Anabaptism is a compound Greek word, constituted of ana, which signifies iteration or again, and baptisma, immersion. Used as a verb it means to baptize again, or to rebaptize. Anabaptism, in the strict Scriptural import of the term, is an impossibility; for, as there is but "one Lord" and "one faith," so there is but "one baptism" or immersion (Eph. 4:5). There is a case, however, in which anabaptism cannot only be justified, but is really an obvious duty.

This duty is made plain by an example in Acts 19th chapter. Apollos had been carrying on the work of John the Baptist, the Kingdom harbinger, after John’s preparatory work had ceased and the commission had been given to the disciples to "disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19). While John’s baptism was in force God recognized it and it was valid. But Apollos had been baptizing people, not according to Matt. 28:19 and Mark 16:16, but "unto John’s baptism." Paul "said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Spirit since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Spirit." (They had not, then, been "baptized into the name of . . . the Holy Spirit"—Matt. 28:19. "Unto what, then, were ye immersed ?" asked Paul. "And they said, Unto John’s baptism. Then Paul said, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 19:1-5). Truly a case of anabaptism!

Now, if God did not accept their baptism, which He had formerly accepted (while it was in force) would (or does) He now accept a baptism which He has never sanctioned? I think not!

Through the labors of John Glas, Robert Sandaman, A. McClean, James A. Haldane and Robert Haldane, of Scotland; and Walter Scott and Alexander Campbell, of America; the doctrine of immersion "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2 :38), which had, for centuries, been "trodden underfoot" Rev. 11 :2) by the professing or nominal church, was revived. But in that great movement to restore Apostolic Christianity it seems that the subject of baptism "for the remission of sins," while boldly preached, was not readily understood. Men and women were being received into the fellowship who made the claim that—

"Between the stirrup and the ground,

They pardon sought, and pardon found,"

without any baptism except a sectarian one — a baptism (or dipping) "because of" the remission of sins. Baptism upon a confession or profession that "God had for Christ’s sake pardoned" their "sins"! Such a baptism is contrary to the teaching of the New Testament, which commands baptism "for the remission of sins"; or, to put it more in accord with Greek idiom, "in order to the remission of sins" (Acts 2 :38). "Arise," says Ananias to the penitent Saul, "and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16).

Truly, then, Alexander Campbell says, "Now if our baptism is for any other end or purpose than was that to which Paul submitted, it is another baptism, as much as bathing for health is different from a Jewish ablution for legal uncleanness or impurity. The action has a meaning and a design; and it must be received in that meaning, and for that design, else it is another baptism"

John Thomas, M. D., an Englishman of much learning, early, and with marked zeal, enlisted as a coadjutor of Alexander Campbell. He was an original thinker, and seemingly cared nothing for the prevailing doctrine or practice unless he was sure it was in accord with the teaching of divine revelation. He maintained, with perfect consistency, that persons who had been baptized without proper views of the nature and design of baptism, ignorant of the primitive doctrine of baptism "in order to the remission of sins"—should be reimmersed, according to the true intent and spirit of the ordinance. He insisted that persons who had obeyed any sectarian scheme instead of the primitive gospel, were still unwashed sinners and were in need of real baptism—that their immersion was, as Campbell said, "another baptism." He met with bitter opposition. Regardless of what may be said of his later doctrines (now known as Christadelphianism), Dr. Thomas was right in his plea for the reimmersion of all who had not really obeyed Acts 2:38, which clearly gives a motive for the act—so that, when Peter says "be baptized for the remission of sins," the motive is as much a part of the command as is immersion. One who has been immersed, not understanding it to be "for the remission of sins," has obeyed but half of the command. Episcopalians, who have received sprinkling for the remission of sins, have obeyed but half of the command. Baptists are right on the action of baptism, but wrong on the design. Episcopalians are right on the design, but wrong on the action. Let us, who claim to "speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where it is silent," be right on both the action and the design.

Let all who have not fully obeyed Acts 2:38 demand and receive re-baptism, or anabaptism, at once!