how to appreciate our effort."<br />

It is hardly necessary to show that these views of the mode of<br />

Baptism were held by all our old divines. A few citations will suffice:<br />

CHEMNITZ: 344 "<strong>The</strong> verb Baptizein does not necessarily import<br />

immersion. For it is used, John i. 33, <strong>and</strong> Acts i. 5, to designate the pouring<br />

out of the Holy Spirit. And the Israelites are said, 1 Cor. x. 2, to have been<br />

baptized unto Moses, in the<br />

344 On Matt. xxviii. 19. Exam. Concil. Trid. Ed. 1653. See, also, Harmon. Evang. C. xvi.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!