scripture baptism, its mode and subjects

Front matter

Historian's Office Library The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Pe

_. LiSTORLAN'S OFFICE

Chapter I. Page

Our Position Defined—Offensive Position of the Baptists—The Question Stated—Baptism with g the Holy Ghost and with Fire—Immersion in ie Wind—“ Baptized into one Body”—The Baptism ‘a before Dinner—Baptism of Table-couches—_ - Christ’s Bloody Baptism—Overwhelm—* Divers Washings’”—Noah in the AE in the Cloud and Sea . : 9

Chapter V. ~

Baptism of Saul of Tarsus—Anastas—Washing away sins—Baptism of Cornelius—Peter’s idea of baptism—Baptism of the jailer—Symbolical import of baptism— Buried by baptism’— One baptism’’— Allusions in Scripture to affusion—Sprinkling is cleansing—Peter’s inkling for water—Opinions of men : cg A . 84

Part I. On The Mode Of Baptism. (7)

-, ‘ae we Ks 3 athe rete nat . t_,£3.ae%* =

SCRIPTURE BAPTISM.

CHAPTER a Our Position Defined—Offensive Position of the Baptists _ ‘i

—The Question Stated—Baptism with the Holy — Ghost and with Fire—Immersion in Wind—* Baptized — into one Body”—The Baptism before Dinner—Baptism of Table-couches—Christ’s Bloody Baptism— Overwhelm—* Divers Washings”—Noah in the Ark —Baptism in the Cloud and Sea.

Tr is well known that there is some diversity of opinion and practice in regard to the mode of christian baptism. The far greater part of evangelical christians, armount- _ ing to more than nine-tenths of the whole, — content themselves with a simple application.

of water by pouring or sprinkling, as the most scriptural and significant mode. On the other hand, a large and respectable division of the Protestant church insist upon a dipping of the whole body, as essential to the validity of the ordinance. - Another smaller division as warmly contend that the baptism is not valid, unless the dipping is thrice repeated. 03

*

OUR POSITION DEFINED.

For ourselves, we regard the mode of baptism as a matter of small importance in itself. Neither the quantity of water nor the act of baptism can influence the state of our hearts, or determine our condition in the -sight of God. Very little injury, therefore, would result from the diversity of practice existing, provided that none would lay particular stress upon their own peculiar mode. The same remark is applicable to the celebration of the sacramental supper. We believe, indeed, that the participation of a small portion of the elernents of bread and wine, at any convenient hour of the day, if done in the exercise of faith and love, is a sufficient compliance with the Saviour’s dying command. Yet if some christian denomination should think it their duty to assemble after night, and make use of a larger _ quantity of the bread and wine, in remem-

brance of Christ, than is customary with others, theirerror might be regarded as comparatively harmless, so long as they attached no importance to it. If, however, they should begin to make their little peculiarity the principal and favourite theme of public and private discussion—claim to be the only people on earth who yield obedience to Christ’s dying injunction—hold up to ridicule the idea that a crumb of bread and a taste of wine, taken at noon-day, should be

OFFENSIVE POSITION OF THE BAPTISTS. 11 deemed a supper; and proceed to denounce all others as guilty of open disobedience to Christ, and therefore unworthy of the com- | munion of saints—what would we say. of such christians? We would say that their error, though unimportant in ztse//, had now become a most mischievous and dangerous one, against which every faithful watchman should sound the alarm.

DECISION OF THE APOSTLE PAUL.

In this view of the matter we are amply sustained by,a declaration of Paul, uttered on avery similar occasion. Circumcision, under the gospel dispensation, he deemed a matter of no consequence whatever, in itself considered. ‘Neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love.” Yet when the Galatians, led astray by false teachers, attached great importance to that rite, as essential to their acceptance with God, the apostle denounced and opposed the error as a delusive and dangerous one. He even declared, that if any of them should be circumcised, holding such views, “Christ should profit them nothing.” Gal. v. 2.

OFFENSIVE POSITION OF THE BAPTISTS.

~ Let us now apply the foregoing illustrations. Our Baptist brethren deem it their

1D THE MODE OF BAPTISM.

duty to be baptized by immersion. If they would be content to follow their own con- ‘ victions of duty, leaving to others the undisturbed enjoyment of theirs, little if any harm would be done. Unfortunately, they are not disposed to pursue a course so eminently charitable and peaceful. They lay very great stress on immersion, and seek every occasion to magnify its importance, Immersion is the most prominent topic in their public discourses, as it is the chief burden of their tracts, books, and newspaper publications. They appear to value ‘themselves on having submitted to immersion, and publicly claim to be the only bap- _ tized christians in the land. At the same time they speak reproachfully of others, as living in a state of disobedience to Christ, attended with danger to their souls. ‘They shut out from their communion all persons who, however sound in the faith, or eminent for piety, have not adopted their peculiar Opinions ; accounting all such unworthy of the fellowship of christians.

We rejoice to know that among them are very many truly excellent persons who, in several respects, are ornaments to the christian profession ; but, alas! a bad system has ensnared them. On the whole, taking the most charitable view which the case will admit, we cannot doubt that the position assumed by our Baptist brethren is attended with immense mischief. Among the many

THE QUESTION STATED. 13 thousands who listen to their instructions, may there not be multitudes who receive the impression that immersion is the great es- — sential to salvation—the safest passport to heaven? Are we not under a necessity to. combat positions attended with so much mischief to the church, as well as danger to immortal souls ?

THE QUESTION STATED.

Since then this discussion is forced upon us by our brethren, let us have the point in dispute fairly understood. The Baptists assert that the Lord Jesus has commanded immersion; and that, consequently, all who have not been immersed are living in open disobedience to his authority. Here we join issue with these brethren and say, If Christ has really commanded us to be immersed— if the duty is so important that the neglect of it is attended with such serious consequences, then we ought to find the command very clearly and plainly expressed in the scriptures. And will they allege that this is the case? Can they point out a passage in which the duty of immersion is explicitly taught? Iam certain that they cannot produce one.*

* That the duty of immersion is not clearly taught in the scriptures seems to be indirectly admitted by a » large body of the most zealous immersionists among us; for they are expending tens of thousands of dollars in get-

Ne “fa

“But,” say our Baptist brethren, “the very word baptize signifies immerse, and nothing else, so that the command to baptize is a command to immerse.” I answer, if this be so, let it be clearly shown. Let these brethren, at least, prove that mmerse is the primary meaning of the word in the seriptures ; and let them prove this, not by the opinions of men—not by the traditions of the elders, but by the Bible itself. This they will find it easy to do if truth be on their side. Happily for us, the meaning of the word baptize, as used by the sacred writers, may be tested by any reader of the New

Testament, whether learned or unlearned.

THE BAPTISM WITH THE HOLY GHOST AND WITH FIRE.

_ For example: let us take the words of John the Baptist, found in Matt. iii. 11. “T, indeed, baptize you with water unto repentance: but he [Christ] . . . shall baptize you tine wp a new version of the Bible, with such alterations from the old as shall make it teach Baptist opinions clearly and explicitly. This isa very important concession on their part. It proves that in their own judgment the duty of immersion is not clearly taught in our present scriptures ; for if it be already plain there, why wish to make alterations ?

The fact that {wo or three persons of other denominations have been prevailed on by large pecuniary inducements, to assist in manufacturing a Baptist Bible, is no alleviation of the case, a

WITH THE HOLY GHOST AND FIRE. 15 with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” And let me ask, What did John mean by the term baptize? Did he mean dip or plunge? Did he intend to say, “ He shall dip or plunge you into the Holy Ghost and into the fire ?” Common sense answers, No. Again, let me ask, How and when was this notable prophecy of the forerunner fulfilled? Our Saviour referred to it just before the day of Pentecost, when about to ascend to heaven ; and commanded his disciples, “that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence.” Actsi.4,5. Accordingly, at the Pentecostal feast a few days after, this promise of the Father was literally fulfilled. But how? Were the apostles dipped or plunged into the Holy Ghost and into the fire? On the contrary, if we examine the account of the transaction in Acts ii, we shall find Peter declaring that therein was fulfilled the word of the Lord by the prophet Joel, saying, “I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh,” verse 17. Again, speaking of the risen and exalted Saviour, he says, “ He hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear,” verse 33. Lask further, How were the disciples baptized with fire? Were they immersed in fire? No, but cloven tongues, like as of fire, sat upon them, verse 3.

IMMERSION IN WIND.

Some Baptist writers, with more fancy than judgment, have argued that the disciples were actually ¢mmersed on this occasion, and in what, pray? Why, in wind! But look at the language of the record in Acts ii. 2. “And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a mighty, rushing wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.” Here we perceive that there was no wind in the case, but only a sound; and the sound was like that of a mighty, rushing wind, and the sound filled the house. Thus it appears that the argument of our brethren is nothing but sound. It is not even as substantial as wind. We may add that the apostle Peter, on asubsequent occasion, makes striking reference to this baptism of the Holy Ghost. He says, “As I began to speak, the Holy Ghost /ed/ on them, as it did on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with ‘water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.” Acts xi. 15, 16.

Here, then, is an instance of a baptism without an immersion; for according to the apostle Peter, the Spirit was poured out, or fell upon the disciples. And it proves, beyond a doubt, that the word baptize, in the New Testament, does not signify «mmerse ; and, of course, the command to baptize is not a command to immerse,

BAPTIZED INTO ONE BODY. 1%

‘The idea of immersion in the Holy Ghost is repugnant to all scriptural notions of the subject. The sacred writers everywhere speak of the Holy Spirit as poured out, shed down, or falling upon the subjects of his gracious influences. Thus, Paul speaks of the “washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost,” as “shed on us [we are not dipped therein] abundantly through Jesus Christ.”*

“BAPTIZED INTO ONE BODY.”

We set ont with a determination to try the assertions of our opponents, by a test available alike to all: namely, scripture usage. In pursuance of our design we now refer the reader to 1 Cor. xii, 13, where

Paul, speaking of the union of believers with Christ, says, “ By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body.” Does he mean to.

* Dr. Carson (p. 107) admits that the baptism “ with the Holy Ghost and with fire” was “a real baptism.” If 80, then, there may be a real baptism without an immersion. ‘The same author (p. 105) charges his Pedobaptist opponents with attempting to repr resent, by symbols, the mode of the Spirit’s operation. Now the facts of the case are these. he scriptures tell us that on the day of Pentecost the apostles were baptized, and that that with which they were baptized was “ poured out,’ “ shed forth,” “ fell,” and “sat upon” them, Hence Pedobaptists fairly conclude that the baptism was not by immersion ; and they make no representations of the Spirit’s operations except in the very words which that divine Spirit has dictated. j

2%* say, “we are all dipped into one body ?” Far from it. His idea is, by the influence of the Holy Spirit, symbolized in water-baptism, the Corinthian believers had become united to Christ and to one another. The idea of immersion is excluded. To represent the believing members of Christ as dipped into his body, would be as absurd ‘as to represent legs and arms as dipped into a human body.

The same apostle says, “Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death 2?” Rom. vi. 8. What will the Baptist Bible Union make of this passage, in their forth-coming version? Will they render it, ‘So many of us as were immersed into Jesus Christ were immersed into his death?” If so, they will certainly violate common sense. And yet they can hardly avoid that alternative, for they say that baptize always means to immerse.

But here our opponents will ask: “Do you _ then say that the word means fo sprinkle, and that it should be so translated in the above passages?” J answer, No. We have never asserted, nor are we bound to prove, that the Greek word Barri{w (baptize) specifically means to sprinkle. We believe it is correctly rendered baptize, and that no other word would convey its precise meaning. ‘The sole question before us is, Does the word baptize, in scripture usage, signify immerse? If it does

BAPTISM PRACTISED BEFORE EATING. 19 not, then the command to baptize is not a command to immerse. Let this be borne in mind.

THE BAPTISM PRACTISED BEFORE EATING,

Let us now turn to Luke xi. 87, 38, where we are told that a certain Pharisee, who had invited Jesus to dine with him, “ marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner.” Here the word washed is in the original Greek ¢Gazrioty (ebaptisthe), the First Aorist Passive of the verb farriiw (baptizo) TO BAP- TIZE. So then the Pharisee is here said to marvel that Jesus had not been baptized before dinner. But did he wonder that Jesus had not been ¢mmersed before dinner? Yes, say the Baptists. They are compelled to resort to the extravagant assumption that the Pharisees immersed themselves before meals, and that this custom was so prevalent in the time _ of our Saviour, that a person who did not comply with it excited wonder by his singularity! They are obliged to suppose that every Jew in town and country, even amid the long and parching droughts of summer, had convenient pools or running streams near his dwelling, in which he and his family might dip themselves before eating! To such desperate extremes are they forced by their position, that farriiw (baptizo) always means to immerse.

But what kind of washing was that prac-

tised by the Pharisees before meals? and did they dip themselves? What says the inspired record? Says the evangelist Marl, “Hor the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.” Chap. vii. 3. This makes the matter plain. ‘here was no immersion at all in the case, but simply a washing of the hands in compliance with tradition ; and that was done among the Jews by pouring water on them, and not by dipping the hands in water. See 2 Kings iii. 11. This wetting of the hands is styled, by the sacred writer, a baptizing of the person. As the Saviour did not comply with the tradition, this gave occasion to the Pharisee to marvel that he had not first been baptized before dinner. It is plain, therefore, that a person is baptized in the scripture sense of the word, though the water has been applied to but asmall part of his body.*

THE BAPTISM AFTER BEING AT THE MARKET,

Tn Mark vii. 4, we have another example of the scripture use of the word farrttw (baptizo), “And when they come from the market, except they wash they eat not.” Here the word wash is in the original farrtoovra: (Laptisontar), from the verb Barrigw (baplizo,) TO

*«“ Rabbi Akiba, when in prison he bad not water enough to drink, ordered it to be poured on his hands, saying, It is better to die with thirst than transgress the traditions of the elders.”—Poole’s Synopsis. :

THE BAPTISM OF TABLE-COUCHES. 21

BAPTIZE, Being found in the First Aorist Subjunctive Middle, the verb has a reflex signification, so that the strict grammatical meaning of the passage is, “except they have baptized themselves they eat not.’*

We have already seen that this baptizing of themselves consisted in the washing of the hands, There was probably a more particular and thorough washing of the hands, when they came from the market than on other occasions.

THE BAPTISM OF TABLE-COUCHES.

In the latter clause of the verse last quoted,

/ we are informed that “many other things’ there be, which they (the Jews) have received to hold, as the washing of cups and pots,, brazen vessels and tables.” Here, again, the

* Mr. Alex. Campbell, in his version of the New Testament, gives the following as a translation of Mark vii. 8, 4. “ For the Pharisees, and indeed all the Jews who observed the tradition of the elders, eat not, except they have washed their hands by pouring a little water on them, and if they be come from the market, by dipping them.” ‘This, instead of being a translation, is a scandalous perversion of scripture. ‘The phrase, “ by pouring a little water on them,” has not one syllable in the original Greek to correspond with it. Then the - phrase, “they eat not,” occurs twice in the Greek, but only once in this pretended translation. Again: the Greek words, tiv ph Barricwvrac (ean me baptisontar), he renders, “by dipping them,” thus adding the words by and them, not found in the original, and ignoring the ex-

+ istence of the Greek words éav (ean) and pi (me) / original word translated washing is Barriopois (baptismous) BAPTISMS. ‘I'he word rendered tables is rdiva (klinar), which, as all admit, denotes the couches on which the Jews reclined at their meals. The beds on which they slept, were indeed small and light, and easily carried about. But these table-couches consisted of a large frame of wood covered with mats or cushions, made as high as their tables, and of sufficient size to admit three

P a to recline on them at full length.

Tere, then, we have the baptism of table-couches, and the question is, How was it performed? As it was merely traditional, the mode of it cannot be determined by the Mosaic law, But can any one suppose that every Jew, in summer and winter, in conformity to tradition, was obliged to take these heavy articles of furniture to a pool or river, quite distant from his dwelling, perhaps, and plunge them under water? The idea is perfectly ridiculous. This baptizing of tables was done simply with a wet cloth or sponge filled with water; and we see again that the word baptism, as used by Mark, does not mean ¢mmersion,

THE SAVIOUR’S BLOODY 3

Alluding to his final sufferings, Christ said to his disciples, “I have a baptism to be baptized with ; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished.” Luke xii. 50, See, a

THE SAVIOUR’S BLOODY BAPTISM. 23 also, Matt. xx. 22, 23. The language here used applies with great force to his agony in the garden, when “his sweat was, as it were, great drops of blood,” as also to the dreadful wounds inflicted on him, by which his sacred body was all stained with blood. Here none but the wildest imagination can perceive anything like an immersion. I may add that all the early christian writers were accustomed to speak of the martyrs, as “baptized with their own blood.” They certainly did not mean femeraca in their. own blood.

Our Baptist friends, of course, an to make out an immersion in this case. ‘he

‘that the word baptize, as applied to the Saviour’s sufferings, has the sense of overwhelm.

But the idea conveyed by that word ismaterially different from that of dipping.

‘When a person is dipped, he is plunged downward upon and into some element; but. where he is overwhelmed, the element comes”

down over and upon him. Even the root whelm is used in this sense by the old poet, Spenser.

« They, by commandment of Diana, there Her whelmed with stones.”

They did not plunge her into or among the stones, but threw the stones upon her. Still more definitely does the compound word over-whelm denote the descent of matters upon an object from a higher station or

¢ i Ave, ?

PY an ¥:

place. When we speak of caravans in the desert as overwhelmed with showers of sand, or of towns overwhelmed with the ashes of a volcano, we do notmean that the caravans are dipped in sand, or that the towns are plunged into the ashes. So far as we can see therefore, though Luke xii, 80 should be _ rendered, “I have an overwhelming to be overwhelmed with,” it would not aid the cause of immersion.

DIVERS BAPTISMS,

In Heb. ix. 10, the sacred writer, speaking of the ceremonial law, says, ‘‘ Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.” The word rendered washings, 18 Barricpos (baptismois) BAPTISMS. And here let me invite attention to three things which help to illustrate the meaning of the word in this connection.

1. The inspired writer uses the word baptisms to express all the various personal purifications required by the Jewish law, among which there were many sprinklings.

2.In no instance did the law require a personal immersion. The utmost that was enjoined upon the unclean was, that he wash, or bathe his flesh in water, In every instance in which this injunction occurs, the term corresponding to wash and bathe is ym rahatz,” the generic Hebrew word for wash-

NOAH SAVED BY WATER. 25 ing. Rahatz never has the specific sense of dipping, the word for that purpose being 29 ‘“tabal.” It is also important to observe that the usual mode of bathing in Hastern countries is not by immersion, but by pouring or dashing water on the body, as all travellers assure us.* .

8. The only examples of these “ divers baptisms,” adduced by the sacred writer, are sprinklings. “For,” says he, “if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ,” &c., verses 13, 14. See also verses 19, 21. So plain is it that, according to the writer of this Epistle, sprinkling is baptism.

NOAH SAVED BY WATER.

Our Baptist friends lay great stress on the salvation of Noah and his family by water. 1 Pet. iii. 20,21. “Hight souls were saved

* See Stephens’s Travels, Lieut. Lynch’s Expedition, Prime's Travels. See also Homer’s Odyssey, Book X. The difficulty, if not impracticability, of immersion in most cases in which the law required bathing, will be obvious to any one who will examine the law of defilement by contact, found in Ley. xi. 31—46. During the greater part of the year, but few of the Jews could have access to “running streams,” of a size suitable for immersion, And if the unclean person should dip himself in any vessel, not only the water, but the yessel itself would be defiled, and the latter must undergo a purification in

Water.

by water. The like figure whereanto even

baptism doth also now save us.” The apostle’s idea is this: as Noah was saved fr destruction by the water which bore’ up nthe ark on its bosom, so now the thing signified by the water of baptism saves us from eternal perdition. But Noah was not immersed.

fie rode secure above the raging flood. He was also sheltered from the descending rains. Vhere then do we find any example of i im-

sion? Nowhere, except in the destrucon of the unbelieving world, —_e were unged beneath the waves,

THE BAPTISM IN THE CLOUD AND IN THE SHA,

“We are told, in 1 Cor. x, 1, 2, that the Israelites “ were all baptized unto Moses, i in the cloud and in the sea.” But how were , they baptized? By immersion? Did Paul mean to say that they were dipped or lunged into the sea? Assuredly not; for Mises informs us that they “went imto the midst of the sea upon the dry ground.” Pharaoh’s ungodly host were 1 immersed with a vengeance; but they were not baptized. “And the waters returned and covered the chariots and the ho all the host of Pharaoh.” Ex. xiv. § light is thrown upon the baptism raelites by Asa <4 peautif description of the passage of the Re A Ses

Oe

IN THE CLOUD AND IN THE SEA, 27

“The waters saw thee, O God; the waters saw thee; they were afraid; the depths also were troubled. The clouds powred out water.” Ps. Ixxvii. 15--20. It seems then, that they were sprinkled or perfused with rain from the cloud, and with the spray of the sea foaming around them. |

How do our Baptist friends make out an immersion here? Do they say that the Israelites were plunged into the sea? No; but they say that there was a wall of water on each side of them, and a cloud above, before, and behind them; and thus they were baptized without a drop touching them! Are they not sensible of the absolute ridiculous: ness of the conceit? Will they say that a ‘man can be truly baptized by walling between two hogsheads of water in a cloudy day ?*

T shall merely add, that admitting, as our opponents do, that this baptism was a type of christian baptism, they ought, by no means, to refuse that ordinance to little children, since the Israelites were “all baptized,” infants as well as adults.

* Dr, Carson, (p. 413,) speaking of Moses in the Red Sea, says, “ Yes, and he got a dry dip. And could, not 4 person literally covered with oil-cloth get a dry iu mersion in water?” I may add that weak and sickly persons might be submerged in a diving-bell, or in one of “ rancis's metallic life-cars,” but would our brethren adinit that to be valid baptism ? \

CHAPTER II.

Evasion of Immersionists—Judith baptized at a Fountain—The Greek Fathers—Kataduo, To PLUNGE— Authority of the Pagan Classics—Greek of the N. T. a peculiar idiom— Technical religious terms—Bapto— The Lexicons—Ancient versions— Tingo.

Our Baptist brethren, as we have already observed, insist that the word farri{w (baptizo,) always means to dip or immerse. In the previous chapter, we undertook to try their assertion by scripture and common sense, tests which are available alike to all. The meaning of words, which often occur in a book, may commonly be determined by the connection in which they stand. In this way we have made it apparent, from several examples, that the word baptizo, as used by the sacred writers, cannot have the sense of dipping. Particularly, we have shown

1. That the baptism with the Holy Ghost and with fire, was not a dipping in the Holy Ghost and in the fire.

2. That the baptism practised by the Pharisees before meals, was not a of themselves. f

USELESS EVASION OF IMMERSIONISTS. 29

3. That the baptism of table-couches, was not a plunging of those articles under water.

4. That of the “divers washings” of the Mosaic law, styled, by the sacred writer, baptisms, not one required an immersion of the person, and the greater part of them were performed by sprinkling. ' 5. That the baptism of the Israelites in the Red Sea, was not a dipping in the cloud and the sea.

USELESS EVASION OF IMMERSIONISTS.

Pressed. with arguments like these, our Baptist brethren are compelled to shift their ground. They affirm that the word éarrw (baptizo), in most of the instances referred to, is used figuratively, and therefore has not its customary meaning. Strange, indeed | Wherever it suits their purpose, they will have it to mean dip ; but where such a rendering would shock common sense, they decide that the word is used figuratively! But even this subterfuge will not avail them, for in figurative expressions, words always retain their proper signification ; and if they do not, they possess no force or beauty. Thus, when we say, “The clouds pour out water,” and “The sun sinks in the western wave,” the idea of pouring, in the one case, and that of sinking, in the other, is brought distinctly before the mind. If, therefore, the word baptize, as used by the sacred writers in figurative expressions, does not convey the idea of dip-