The baptismal question

Front matter

I

THE BAPTISMAL QUESTION.

DISCUSSION

Introduction

Those who practise immersion assume the position, that they may lawfully debar from the Lord's table all who administer baptism in other ways. This gives the question before us an importance which otherwise would not belong to it. If the exclusive principle advocated by this body of Christians is defensible on scriptural grounds, the greater part of Christ's professed disciples are intruders at his table. But if, on the other hand, Immersers are wrong, they are guilty of exercising an usurped authority in the house of God, and of withholding the children's bread.

The honest inquirer on this subject, therefore, in settling the question, whether he shall be immersed and unite with Immersers, must, at the same time, settle the question as to close communion. He cannot join them in church fellowship, without giving his sanction to their exclusive principle. This fact he should take along with him, through the whole argument, and put every suggestion in favor of immersion to the test of the inquiry — Is this sure and satisfactory ground on ivhich to base dose communion ?

As to the use of names, we must be excused from using the term " Baptists," for those who practise immersion. The application to them of this name, is equivalent to a concession, that we do not baptize. And there is a kind of charm attached to the name, carrying with it an impression, injurious to the force of opposite arguments. The influence of a name on this subject, has an illustration of this kind. A Campbellite, holding forth to an uncultivated audience at the west, in favor of immersion, broke forth in the following eloquent appeal: — " Was it John the Methodist? No. Was it John the Episcopalian? No. Was it John the Presbyterian? No. It was John the Baptist.'''' And this was doubtless the end of all strife, for those who could be convinced by the sound of a name. But the sound of a name has its influence more or less with all ; and it is not fit that in this respect, an advantage should be conceded to either side. For any sect to claim the exclusive use of the term Baptists, is no more equitable than that they should claim an exclusive use of the name believers ; in a way to imply that no others believe in Christ but themselves. But if they choose thus to beg the question, it is not wise in us to concede it. We take the liberty, therefore, so far as we have occasion to apply a name in these remarks, to use the term Immersers instead of Baptists — a term which need not be offensive to them, as it has no invidious intent with us. We are aware that immersion, unscriptural as we conceive it to be, is associated with the purest feelings of many devout disciples of our blessed Lord ; and far be it from us to trifle with such feelings. But the cause of truth requires it of all Pedobaptists, that they take special pains to break the force of a habit ; and discard, entirely, the use of a term so injurious to themselves. And, furthermore, it is the duty of Immersers, themselves, to discard its exclusive use, and that for the sake of consistency. In their new translation of the Bible, they have substituted immerse, for baptize, under the idea that baptize is not a fit and proper word to express the thing, and thus have virtually expunged baptism from the Bible. And now it is passing strange, if they, who are taking measures to deprive the Christian world of the very name of baptism, should assume the monopoly of that name, and style themselves the only Baptists. Surely, after having blotted the word from the Bible, they will not deem it fit to retain it as the name of their sect. Though the sect in its infancy, •was baptized by this name, yet now, having attained to maturer knowledge, and discovered that baptize does not express the true idea, they may be expected to secure a change of name, and conform to their riper knowledge.

We wish the inquirer to mark in the outset that the nice and punctilious regard to the forms of outward rites, so much insisted upon in the Mosaic ritual, is not required of us. A divine simplicity characterizes the New Testament institutions. It is contrary to the genius of the gospel to lay great stress on outward rites. It rather invites the main solicitudes upon ordering the heart and life. The kingdom of God consisteth not in meats and drinks, but in righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. Neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

And much less does the gospel lay a stress on the mode of performing an external rite, and require the conscience to be burdened with the inquiry, whether it shall be done in this way or that. It has instituted two rites, as simple as it was possible to make them, and says nothing about a danger to be incurred, by failing to perform the simple ceremonies, precisely after a particular way.

Let the inquirer take notice, that Jmmersers assume more responsibility than we do, and have more to prove. Their principles of close communion lay them under obligations to show to an absolute certainty, that inspiration fixes that their way, and no other way, of applying water is baptism. On the other hand, we need only show that there is no such certainty and we gain the question in dispute. For what intelligent and candid mind could ever feel justified in basing dose communion upon an external ceremony of doubtful obligation? We expect, however, to show more than this. While we hold that the New Testament insists upon no particular way 1*

HINTS TO AN INQUIRER.

of applying the water as essential, we contend that it favors sprinkling- or pouring ; and that of all the conceivable forms of baptism, immersion is the most unnatural and improbable, and the farthest from the true design of the rite.

Chapter I. Meaning Of The Word Baptize

The argument for immersion is founded upon the assumption, that the words baptism and immersion convey the same idea. But this is a gross mistake. Baptism expresses the whole idea of the rite, including the invoking of the Trinity, the receiving of the candidate's implied profession of faith, the application of the water, and the like. Immersion expresses only a fraction of this idea. The Baptizer's Letter furnishes us with an apt illustration. " If I fall from a ship's side and am thoroughly immersed — is that baptism? No. Or if men immerse me by force— is that baptism? No. Or if I am immersed with my own consent, but not in the name of the Trinity — is that baptism? No. Well, then, neither immersion, nor the use of water in any way is baptism ; which is SOMETHING MORE." This is Sufficient to show that baptism and immersion are not synonymous terms.

But it is said that the Greek words bapto and baptize (both of .he same origin, and so nearly identical in meaning as to allow of our speaking of them as one word) decide the controversy. We should expect confident assertions in regard to these words ; for if they fail, a very material part of the Immerser's argument vanishes. Now we affirm that these words determine nothing in this controversy, unless they have a fixed and invariable meaning, allowing water to be applied only in one way. If, on investigation, it be found that these words so much relied on, have different senses ; if in one connection they mean to plunge, and in another to wash, and in another to tinge or color, and in another to sprinkle, the mere general command to baptize does not tell us how the water shall be used.

The question, then, before us is — have these words a fixed ■ and invariable meaning ? Even if we were to allow (as we do not) that to immerse is the primary signification of these terms, it would not fix us to that way of applying water. Words very often lose their primary meaning. Instance the English word villain, primarily a servant; the word clerk, primarily a clergyman. Examples without number might be adduced, wherein the primary meaning is wholly superseded. And then many words which retain their primary meaning have also secondary meanings. The English noun, general, means the whole or totality, and then secondarily, a military officer. The word meal is primarily used of the flour of corn, and then of a repast. The word dowry, primarily means a price paid for a wife ; and secondarily almost the opposite, that is, a portion received with a wife ; and so of many others.

Again : when words go ahroad and come into a foreign language, they often change their meaning. Hence, if it could be shown that the Greeks used the word for immersion, and nothing else, it would not follow that the Jews, having adopted it as a foreign word, retained the same sense ; nor that it bears such a meaning in the New Testament, as Greek writers give it. These suggestions are sufficient to raise at least the suspicion, that it is hazardous to rest close communion upon the assumption, that the word baptize necessarily carries the force of immersion.

The inquirer is now prepared to come nearer to the point, and see how these words are actually used. We will begin with uninspired writers. Callimachus and his commentators use bapto, to denote drawing up, &c. " To-day ye bearers of water draw up [baptize] none." Hippocrates, speaking of a certain liquid, says, " When it drops upon the garments they are dyed" [baptized.] Observe, the dropping of the liquid is called baptism, ^schylus says, "This garment, stained [baptized] by the sword of ^gisth»^s, is a witness unto me." Here the flowing of blood upon a garment is called baptism. Homer, in his battle of the frogs and mice, says, " He fell and breathed no more, and the lake was tinged [baptized] with the purple blood." "Was the lake immersed in the blood of a MOUSE? Aristophanes says, that Magnes, an old comic poet of Athens, used the Lydian music, and shaved his face, smearing [baptizing] it with tawny brushes." Here the lathering of his face, as when one shaves himself, is called baptizing. Aristotle speaks of a substance which being pressed, stains, [baptizes] the hand. When a man takes a sponge in his hand, and presses it, the water runs upon it ; but the hand is not immersed, ^lian speaking of an old coxcomb, says, "He endeavored to conceal the hoariness of his hair, by coloring [baptizing] it." Another example : "You color [baptize] your head, but you can never color [baptize] old age." Aristophanes speaks of a "speckled [baptized] bird," as if w^e should call a Guinea hen a baptized hen. Marcus Antonius says, "The soul is tinctured [baptized] by the thought."

The Sybilline verse, concerning the city of Athens, is as follows, " Thou mayest be baptized, O bladder, but it is

NOT permitted TO THEE TO GO UNDER THE WATER." Here

we have Athens compared to a leathern bottle, or bladder, cast upon the agitated waters, but in spite of the agitation not immersed. This floating upon the water is called baptism. Aristophanes speaks of himself as having been baptized with wine. Here is no immersion ; the wine was poured into him ; and not he plunged into the wine. Josephus, speaking of purification from defilement by a dead body, says, " Having baptized some of the ashes, wath spring water they sprinkled, "&c. Numbers xix. 17, informs us how this was done. " Thou shalt take of the ashes of the burnt heifer, and running water shall be put thereto in a vessel, and a clean person shall sprinkle it." JSTow observe, the command is not to put the ashes into the water, but the water to the ashes. This mode of applying water is called baptism by Josephus.

Next we will show how the word is used hy Old Testament <ind Apocryphal writers . Ecclesiasticus xxxiv. 30 — "He that is baptized from the touch of a dead body, and again toucheth it, what is he profited by his washing ? ' ' Now the process of purifying from this defilement was by sprinkling, by washing the clothes ; and this is called baptism. In Judith xii. 7 — she is said to have gone out in the night, and baptized herself in the camp, at [not in] the fountain of water. This of course was not immersion. Ezekiel xxiii. 15 — " Exceeding in dyed [baptized] attire." Daniel v. 21 — "His body was wet [baptized] with the dew of heaven." It must have been a heavy dew, to have allowed of immersion !

Next follow examples /?'om the New Testament. Paul says the Israelites were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea — 1 Cor. x. 2. How baptized ? In Exodus xiv. 22, we are informed that they went over on dry ground. But in what sense can men be said to be immersed, while walking on dry ground ! That they were not immersed is clear. How, then, were they baptized? One of the prophets, alluding to this, says — "And the clouds poured out water." The droppings from the cloud as they were passing, was their baptism, and the only way in which they were wet at all. In Heb. ix. 10, Paul calls the different ceremonial washings done in the tabernacle service, baptisms. Among them all there is not an instance of immersion by the priests. In all cases when the subjects bathed, there was no official administration. For these baptisms, see Lev. viii. 6, and Numb. viii. 7, Lev. xiv. 7, Numb. xix. 13, 17, 18, &c.

Mark vii. 3 — " For the Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash [baptize] their hands, they eat not, and when they come from the market, except they wash [baptize] they eat not." Here merely washing the hands is called baptism, and that was usually done by pouring water upon the hands.

Mark vii. 4 — "And many other things there be which they have received to hold, as the washing [baptism] of cups, pots, brazen vessels, and couches." These couches were long seats, or beds, on which they reclined ; and it would be extraordinary if they immersed their beds! Luke xi. 38 — "And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not washed [baptized] before dinner." Acts i. 5, &c. — "Baptized with the Holy Ghost." One is not immersed in the Holy Ghost, but it is poured- out upon him.

You see, then, in what different senses the words are used, both by Greek and Jewish writers, when not applied to a religious rite. What is the conclusion ? Necessarily that these words have not a fixed and invariable meaning — that they do not of themselves determine any one particular way of applying a liquid. They are found to be as indeterminate as our word wash. When one informs us that he has washed, wo suppose that he has made use of water in some way, but cannot tell, from the word employed, in what way. Men wash themselves in divers ways. From this investigation of the words, it begins to look as if the apostle was guilty of no impropriety of language, when he spoke of divers baptisms.

Let the reader now glance at some suggestions, that will enable him to decide correctly as to the force of these words, when applied to the Christian ordinance.

1. Words taken from a common use, and applied in a special manner to express a religious rite, must necessarily have a special sense. They cover a new idea, created by the new institution, and consequently must have a new shade of meaning. The idea of Christian Baptism did not exist till our Saviour created it by instituting the rite. This institution gave necessarily a new meaning to the word. As ^religious ceremony, Baptism is neither immersion nor sprinkling. It stands now for a religious rite — and that rite is water applied religiously in the name of the Trinity. The use of the word supper confirms these remarks. Like baptism, this is a common word used in a special sense. It has necessarily a newmeaning. Eating and drinking as men were accustomed to at supper in those days, would not express the meaning. Bear this in mind. The word supper denotes an ordinary ^ meal ; but an ordinary meal is not the Lord's Supper. This Supper is bread and wine used religiously. The word bapi tism denotes washing in water in divers ways ; but washing I in water is not the Lord's Baptism. This Baptism is water \ used religiously in the name of the Trinity. In these nine \ words you have the rite, and the whole of it. ' 2. That this is the meaning attached to the word, and that any particular way of applying water is not essential, may be made still more evident. We have already established the fact that the word baptism signifies the application of a liquid in divers ways. Now, then, the question comes — Why has the Holy Ghost made use of a word which designates no one way of using a liquid 1 Plainly because the manner in which the water is applied, is not essential to the rite, any more than the manner of applying water is essential in a common washing.

3. But further ; let the reader inquire whether something may not be gathered from our Saviour's instructions respecting the nature of ceremonial washings, which will throw additional light on the point before us. A single hint from his lips will have weight with every honest searcher after truth. Let Christ be our teacher. Let us value what he has aught us to value, and lay no stress on what he evidently regarded ao unimportant. Now when he was washing his disciples' feet, Peter desired him to wash not his feet only. But he replied, " He that is washed [i. e. spiritually cleansed] needeth not, save to wash his feet" — i. e. needs to have a ceremonial washing but partially applied. Here is a statement of a general principle, loith respect to ceremonial washings.

It shows that our Saviour deemed the quantity of water, and the manner of its application, of no importance.

We shall show, in the following chapter, that if any particular way of applying- water is more favored in the Bible than another, and more suitable to the design of baptism, it is sprinkling or pouring.

Chapter II

MEANING OF THE WORD CONTINUED. SIGNIFICATION OF BAPTISM.

Inquirer. Well, Sir, your remarks on the subject of baptism shook my confidence in my former opinions ; and wishing to hear both sides, I sought an interview with Mr. ,

who made altogether a different impression on my mind.

Teacher. Pray tell me in what manner he treated the subject.

Inquirer. He gave me many examples from dictionaries of different languages, and from Greek writers, (for he is quite a scholar,) in which the word baptize signifies to immerse. He quoted also certain distinguished Pedobaptists.

Teacher. But did he give any cases where it has other significations 1 In other words, did he allude to any examples where the word means to pour, or simply to wash ?

Inquirer. He did not.

Teacher. But ought he not to have done this?

Inquirer. Certainly, if it is ever used in these senses.

Teacher. We do not deny, my friend, that baptize in the original sometimes signifies plunging a substance into a liquid ; but we have proved that it also signifies pouring a liquid upon a substance. What then? — We have here a word which denotes the application of water in divers ways. If the word therefore denotes the application of water in divers ways, it is indeterminate, like our English word wash, and does not define any one way in which water shall be applied in the reli- 2 gious rite. This conclusion is immovable. We have sustained it by a multitude of examples cited before ; and that all lexicographers concur in it, no intelligent Immerser will deny.

One word as to quotations from distinguished Pedobaptists. They admit that the word means immerse, just as we have

ADMITTED IT IN THESE REMARKS. NoW, SUppOSC yOU should

go and report our remarks, in such a manner as to leave the impression that we have conceded that baptize means to immerse, and nothing else — would that be honest 1 No. It would be falsehood under the cloak of truth.* And we have

* As an illustraiion of the truth of this remark, a striking case has occurred while these sheets were going to press. The editor of the Christian Watchman has published an article to show that the word " baptize means immerse, and nothing else." And how does he show it? He quotes lexicons to the number of twenty-two, after this fashion : —

" * Baptizo, properly immergo ac intingo in aquam mergo ; to immerse, to dip, to plunge into water.' — Sc/deusner's Lex.

" ' Baptizo, in its primary and radical sense — I cover with water. It is used to denote, 1st — I plunge or sink completely under water.' — Ewing's Lex.

*' ' Bapto, to dip in, to immerse ; Baptizo, to submerge, sink.' — E. Robijxson's Lex.

" ' Bapto, to dip, to plunge into water ; Baptizo, to immerse.' — J. Donegan^s Lex."

We have taken the trouble to examine the authors above named, and have been astonished at the glaring injustice which has been done to them. We suppose, that, were we to examine the whole list, we should find most or all of them used in the same way. Let the reader take notice that these authors are represented by the editor as saying that the only meaning of the word is to immerse, dip, or plunge. He will then be surprised to learn, that they all give oihei significations, as follows : —

ScHLEusNER says, the word means abluo, lavo, aqua, purgo ; i. e. to perform ablution, to wash, to purge with water, and also imbue.

Robinson says — " In the New Testament it means — to wash, to perform ablution, to cleanse — also to tinge, to dye," &c.

DoKEGAN says, it means to wash, to dye — to dye one's hair.

been pained at this disingenuous dealing of many writers in favor of immersion. They have abused the minds of their

EwiNG says — " In its primary and radical sense, it means to cover with water, or some other fluid, in whatever manner this is done ; whether by immersior^ or affusion, wholly or partially, permanently or for a moment. Hence the word is used in several different SENSES. It is used to denote to plung-e, or sink completely under water — to cover partially with water — to wet — to cover with water flowing or pouring upon — to wash m general, without specifying the mode — to wash for the special purpose of symbolical, ritual, or ceremonial purification." He gives examples of the use of the word: — *' ' He that is washed [baptized] from [the pollution of ] a dead body, and again toucheth it, what profit hath he by^ his Avashing?' — Sirach XXXI. 25, or xxxiv. 25. When this passage is compared with Num. six. 9 — 22, it will appear, that baptize is used by the apocryphal writer for the application of the water of sprinkling: ***** It may here be observed that ceremonial purification by immersion was always performed by the unclean person himself, (and indeed decency required this ; as this kind of purification never appears to have been the immersing of persons with their clothes on,) but that tlie mode was always different, ichen the ■purification ivas administered by another. It is in this sense that baptize, when employed in the New Testament, is almost always used." He further says, that — " To maintain, as some have done, that baptize, when thus applied, ought always to be rendered plunge, dip, immerse, or wash, betrays inattention to its real force and import."

Thus speak the lexicographers, whom the Watchman represents as saying that " baptize means immerse, and nothing else.'^ It will be seen that he makes them say that, by suppressing what they do say. After quoting his twenty-two lexicons, after this fashion, the Watchman utters this remarkable sentence : — " TTiese are but specimens of the unanimous testimony of scholars and lexicographers, not one of whom ever gave the word the definition of sprinkling, pouring, or keel-hauling.-' /

Mark it — he says not one of these " ever gave the word the defini Hon of sprinkling ;" whereas Ewing expressly says it is used, in a case referred to by^ him, for the application of the water of sprinkling. He further says that to maintain what the Watchman does maintain, "betrays inattention to its force and import," And yet the Watchunlearned readers, by a sort of false dealing which puts a part of the truth in place of the whole.

Inquirer. It seems strange to me, that so many Christians who are sincere and honest, and many of them highly intelligent, should contend that this word signifies only immersion, if there is no more foundation for their opinion than what now appears.

Teacher. And does it not seem equally strange, that a much greater number of good men, equally honest, sincere and intelligent, should so positively deny that assumption, if there is no foundation for their denial 1 Though we protest against the use of human authority in such a question as this, it is fair to meet human authority with human authority. And let us ask, who were the translators of our English Bible ? This translation was completed by a galaxy of minds, read in the languages to an extent which few scholars now attain. And on this subject they followed the track struck

man quotes him, as supporting what he thus expressly disclaims ! Now let us ask, in the fear of God, how do such mistakes, put forth by scores in a single article, occur? That the editor would wilfully deceive the public, we may not believe. But we should not like to risk what little credit we have for scholarship, or moral probity, on such a declaration. It is a painful fact, that the Immersers' cause has for several generations been sustained by just such assertions, respecting authorities, right in the face of those authorities. We can well see why Immersers are so anxious to sustain such a declaration ; for their cause rests upon it. If the word has one other meaning, their id hole fabric falls. They choose to appeal to lexicons. This is but a secondary source of evidence. But after having proved our point from original sources, we have followed them to the lexicons, which they have selected, and find that every one, so far as we have consulted, disagrees with them ; and that their quotations are perversions. If, by saying that these authors agree with them, they mean that these authors say that immersion is one of the meanings; very well; we agree with them. But it happens that they bring the quotations to show that the word has no other meaning ; and as to this point, not one agrees with them.

out by the martyr Tyndal, and by his successors equally worthy. Why did they not thus translate? Do you say, because they were Pedobaptists ? But why were they Pedobaptists? — were they so against their honest convictions'? And had not they the means of knowing? They could use the Greek and Latin as freely as their mother tongue. Tyndal was in fact the author, and his successors the endorsers, of this translation of the word. Was Tyndal " afraid to take up the cross, ^^ and go down the banks of Jordan? He was not afraid to go to the stake in defence of his translation ; for he did it.

Inquirer. I have understood that the Greek church practise immersion ; and are they not good authority on such a question ?

Teacher. We see not how they, in their deep ignorance, have any better sources of knov/ledge, as to a rite established among Jews, than we have. They have vied with the Papal church in corruptions, in superstitions, and in placing undue stress on outward ceremonies. And as baptizing by immersion is one instance of departure from the simplicity of the Gospel, it is very natural that they should have adopted it. Though they do not lay as much stress on that mode as our Imraersers do, for they do not always practise it; and are therefore against the principle that it is essential to baptism. So that while the Greek church immerse, and sometimes immerse three times, they are against the principles of our Immersers. And if we are to suppose them to be better authority than others on this subject, we see not why w^e must not pay them the same deference on other subjects. If we begin to copy their corruptions, we know not where to end.

Our object is, to ascertain the meaning attached to the

word baptize by the sacred writers. Now, if it were true that

its literal meaning were immerse, and that this was invariably