06 - Baptism: Its Mode
BAPTISM THE MODE.
Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.-- Matthew 28:19. WHEN the Lord Jesus Christ had finished the work assigned him on the earth, and was about to ascend to the right hand of the Majesty on high, he addressed the Apostles in the words of the text,--thus charging them with the great duty of making disciples of all nations, and of introducing them into the visible church by the ordinance of baptism. "Go, teach,"--or, more in conformity with the original, make disciples or Christians of--"all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father," &c.--that is, into subjection and obedience to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This is the GRAND COMMISSION, under which the ministers of Christ in every age have gone forth preaching the glad tidings of salvation. This is [23] the great LAW of the church, as Baxter calls it, under which the heralds of the cross are every where, and throughout all generations, to organize the churches of Christ, and receive men to the privileges of the Christian communion. This being the case, we should naturally expect to find the words of the Commission clear and decisive, both as to the persons who should be enrolled among; Christians, and as to the manner in which they should be initiated into the company of the disciples. On both these points we should expect the will of the Founder of Christianity to be clearly made known; and we should anticipate that the instructions given by the Divine Author of the Christian system for the organization of the church would be so plain, and so precise, that his ministers, acting as his agents and representatives, could not easily mistake their duty. But, unhappily, however intelligible may have been the directions of our Savior in the estimation of those to whom the language of the Commission was originally addressed, and however uniform their practice, there has existed for many centuries a diversity of sentiment in this matter. Some maintain that the baptized infant children of believers are proper [24] members of the church of Christ, and that the ordinance of baptism is duly observed by the application of water in any manner, and to any extent, however limited; while others believe, that the Scriptures represent the immersion of a professed believer in the name of the Trinity, and that only, to be Christian baptism.
Having, after a protracted and, I trust, prayerful and impartial examination of the whole subject, been led to embrace the latter view, I proceed to give some reasons for believing it agreeable to the Scriptures of truth. The first question which presents itself to our consideration is, WHAT IS CHRISTIAN BAPTISM? Observe, the question does not relate to any mode of baptism. It is not, whether baptism may, or may not, be performed in this or that manner. The question is, What is baptism itself? The position which I shall endeavor to sustain in this discourse is this: the immersion of the subject in water is ESSENTIAL to the ordinance.
I. This is evident, in the first place, FROM THE MEANING OF THE TERMS which Christ uses when he enjoins the rite of baptism. [25] "Go, teach all nations, BAPTIZING them," &c. The Greek for baptizing is baptizontes, a participle of the verb baptizo. This word is derived from bapto, which primarily means to dip, plunge, or immerse into anything liquid. For its secondary signification bapto has to dye, a signification growing out of the primary idea, inasmuch as dyeing was originally performed by dipping the thing to be dyed into the coloring matter. Hence, the word in the first instance was used to designate dyeing by DIPPING, and afterwards the signification was extended so as to denote dyeing in any manner. But it is only the primary signification of bapto,to dip, plunge, immerse, which I am to notice, because it is in this signification only that it modifies baptizo. This is apparent from the facts, that baptois never applied to the ordinance of baptism, and baptizo never signifies to dye.Bapto, then, has two meanings--the primary, to dip; the secondary, to dye.Baptizo in the whole history of the Greek language has but one meaning. It signifies to dip or immerse, and never has any other meaning. "Each of these words, therefore, has a specific province, into which the other cannot enter; while there is a common [26] province which either of them may serve. Either of them may signify to dip, generally; but the primitive cannot specifically express that ordinance to which the derivative has been appropriated; and the derivative cannot signify to dye, which is a part of the province of the primitive." That both of these words mean to dip, plunge, immerse, "ALL LEXICOGRAPHERS AND CRITICS OF ANY NOTE ARE AGREED," says Prof. Stuart. [In "A Manual of Baptism," by G. S. Bailey, are given the definitions of thirty-two Greek Lexicons, to which others can be added, of the word baptizo,all of which unite in saying the word means "to dip, plunge, immerse," and not one of which says that it means "to sprinkle." The only one which ever gave "pour" as a definition has himself expunged it as untrue. So that the whole array of Greek Lexicons is a unit in saying that it means immerse, and not one that contradicts this testimony.--EDITOR.] If any person is disposed to question this, he can satisfy himself by examining places in which the words occur in the Greek. In about two hundred passages, taken at random, where these words are employed in their primary and proper sense, the idea is, in [27] every instance, to dip, plunge, or immerse. I have already remarked, that, in addition to these significations, bapto means to dye, color, or tinge;a and baptizo signifies only to immerse, dip, or plunge. I here repeat the remark, that, in its literal and proper sense, baptizonever means any thing but to immerse, dip, or plunge; and when used in a figurative application, the figure entirely depends for its force and beauty on the primary idea of immersion or plunging. If erroneous, these positions can easily be disproved by a reference to the original classics. But, adding my own labors to those of the writers whose works I have examined, I have never been able to discover a single passage which authorizes me to abandon the ground just taken. The following passages may serve as specimens of the use of baptizo in the classics:-- Diodorus Siculus. "The admiral’s ship being SUNK" (baptistheises).
Lucian, in Timon, the Man-hater, makes him say: "If I should see any one floating toward me upon the rapid torrent, and he should, with out-stretched hands, beseech me [28] to assist him, I would thrust him from me, BAPTIZING (baptizonta) him, until he would rise no more."
Josephus, Ant. IX. 10, speaking of the ship in which Jonah was, says: "The ship being about to SINK" (baptizesthai).
Strabo, Lib. 6, speaking of a lake near Agrigentum, says: "Things that elsewhere cannot float, DO NOT SINK" here (baptizesthai). In Lib. 12, of a certain river he says: "If one shoots an arrow into it, the force of the water resists it so much that it will scarcely SINK" (baptizesthai).
[Strabo has another passage in which by contrast the meaning of baptizo is more forcibly brought out. He says: "The bitumen floats atop (of the waters of lake Sirbon) because the nature of the water, which admits no diving; for if a man goes into it he cannot sink, or be dipped (baptizo), but is forcibly kept above." So in his geography, speaking of Lake Tatta in Phrygia (which he calls a natural salt-pit), he says: "The water solidifies so readily around everything that is immersed (baptizo) into it, that they draw up salt-crowns when they let down a circle of the rushes." Epictetus says: "As you would not wish, sailing in a large ship [29] adorned abounding with gold, to be sunk or submerged" (baptizo). These are classical uses of the word, and like quotations could be given from Pindar, Hippocrates, Aristotle, Heliodorus and others. No classical author uses the word in any other primary and unfigurative sense.--EDITOR].
Heraclides Ponticus says: "When a piece of iron is taken red hot from the fire, and PLUNGED (baptizetai) into the water." The Scholiast on Pindar, Pyth. II. 139. "Like the cork of a net in the sea, I am not PLUNGED, or SUNK (baptizomai).
Plutarch, Vol. X, p. 18. "Then PLUNGING (baptizoun) himself into the Lake Copais."
Josephus, in the History of his own Life, speaking of a ship which foundered at sea: "One ship being IMMERSED (baptisthenteis) in the midst of the Adriatic." The same author, Bell. Jud. I., speaking of Aristobulus, who was drowned by command of Herod: "The boy was sent to Jericho, and there being IMMERSED (baptizomeno) in a pond, he perished."
Baptizoalways denotes the ENTIRE immersion of the person or thing immersed, unless there is an express limitation to a part.
Polybius, III. 72. "The foot soldiers passed [30] through [the water], scarcely IMMERSED to the paps."
Figurative use of baptizo clearly referring to the literal meaning, to plunge, dip, immerse.
Heliodorus, VI. 4. "When midnight had PLUNGED (ebaptizon) the city in sleep."
Lucian, III. p. 81. "He is like one dizzy and BAPTIZED or SUNK (bebaptismeno), namely: into insensibility by drinking."
Justin Martyr. "OVERWHELMED with sins" (bebaptismenos).
Plutarch. "OVERWHELMED with debts (bebaptizmenon).
Chrysostom. "OVERWHELMED (baptizomenos) with innumerable cares." The same author: "OVERWHELMED (baptizomenoi) on all sides by the many waves of business."
SPRINKLED with "wine," with "sin," with "debts," with "business," with "cares," would give a very faint idea of the true meaning and force of the above expressions. That the above view is correct beyond debate will appear from the fact, that many learned men among the pedo-baptists themselves have been compelled to acknowledge [31] that immersion is the exclusive signification of baptizo.
Buddaeus. "The word baptizein is always to be interpreted of immersion."
Alstidius. "Baptizein signifies only to immerse."
Altingius. "For baptism is immersion, when the whole body is immerged; but the term ’baptism’ is never used with respect to sprinkling."
Beza. "Christ commanded us to baptize, by which word it is certain immersion is signified. To be baptized in water signifies no other than to be immersed in water.
Martin Luther. Speaking of children, he says, "They ought to be completely immersed, for the etymology of the word (baptism) evidently requires it."
Casaubon. "This was the rite of baptizing, that persons were plunged into the water; which the very wordbaptizeinsufficiently declares."
Dr. George Campbell, a Scotch Presbyterian, who has given us a valuable translation of the Gospels, with learned critical notes. The word baptizein, both in sacred authors and in classical, signifies to dip, to plunge, to immerse. It is always construed suitably to this meaning." [32] Stourdza, a native Greek. "Bapto has but one signification. It signifies literally and invariably to plunge."
Buttmann, in his Larger Grammar, simply puts down, bapto, to immerse."
Augusti. "The word baptism, according to etymology and usage, signifies to immerse, submerge, &c., and the choice of the word betrays an age in which the later custom of sprinkling had not been introduced."
Bretschneider. "An entire immersion belongs to the nature of baptism. This is the meaning of the word." This writer is confessedly the most critical lexicographer of the New Testament.
Having thus shown that baptizo means, in its proper sense, ONLY to dip, plunge, or immerse, I can by no means escape the conclusion, that the Lord Jesus Christ in giving his Commission INTENDED to make IMMERSION ESSENTIAL to baptism. But there are individuals who are not convinced by the proof already adduced. In spite of the authority of lexicons, in opposition to the evidence of numberless examples cited from the original Greek, and notwithstanding the concessions of the most eminent critics, and even of learned and candid pedo-baptists [33] themselves, many persons insist, that the significations above given to baptizo are not the exclusive meanings of the word. They admit that the native and ordinary force of the word points us to immersion as its general meaning, but they suppose it is sometimes used in other senses. Now, although I believe these individuals confound the original and proper meaning of the term with various figurative applications of it, yet I am willing to meet them on their own ground; for I contend that, even on their own principles, immersion is necessary to Christian baptism. Well may our brethren admit, that in its primary and general acceptation the term in question designates immersion, for in this, as Prof. Stuart says, "all lexicographers and critics of any note are agreed"; and no Greek scholar will hazard his reputation so far as to deny it. This, then, being admitted, the question is, did Christ, in the words of the Commission, employ this term in its usual and proper sense? Is there any thing in the sacred record to suggest the idea of the slightest departure from that sense? No man will pretend to assert it. The Commission is in the style of plain, narrative discourse, and there is no more reason for supposing [34] the word translated "baptize" to be used out of its ordinary sense than for conjecturing that the word translated "teach" is turned aside from its customary meaning. If our Savior, then, employed words in their usual sense he did say, "Go, make disciples of all nations, IMMERSING them in the name of the Father," &c. What right, then, has any man to call any thing besides immersion baptism? What right has he to presume that any application of water will be acceptable to the Divine Author of this ordinance? Where does he find liberty to suppose immersion is not the thing enjoined in the Commission, but only one of various modes of doing the thing? If words have any meaning, and if our Savior employed the words of the Commission, in their ordinary and proper sense, then, on their own principles, my brethren must acknowledge that nothing but immersion is Christian baptism.
Here I might stop, and require those who dissent from the above conclusions to show that there is something in some passage of Scripture, something in the practice of Christ, or of the Apostles, which evidently compels us to depart from the ordinary signification of the word under consideration. Having [35] clearly ascertained the meaning of that word, and having every reason to believe Christ used it in its appropriate sense, we are not at liberty in any case to depart from that sense, unless it is evidently impossible that in that case it should have its usual signification. As the principle of interpretation here involved is of great importance, I may be allowed to illustrate it by a familiar example. I give to A. B. a promissory note, payable "on demand." Now, I am bound to pay the note whenever presented; and I cannot plead that the words "on demand" should be liberally construed; that certain circumstances make it probable they are not used in their ordinary sense. The holder will justly urge that these words have a definite and well-ascertained meaning, and I must satisfy his claim forthwith, unless I can show it is impossible that in my case the phrase should be understood according to its usual signification. The burden of proof lies on me, and I must make it evident beyond dispute, that the terms cannot possibly have the customary sense, or I shall be obliged to liquidate the debt. So in the case before us. It is not [36] enough that there are apparent improbabilities opposed to the customary use of the term in question; the ordinary force of it must be plainly impossible, or we must retain its usual sense. But no such impossibility exists. On the contrary, the circumstances under which the word is employed in the Scriptures, the figurative applications of the term, and the practice of the entire church for several centuries after the Christian era, afford confirmation strong, that immersion is the baptism prescribed by the great Head of the church. I proceed, therefore, to remark,--
II. THAT THE PLACES SELECTED FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ORDINANCE, AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES CONNECTED WITH THE INSTANCES IN WHICH IT IS PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED, clearly indicate immersion.
"John the Baptist did baptize in the wilderness, * * * * and there went out unto him all the land of Judea, * * * * and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan." Here it is expressly asserted, that those who resorted to John were baptized by him in the river Jordan. Now, even if, as some contend, the preposition en (in) may be rendered at, yet why should John go to the river at all, "excepting that immersion was [37] practiced?"b But Prof. Robinson, a pedo-baptist, and the learned author of the Lexicon of the New Testament, translates the Greek particle in or into, in all the instances in which John’s baptism is spoken of. Christ was baptized in Jordan; or, as Prof. Robinson translates, "INTO the river Jordan."c
[Lange, Dr. J. P., Lutheran, Professor of Theology in the University of Bonn, Germany, speaking of John’s baptism, Matthew 3:1 : "This baptism was administered by immersion; the confession of sins preceded the immersion." And verse 6: "’And were baptized,’ immersed in the Jordan." And so Jesus was immersed. Bishop Jeremy Taylor, Episcopalian, says of the baptism of Jesus: "Straightway Jesus went up out of the water. Behold an immersion, not an aspersion."--EDITOR.] When John was baptizing in Enon, it is expressly stated, that he chose that place on account of the facilities there found for baptizing.John 3:23 : "And John also was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, because there was much water there; and they came and were baptized." The sense of the passage is plain and [38] obvious, and, controversy out of the question, no difficulty could have been raised on it. But it has been asserted that the Greek words rendered "much water," being in the plural, should be translated many waters, and then the meaning would be, John resorted to this place because there were there many streams or rivulets, which would accommodate the people and their animals. Suppose it were admitted that the words should be so rendered, yet it would still remain true, that John baptized in Enon, because there were many streams there, and the people came and were baptized--not were accommodated. But the translation in our version is correct, and not to be discarded.d See Jeremiah 41:12, compared; with 2 Samuel 2:12-14. On which read Robinson’s Calmet, under the word GIBEON. Also, consult Revelation 1:5; Revelation 19:6, where the same words are used to designate the ocean. The passage which next claims our attention under this head, is found in Acts 8:36-39. It relates to the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch by Philip. "As they went on their way, they came unto a certain [39] water, * * * * and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the spirit of the Lord caught away Philip."
Now, here I ask, as before, Why did Philip and the eunuch go down both into the water, if it were not that he might immerse him? But it is said, the preposition here rendered into is often translated to, and it may be read, they went down both to the water. But I ask again, Why did they even go to the water, if an immersion were not to be performed? It is customary in Eastern countries for travelers to carry supplies of water with them. Especially would this be true of a person of rank, like the eunuch, who would doubtless have a train of attendants, and would be furnished with water abundantly sufficient for sprinkling or pouring. Why, then, did the eunuch wait, as they rode along, till they came unto a certain water? And why, when arrived at that body of water, did they alight from the chariot, and go down both into, or even to, the water? It is difficult to answer these questions except by admitting immersion in this case. But the criticism on the Greek [40] preposition is destitute of foundation.e The verb here translated went down, when followed by the preposition used in this passage, includes, almost uniformly in the New Testament, the idea of entrance into the place mentioned; for example, "Jesus went down to Capernaum." Is it not clearly implied, he went into Capernaum? "Jacob went down to Egypt." Is it not meant, he went into Egypt, and not merely to the borders of it? So, in common discourse, we say of a man, he has gone to New York, meaning he has gone into to the city to buy goods. The above passages very clearly show how the language of Christ respecting baptism was understood, and strongly support the sentiment that immersion only was to be regarded as Christian baptism.
III. VARIOUS ALLUSIONS TO THE ORDINANCE IN THE SCRIPTURES, AND THE FIGURATIVE APPLICATIONS OF THE WORD BAPTISM, confirm the justness of the position assumed. [41] The first passage I notice
[Before the reader passes on to these examples of the figurative use of baptizo he should impress his mind with the fact that the literal use of any word must guide all its figurative applications. The explanation of the figure, says Carson, must conform to the literal meaning, but the literal meaning never can bend to the figurative. When the former has been ascertained, the latter must be explained in accordance therewith. But as the literal meaning of baptizo has been clearly ascertained to be that of immersion, all these figurative uses could be dismissed, for they can not weaken, much less change, the literal meaning.--EDITOR.] In 1 Peter 3:20-21, we read, * * * * "when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a-preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save [43] us * * * * by the resurrection of Christ." Bloomfield gives the sense of the latter part of the passage thus: "The antitype to which thing (namely, what corresponds to, and was figured by, the preservation of Noah and his family in the ark) doth now save us [place us in a state of salvation] through the resurrection of Christ, as the ark did them. I mean baptism." Here the situation of Noah and his family, shut up in the ark, floating on the waters of the great deep, and drenched by the mighty torrents which fell when the windows of heaven were opened, is mentioned by the Apostle as an emblem of baptism. This allusion cannot be satisfactorily explained, unless the reference in the passage is to immersion.
Another figurative application of the term is found in the words of our Savior, Luke 12:50. "I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished?" The sense is, "I am about to be overwhelmed with sufferings, and I am greatly distressed with the prospect of them."f So in Mark 10:38-39. "Are ye able to drink of the cup that I must drink, and to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?" The sense is the same as in the last passage: [44] "Can ye indeed take upon you to undergo, patiently and submissively, sufferings like to mine--sufferings of an overwhelming and dreadful nature?"g The intense and overwhelming sufferings endured by the Savior in Gethsemane, and on the cross, point us at once to the radical meaning of the word he employed. It is a word strongly expressive of the greatness and abundance of the agonies he endured. We see the Redeemer "sunk in deep waters of affliction"; "the waves and billows of anguish roll over him," and any idea short of a complete immersion is tame and insipid. Hence Campbell translates, "I have an immersion to undergo, and how I am pained till it be accomplished!" And Doddridge: "I have a baptism to be baptized with, that is, I shall shortly, as it were, be bathed in blood, and plunged in the most overwhelming distress." The last passage which I shall refer to under the present head, is found in Romans 6:3,
"The expressions baptized into Jesus Christ, and baptized into his death, require explanation. The first, baptized into Jesus Christ, means to be baptized into an acknowledgment of Jesus Christ, with an implication of subjection, or discipleship, to him. So to be baptized into the death of Christ is to be baptized into an acknowledgment of his death, and into an acknowledgment, of the obligations resulting from that death."
"The design of the Apostle in the first part of the chapter was to meet an objection which might be raised against the statements of the preceding chapter. In that chapter he had largely shown that the grace of God vastly superabounding over the sins of men, and that the abounding of sin had proved an occasion of the superabounding of divine grace. If this be the case, some one might say, May we not still go [46] on to sin, so that God’s grace may be still more abundantly exhibited? The Apostle’s reply is very simple. It consists of two parts--1. The internal character of Christians forbids such an objection: they are dead to the influence of sin. 2. Their external profession of Christianity opposes it: by their very baptism they have, as being dead to sin, symbolically been buried and raised up again, thus making an acknowledgment that, as Christ was buried and rose again to a heavenly life, so they, as his followers, having by baptism been buried and raised again, were bound to lead a new, a spiritual life."
"It is contended that the burying ground mentioned by the apostle is not an external one, but an internal, a moral burying. This opinion seems effectually opposed by the circumstance, that the burying is performed by baptism, an external rite. The preposition which is here employed in the original, leads us to this view. It is [dia tou baptismatos] BY baptism, that we are buried, not AT our baptism. It is not that baptism merely furnished a suitable occasion for showing our being wholly disinclined to sin, so that, when we professed Christianity, we might be said to be buried with respect to sin; but baptism is here represented as the very thing, the very instrument, or more properly the very [47] act, BY which or BY MEANS OF which, we were buried. The Apostle seems to present two things, a death and a burial, which are clearly kept distinct; and the burial is an external thing, consisting in the fact, that we have been baptized into an acknowledgment of Christ’s death. To continue in sin, then, would be inconsistent with our character and our religious profession. The Apostle says that, besides have become dead to sin (namely, at our conversion), we have also been buried by baptism into an acknowledgment of Christ’s death. If the apostle had merely said, we are dead and buried in respect to sin, omitting the words BY BAPTISM, his language would require a different interpretation. But the Apostle himself explains what he means by burying, when he adds, by baptism."i So Prof. Chase, "Buried with him by baptism. Buried with him--how? By baptism, the Apostle answers. In or by baptism, then, Paul, and the Christians whom he addresses, were buried. To be crucified to the world, or dead to sin, is the character of the Christian; but to be buried with Christ by baptism is the appointed emblematical profession of that character. The Apostle does not teach that believers are crucified with Christ, or are dead with him, or possess a [48] mortified temper, by baptism. To have such a state of soul, to be dead in respect to sin, is one thing; and to be buried with Christ by baptism is quite a different thing; for this is external, whereas the other is internal. The one is a sign; the other, the thing signified."j To sustain the interpretation given above, the opinions of several distinguished pedo-baptist writers may be cited.
Rosenmueller, on the passage. "Immersion in the water of baptism, and coming forth out of it, was a symbol of a person s renouncing his former life, and, on the contrary, beginning a new one. The learned have rightly reminded us that, on account of this emblematical meaning of baptism, the rite of immersion ought to have e been retained in the Christian church."
Martin Luther, after speaking of baptism as a symbol of death and resurrection,, says: "On this account, I could wish that such as are to be baptized should be completely immersed into water, according to the meaning of the word, and the signification of the ordinance; AS ALSO WITHOUT DOUBT, IT WAS INSTITUTED BY CHRIST."
Dr. Knapp, an eminent and pious German divine, whose works are recommended by Dr. [49] Woods, speaking of the passage in question, thus expresses the Apostle’s idea: "We are, like Christ, buried as dead persons, by baptism, and should arise, like him, to a new life." He adds, "The image is taken here from baptized persons, as they were immerged, (buried), and as they emerged (rose again)."
Dr. Bloomfield, one of the most profound living Biblical scholars of Great Britain, and highly commended by Prof. Stuart as a learned and judicious critic, gives this paraphrase of the words "buried with him by baptism:" We have been thus buried in the waters of baptism." He adds, "There is a plain allusion to the ancient custom of baptism by immersion."
[Wesley in his Notes on New Testament, Romans 6:4, says: "Alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion." Whitefield on the same text says: "It is certain, that in the words of our text there is an allusion to the manner of immersion, which our own Church allows." Zwingli, prime mover in the Reformation in Switzerland, says, writing in his Annotations on the same passage: "When ye were immersed into the water of baptism, ye were engrafted into the death of Christ; that is, the immersion of your body into water was a sign that ye ought to be engrafted into [50] Christ and his death, that as Christ died and was buried, ye also may be dead to the flesh and the old man, that is, to yourselves."--EDITOR.]
Coincident with these views is the unanimous testimony of learned men, and the universal belief of private Christians, in all countries and in every age, from the time of Paul to the present day. The notion of a "moral burying" is a modern invention, adopted by very few interpreters; an expedient which would seem to be suggested by despair, with the hope of getting rid of the irresistible evidence furnished by this passage in favor of immersion. And here the reflections of another are truly important. This passage, in connection with the parallel text, Colossians 2:12, may be said to contain God’s own explanation of his own ordinance. And here we may admire the divine wisdom and goodness. The mass of readers do not understand the original, and translators of the Bible, by adopting, not translating, the Greek words baptize and baptism, have hidden the meaning from the multitude. But the evidence from these passages cannot be hid--it is obvious to the most unlearned, and the words, "BURIED WITH CHRIST BY BAPTISM," may continue to make, as a pedo-baptist writer says they have heretofore made, [51] "more baptists than any other passage in the Bible." The Spirit of God, through this commentary of the great Apostle, enables all men to judge for themselves in this matter. While the learned are contending about the meaning of baptizo, and the force of certain Greek prepositions, let those who are unacquainted with the original turn to these allusions to the ordinance, and they will here see the definition which the Holy Ghost himself has given to the words in debate.
IV. Finally, we find a strong confirmation of the position originally taken in the fact, that THE EARLY CHRISTIANS UNDERSTOOD THE WORDS OF THE SAVIOR TO REQUIRE IMMERSION, AND THEY PRACTICED ACCORDINGLY.
I will here make a remark on the nature and value of the argument from church history. We by no means place our chief dependence on this. We regard the BIBLE as our ONLY and SUFFICIENT rule of faith and practice; and, as before stated, to our own minds the directions of the word of God on this subject are perfectly clear. But the practice of the Christians who immediately succeeded the Apostles shows how they understood the instructions of the Apostles themselves, who regulated their practice by the teachings of their Lord and Master, Jesus Christ. [52]
Barnabas, the companion of Paul (Acts 13:2), says in his Epistle, speaking of baptism, "We descend into the water, and come out of it." In the Pastor of Hermas, saluted by Paul (Romans 16:14), we read, "Men descend into the water, bound to death; but ascend out of it, sealed to life."
Justin Martyr. "Those who believe are led to some place where there is water, and then bathe in the water." In another place, he says: "We represent our Lord’s sufferings and resurrection by baptism in a pool."
Tertullian. "We are immersed in water,"--"let down into the water and dipped,"--"Peter immersed in the Tiber."
Dionysius Areopagite. "The total concealment in water fitly represents Christ’s death and burial."
Apostolic Constitutions, (probably written in the fourth century). "Baptism relates to the death of Christ: the water answers to the grave; the immersion represents our dying with him [Christ]; the emersion our rising with him."
Photius. "The three immersions and emersions of baptism signify death and resurrection."
Chrysostom. "We, as in a sepulchre, immersing our heads in water, the old man is buried [53] and sinking down; the whole is concealed at once; then, as we emerge, the new man again rises."
Jerome. "Three times we are immerged," etc.
Augustine. "Rightly are ye immerged three times, who have received baptism in the name of Christ." In short, from the days of the Apostles downwards, for thirteen hundred years, we have an unbroken chain of evidence, showing that baptism was performed by immersion, and by immersion only. To this there is only one apparent exception, namely, in case of extreme sickness and danger of death. In this case, immersion being impracticable, persons received a substitute for baptism, by pouring or sprinkling. Yet this was never regarded as regular baptism; but as baptism was then supposed to be essential to salvation, the sprinkling or pouring of water was permitted as a substitute for the gospel ordinance, and it was hoped that, by the indulgence of God, it would be accepted, and the soul of the person poured upon or sprinkled would be saved. This practice, however, in the early ages of the church, was never defended on the ground of tradition or of apostolic usage. It was considered as wholly without authority from the Head of the church, and resorted to only [54] from the exigency of the case, baptism being regarded as necessary to salvation.
These opinions are supported by the modern critics of Germany. The testimony of these illustrious men deserves the most serious attention, not only on account of their impartiality, as they have no interest in the controversy, but also from the fact that they are of the very highest authority in language and antiquities.
Neander. "Baptism was originally by immersion. To this form various comparisons of the Apostle Paul allude."
Tholuck, on Romans 6:4. "In order to understand the figurative use of baptism, we must bear in mind the well-known fact, that the candidate in the primitive church was immersed in water, and raised out of it again."
Winer. "In the apostolic age, baptism was by immersion.
Bretschneider. "The apostolic church baptized only by immersion."
Schleusner, Wahl, and Bretschneider, the three great New Testament lexicographers of Germany, limit baptism, as a sacred ordinance, to immersion..
Hahn. "According to apostolical instruction and example, baptism was performed by immersing the whole body." [55]
Prof. Lange. "Baptism, in the apostolic age, was a proper baptism--the immersion of the whole body in water. Plunging under the water represents death, and rising out of it, the resurrection to a new life."
Fritsch. "With infant baptism, still another change in the outward form of baptism was introduced--that of sprinkling with water, instead of the former practice of immersion."
[Prof. J. H. Thayer, Professor of New Testament Criticism and Interpretation in the Divinity School of Harvard University, says, "Baptizo . . . is used particularly of the rite of sacred ablution, first instituted by John the Baptist, afterward by Christ’s command received by Christians and adjusted to the nature and contents of their religion, namely: an immersion in water." Bishop Henry C. Potter and Bishop A. Cleveland Coxe, both living Bishops of the Episcopal Church, both insist that the word baptizo "means to dip, plunge, immerse, or whatever word you want to strengthen your position," and that immersion was the practice of the primitive church. Dean Stanley, Church of England, and the greatest and most distinguished among all the Westminster deans of ancient or modern times, says: "There can be no question that the original form of baptism--the very meaning of [56] the word--was complete immersion in the deep baptismal waters; and that for at least four centuries any other form was unknown, or regarded, except in the case of dangerous illness, as an exceptional, almost a monstrous case. To this form the Eastern Church still rigidly adheres, and the most illustrious and venerable portion of it, that of the Byzantine Empire, absolutely repudiates and ignores any other mode of administration as essentially invalid." The Dean also well knows that in its earlier history his own Church immersed infants.--EDITOR.]
After these testimonies, you will be prepared to appreciate the concession of Prof. Stuart, who, quoting Augusti, says: "It is a thing made out," namely, the ancient practice of immersion. "I know," continues Prof. Stuart, "of no one usage which seems to be more clearly and certainly made out. I cannot see how it is possible for any candid man, who examines this subject, to deny this."
[But Mr. Jewett does not exhaust the list of German critics who testify positively in favor of immersion. Luther’s strong words are known to many: "The term ’baptism’ is a Greek word. It may be rendered into Latin by mersio, as when we immerse anything in water, that it may be entirely covered with water. And though that [57] custom be quite abolished among the generality, nevertheless they ought to be wholly immersed, for the etymology of the word seems to require it."
Dr. Bernhard Weiss, German Lutheran, Professor of Theology in Berlin University, says: "Baptism--the rite of immersion." "Paul, grasping the sense of baptism more deeply, sees in it a being immersed into Christ" (Romans 4:3). Again, on same page: "And as the rite of immersion as such undoubtedly had a symbolical signification." The importance of baptism could not be changed either when the church substituted in the application of the rite sprinkling instead of immersion."
Dr. Willibald Beyschlag, Professor at Halle, Germany, says: "Through baptism, in John’s form of immersion, a man separated himself from the unbelieving Israel." "Fellowship of Christ takes place in baptism, which in the form of immersion then practiced symbolized the dying with Christ, or being buried with him." Indeed, the testimony to the primitive practice of immersion amounts to a demonstration.--EDITOR.]
It may be added that the inhabitants of Greece, who certainly ought to understand their own language, from the first introduction of the gospel into that country to the present time, [58] have uniformly baptized by immersion. Indeed, all the Christians in Asia, all in Africa, and about one-third part of Europe, still retain the rite as observed by the Apostles and early Christians. Nay more, the whole Christian world, for the space of thirteen hundred years, practised immersion as the only real baptism. Never, by any Christians, in any age, was sprinkling or pouring allowed, in ordinary cases, until the meeting of the council of Ravenna, assembled by the Pope in 1311. These substitutions for the gospel ordinance were not admitted into England till the middle of the seventeenth century.
If we would know how sprinkling was introduced, we are informed by the celebrated Dr. Wall (a pedo-baptist), in his History of Infant Baptism. He says: "France seems to have been the first country in the world where baptism by effusion was used ordinarily to persons in health, and in the public way of administering it. In the Church of England, it being allowed to weak children (in the reign of Queen Elizabeth) to be baptized by effusion, many fond ladies and gentlewomen first, and afterwards, by degrees, the common people, would obtain the favor of the priest to have their children pass for weak children, too tender to endure dipping [59] in the water. As for sprinkling, properly called, it seems it was, at 1645, just then beginning, and used by very few. They (the Westminster Assembly of divines) reformed the font into a basin. This learned Assembly could not remember that fonts to baptize in had been always used by the primitive Christians, long before the beginning of Popery, and ever since churches were built; but that sprinkling was really introduced (in France first, and then in other Popish countries) in times of Popery; and that, accordingly, all those countries in which the usurped power of the Pope is, or has been formerly, owned, have left off dipping children in the font; but that all other countries in the world which had never regarded his authority do still use it."
Thus we see that sprinkling was originally introduced in France in 1311, by the Catholics, under the direction of a Popish council; yet immersion was retained in England for more than three hundred years longer; till, in the progress of the Reformation there, the Protestants, supposing the fonts in the churches, and the practice of immersion, to be usages of Popery, decided that "dipping of the person in water is not necessary."
I have now finished the view proposed to be [60] taken, for the purpose of establishing the position, that IMMERSION IS ESSENTIAL TO CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. It has been shown that the word employed by the Savior in the Commission signifies, in its usual and proper sense, only to immerse, dip, or plunge; it appears from the places selected for the administration of the ordinance, and from attending circumstances, that immersion was always practiced by those who baptized under the direction of Christ; it is also apparent, from the figurative uses of the word baptism, and from various allusions by the writers of the New Testament, that they considered immersion as belonging to the nature of baptism; and finally, the correctness of this view is most strikingly confirmed by the fact, that the entire church of Christ, during a period of thirteen hundred years, did practise immersion. Are we, then, at liberty to substitute any thing else for the rite enjoined on us by the Lord Jesus? But it is said this view of the subject is incomplete; there are certain places in the Scriptures in which some form of the word baptize is mentioned, and others where the ordinance is named, which make it very improbable that an immersion was either positively enjoined or invariably practiced. A notice of these may be introduced by a single remark. Remembering [61] the evidence which has been adduced to show that the word in question must mean immersion, we are not permitted to assign to it any other meaning unless in a given case, immersion be impossible. "When a thing is proved by sufficient evidence, no objection from difficulties can be admitted as decisive, except they involve an impossibility." Those, then, who would render the term in debate washing, or pouring, or sprinkling, must prove not only that the idea of immersion is improbable, but that it is manifestly IMPOSSIBLE. But this cannot be shown respecting a single instance in which the word occurs. The passages generally brought forward as unfavorable to the idea of immersion are the following:-- Hebrews 9:10. "Only in meats, and drinks, and divers washings." That the word here translated "washings" should have been rendered immersions is evident from the conclusions established under the first head of the former part of this discourse. Immersions were frequent among the Jews, in accordance with the Mosaic ritual. If the word in the original refers to various purifications of things only, then, by a well-known rhetorical figure, taking a part for the whole, immersions may be used for the several kinds of ablutions [62] required by the law. Thus the primary meaning is clearly NOT IMPOSSIBLE in this case. Prof. Robinson translates the word "washings," but refers to Leviticus 11:32, where various things were to be cleansed by being "PUT INTO WATER." This shows that the learned professor supposed immersions to be meant by the Apostle. Others explain the term divers baptisms as being "of men and of things." If this be the sense, no one will object to the idea of immersion.
Mark 7:4. "The washings of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and tables" (couches).
It is supposed to be altogether unlikely that the couches (for so the word rendered "tables" should be translated), on which they reclined at meals, should be immersed. But Prof. Robinson gives his views of the mode of washing by quoting, as before, Leviticus 11:32,-- showing that he understands all these articles were "put into water.." Things which had been defiled by the touch of a dead body were required by the Levitical law to be cleansed "by being put into water;" and how easily might the superstitious Jews extend the practice to things not included in the requisition! The rules in force among the Jews are precise in requiring such articles as the above to be cleansed by being covered in water; and the regulations are exceedingly [63] strict with respect to this washing, so that, should there be any thing adhering to these articles, such as pitch, which might prevent the water from touching the wood in a particular spot, the washing would not be duly performed. The same Jewish authority requires even beds to be cleansed by immersion, when they have become defiled. It is not, then, even "improbable" that the couches were immersed.
Mark 7:3-4. "For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not." The latter of the two words rendered "wash" is in the original from baptizo;the former is not.
It is asked, Does not the word here mean wash? I answer, Is it not possible that it may mean immerse? If so, this is all I am bound to prove. Let us examine the passage. "Here are two instances of washing (so called); the first, a matter of constant occurrence; the second, an observance performed after returning from the market. Did these two washings differ from one another in any respect? It is evident that they did. For, first, one was a washing which commonly occurred before a meal, without regard to the employment which had preceded [64] it; so that, even if a person had remained at home, still, before taking his meal, he would wash his hands. The other was a ceremony performed after having been exposed to the various occasions of defilement, which would be connected with his attendance at market. Such was the variety of persons and things with which he might come in contact, that a more formal and thorough ablution would naturally be performed. In examining the whole passage, the attentive reader will perceive an advance in the thought. If ordinarily the hands were washed before eating, the reader is prepared to hear that, after returning from a mixed crowd of people, something different from, or additional to, this washing was performed.
"In the second place, two different Greek words are employed to express the washing in the two different cases. The former is the word usually employed when only a washing of a part of the body, as the hands, face, or feet, is performed; the latter is used to denote the washing of the whole body by immersion.k The passage should be thus translated: ’For the [65] Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not; and when they come from the market, except they BATHE themselves, they eat not.’ This was the opinion of Vatablus, a distinguished professor of Hebrew at Paris. He says, on this passage, ’They cleansed themselves more carefully from defilement contracted at the market, to wit, by not only washing their hands, but even by immersing their body.’ [Adam Clarke, Methodist, has these words of explanation in his Commentary on Mark 7:4; "’Except they wash,’ or dip, for baptizoontai may mean either." And Dr. Lyman Abbott, Congregationalist, says: "And coming from the market except they plunge, literally baptize."--EDITOR.] For these numerous immersions, the Jews had the most convenient arrangements, and their mode of dress would render the practice less burdensome than it would be with us."l [66] Luke 11:38. "And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner."
After what has been said above, this passage will present no difficulty. By the preceding part of the chapter it appears that our Lord and his host had been exposed to a great mixture of company, and therefore needed, in the judgment of the Pharisee, the more formal and thorough sort of washing. Bruce, the celebrated traveler, informs us that, in Abyssinia, the sect called Kemmont "wash themselves from head to foot after coming from the market, or any public place, where they may have touched any one of a different sect from their own, deeming all such unclean." Is it strange, then, to find the superstitious and self-righteous Pharisees immersing their couches for purification, or themselves, after mingling in a crowd at the market or elsewhere?
Matthew 3:11. "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire."
It is thought baptizo in the latter part of this verse, and in the parallel passages, cannot with propriety be translated immerse. But the [67] difficulty is imaginary, and the word immerse ought to have been used by our translators. The Greek preposition, translated in the common version "with," is en, "in," and should have been so rendered. Thus Prof. Robinson translates: "He shall baptize [immerse] you in the Holy Ghost and in fire." The meaning of the phrase is, "He shall overwhelm, or richly furnish, you with spiritual gifts, or overwhelm with fire everlasting." Now, immerse is the only English word that can properly be employed here to express the copiousness of the communication of divine influences, and the severity of punishment. To immerse in the influences of the Holy Spirit, and to immerse in fire, is correct and intelligible language; but to pour in the Holy Ghost, and to sprinkle in the Holy Ghost and in fire, is both incorrect and unintelligible. Notice, also, Christ’s language, Luke 12:50, already quoted: "I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished?" That is, I have an immersion in sufferings to undergo, and how am I pained till it be ended? Exactly so, we say, to immerse in cares; he is immersed in pleasure, etc.
Acts 10:47. "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized?"
It is asked, May not this mean, Can any man [68] forbid water to be brought in, etc.? I reply, the import of the question is simply this: Can any one forbid the baptism of these persons, "who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" The word "baptized," then, must in this place have its usual sense, immersed.
Acts 16:33, the case of the jailer. Prof. Stuart allows the "possibility" of there having been a "bath" in the jail, in which the keeper’s family were immersed. This "possibility" is all that need be asked. But this narrative not only does not present any objection to the idea of immersion; it furnishes positive evidence in its favor. The following appears to have been the order of events: Paul and Silas were thrust into the inner prison; an earthquake occurred; the jailer sprang in, and fell down before Paul and Silas; he brought them out [of the prison]; they speak to him and to all that were in his house; he then washed their stripes; baptism was next performed; and after baptism, the company returned to the house (v. 34). After instruction, then, had been given in the house, baptism was performed; and after baptism, the company returned to the house. Did they not leave the house in order that baptism might be administered? And why did the administration of baptism require them to leave the house, if it [69] were not that they might go to a bath or other place convenient for immersison?
Acts 12:16. * * * * "arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins." Is not baptism here called the washing away of sin? And may not baptize, then, mean wash? I answer, Not at all. The address of Ananias to Paul was, "Arise, and be immersed." Immersion in pure water would have the effect of washing. So that here we are not at liberty to depart from the ordinary meaning of the word.
Acts 2:1-47. Great stress is laid on the baptism of the three thousand as offering an insuperable objection to the idea of immersion. But, be it remembered, the burden of proof lies on those who object to immersion. Can they prove that immersion could not possibly be practised in this case? Hear the language of Prof. Stuart: "It is true, we do not know that baptism was performed by the Apostles only, nor that all the three thousand were baptized before the going down of the sun. The work may have extended into the evening; and so, many being engaged in it, and more time being given, there was a possibility that the work should be performed, although immersion was practiced."
Furthermore, let it be observed, it is nowhere [70] asserted in the Scriptures, that three thousand were either converted or baptized on this day (the day of Pentecost). We are not informed whether fifty, or five hundred, or more, were baptized on this occasion. We are simply told, in reference to those who were then "pricked in their hearts," who gladly received the Apostle’s word, that they were baptized. "And," we are further informed, "the same day there were added--not were baptized--’about three thousand souls.’ The Scriptures also warrant us in saying that the Apostles and the one hundred and twenty disciples, mentioned in the preceding chapter, were all present, and as many others in Jerusalem, and in that region, as could conveniently be at the feast of Pentecost."m But there are FACTS on record in the history of the church which remove every difficulty in the way of the immersion of the entire three thousand. On the great Sabbath of the Easter festival, the sixteenth day of April, A. D. 404, Chrysostom, with the assistance of the clergy of his own church, baptized by immersion three thousand persons. Yes, one man, assisted only by his presbyters, in one day and in one place, immersed three thousand persons; and that, too, notwithstanding the [71] Christians were twice attacked by furious soldiers; the enemies of Chrysostom. So in 496, Remigius, bishop of Rheims, baptized in the same day, by immersion, Clovis, king of France, and three thousand of his subjects.
I will only remark, in relation to the above historical facts, that the baptisms referred to were administered on Easter-day to commemorate the resurrection of Christ; and it was common to reserve all the baptisms of the year for that day. Hence the number of candidates who came forward at the same time.n In view of the above examination of alleged improbabilities, I ask again, How can we feel ourselves at liberty to depart from the observance of the rite of baptism, as prescribed by the great Head of the church? But there are objections to immersion, which are supposed by the advocates of sprinkling to merit attention.
1. "Christ intended his people should be free from inconvenient and burdensome rites; but immersion would often be inconvenient, and sometimes impracticable."
True, the almost innumerable rites and ceremonies of the ancient dispensation, with the [72] time and trouble, the expense and toil demanded by them, are abolished. As to the "inconveniences" attending the scriptural mode of baptism, those who practice this mode smile at the mention of them, knowing they exist only in the imagination of those who have never tested the value of their objection by experiment. In regard to the allegation, that immersion must ever be in some countries, and, in certain circumstances, in all countries, "impracticable," a moment’s reflection will satisfy a candid mind that little importance should be attached to it. As a matter of fact, immersion is practiced, at this day, in some of the hot countries of Asia and Africa, in the frozen regions of Russia, and amid the perpetual snows of Siberia. And whenever, in any case, the administration of the ordinance would endanger life or health, it must be postponed, or altogether omitted. The deprivation of the privilege must be referred to the providence of God, and a spiritual mind will devoutly submit itself to that providence. God will accept "a willing mind," in the absence of physical ability, or of opportunity to observe His ordinance. And the hardship is no greater in this instance than in numerous cases where Christians are detained for years from the [73] public worship of the sanctuary; or where they are prevented, by the loss of sight, from obeying the command, to "search the Scriptures."
"But," it is asked, "should a person on the bed of death give evidence of conversion, and desire to be received into the company of believers before his departure, what could be done, excessive debility forbidding his immersion?" To this I reply, first, that not one among millions is converted in so weak a state that an immersion could not be performed, in a bath, at his bedside; and, secondly, this case is met by the preceding remarks. The individual would suffer this loss in common with the loss of the privilege of Christian fellowship, and of opportunities to labor for the conversion of sinners, which he would have enjoyed, if he had turned from his sins, and connected himself with the people of God, while in health. Humbled under the consciousness of guilt incurred by so long a course of sin, so late repented of, he will rejoice in the goodness of God which prepares him, though deprived of a connection with the church militant, for glory, honor and immortality, with the church triumphant.
[2. Another objection urged against immersion is, that it is inconvenient, and often impracticable, and in the case of infants [74] seriously objectionable. The latter part of this objection, (1) Assumes what we deny and what is impossible of scriptural proof, namely: That infant baptism is of divine institution. That it is not, the subsequent pages of this book will prove. (2) It overlooks the fact that the Greek Church in Greece, Turkey and Russia immerses infants. Even the Czar’s heir was immersed. Also the further fact that Luther, speaking of the baptism of children, says: "They ought to be wholly immersed, and immediately to be drawn out again, for the etymology of the word (baptizo) seems to require it." The other part of this objection refers to such difficulties as the scarcity or total want of sufficient water, or the extreme cold in certain countries. But the question to be answered is, what did Christ command when he said, "Baptizing them?" His words must determine. When John baptized, he immersed. When Christ baptized, He immersed. When the Apostles baptized, they immersed. Calvin says: "Baptism was administered by John and Christ by plunging the whole body in water. Here we perceive how baptism was administered by the ancients, for they immersed the whole body in water" (Calvin on John 3:23). Adam Clarke says: "The baptism of John was by plunging the body after this same manner as the [75] washing of unclean persons was." Bishop Jeremy Taylor, Episcopalian, says of the baptism of Christ, "Behold an immersion, not an aspersion" (sprinkling). Wesley says: "Mary Welch, aged eleven days, was baptized according to the custom of the first church, and the rule of the Church of England, by immersion." But the answer of Dr. Alexander Carson is conclusive on this subject. He lays down this "canon" as of general application: "When a thing is proved by sufficient evidence, no objection from difficulties can be admitted as decisive, except they involve an impossibility." He adds by way of enforcement of this canon: "This is self-evident, for otherwise nothing could be proved. If every man’s view of abstract probability were allowed to outweigh evidence, no truth would stand the test. The existence of God could not be proved. The Scriptures themselves could not abide such a trial. If my canon is not self-evident, let no man receive it; but if it is just, it overturns not only this objection, but almost all the objections that have been alleged against immersion in baptism." Dr. Carson was, like Mr. Jewett, raised in the Presbyterian faith, and was ordained to the ministry of said Church, becoming pastor of a Presbyterian church at Tubbermore, Ireland. It was the discovery of the [76] fact so innocently stated by the six-year-old son of a minister after the sprinkling of an infant: "Father, I have read the whole of the New Testament, and I find that all who were baptized believed," which led to the abandoning of infant baptism by the father, and finally to Mr. Carson’s change of views.--EDITOR.]
3. "Immersion is unfavorable to collected, serious thought in the person who submits to it, and makes on the spectators an impression adverse to religion." In respect of the first part of the objection, the multitudes who have been buried with Christ by baptism will testify to the serene composure, and the tender solemnity of their feelings. Numbers of timid and delicate females, with placid brow and unwavering step, have gone "down into the water," in happy obedience to the Savior they love. The ordinance, so significant, so full of rich and precious instruction, has a sustaining, elevating power, which makes its subjects superior to the infirmities which might, in other circumstances, disarm and overpower them. With reference to the "impression" alluded to in the latter. part of the objection, it deserves to be recollected that, on all subjects, our impressions, whether right or wrong, are very liable to [77] take their color from our early associations. In the case before us, facts demonstrate that, in numerous instances, all the impressions connected with the scene are of the most solemn and sacred character. The venerated Andrew Fuller states, in his own account of his life, that the impressions he received on first seeing a person baptized by immersion exerted a powerful influence over his religious faith, and his subsequent religious course. His words are as follows:
"In March, 1770, I witnessed the baptism of two young persons, having never seen that ordinance administered before, and was considerably affected by what I saw and heard. The solemn immersion of a person on a profession of faith in Christ carried such a conviction with it, that I wept like a child on the occasion. The words of the Psalmist, Psalms 111:10, ’A good understanding have all they that do his commandments,’ left a deep and abiding impression on my mind. I was fully persuaded that this was the primitive way of baptizing, and that every Christian was bound to attend to this institution of our blessed Lord."
Thousands, also, by the same means, have been converted, and have been led to embrace the Savior, who is thus set forth before their [78] eyes as "buried and risen again" for their redemption. Says a gentleman of high standing in Cincinnati, Ohio, recently a Unitarian, "My first serious impressions were produced on Sunday, on seeing my wife receive the ordinance of baptism, and make a public profession of religion, before a large congregation."
Some have even gone so far as to speak of the administration of the ordinance by immersion as "indecent." It may be well for such to reflect that, if there had been no departure from the baptism confessedly practised, as a general thing, by the Apostles and primitive Christians, such a sentiment as this could never have found place in the bosom of any follower of Christ. Let them also remember that, in urging this sentiment, they may stigmatize an ordinance of the Holy Savior with indecency.
4. "There is no express command in the New Testament limiting us to immersion; and if Christ intended his people should confine themselves to this mode of administration, why did he not so plainly make known his will that there could be no mistake?" This objection can have no force except with those who dissent from the conclusions which have been established in this discourse, respecting the meaning of baptize. If the meaning of [79] language can be ascertained; if Christ did not intend to mislead us by using words out of their proper signification, then it is certain that when the Savior said, "Go, teach, baptizing," etc. [Matthew 28:19], he commanded his ministers to practice immersion. The command is contained in the word BAPTIZE, and we are no more at liberty to require a clearer injunction than the jailer would have been when he was directed to "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ" [Acts 16:31]. The direction of the Commission to immerse is as plain as the direction "to teach" (make disciples or Christians); or as the direction which follows, "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded" [Matthew 28:20]--To say that baptize may mean to apply water in any manner to the person is as destitute of support as for one to affirm, that the word "eat," in the following sentence, may mean to destroy in any manner. ’Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body" [Matthew 26:26]. Suppose a sect of religionists should arise, holding that we are not required to "eat" the bread in the sacred supper, but may destroy it in any other manner, which may seem to be more convenient or agreeable. A member of this sect might argue thus: It is admitted that the ordinary and proper [80] sense of "to eat" is "to chew and swallow as food"; but it also means "to corrode; to wear away; to separate parts of a thing gradually; to consume; to destroy." The idea of destroying seems to lie at the foundation of all these definitions. Why may we not, then, suppose Christ did not intend to confine us to taking into the mouth and swallowing the consecrated element, but has left us the liberty to take it and DESTROY it in any manner? The bread is often unpalatable, and it is very difficult, perhaps dangerous, for some, through their infirmities, "to chew and swallow" it as food. Would the Savior impose such a "burden" on the aged and the sick, as to limit them to this mode of taking bread? May we not crumble it in the hand, or rub it into minute particles on the floor; and, seriously watching the progress of destruction, may we not so be as truly reminded of the broken body of the Lord Jesus, as if we were "to chew and swallow" it, according to the primary and proper meaning of the word "eat?" To a pious mind this seems almost like irreverent trifling; but it is by precisely similar reasoning that it is attempted to evade the force of the argument drawn from the acknowledged sense of the word baptize. And why does our "reverence" receive no shock when the [81] reasoning is applied to the ordinance of baptism? We must look to the power of long-cherished prejudices for a reply. The sum of the matter is this: In instituting the Lord’s Supper, the command of the Savior is, "Take, eat;" in instituting baptism, he says, immerse. The word employed by Christ is as intelligible, specific and definite in the latter case as in the former; and if Christ has made it ESSENTIAL to "EAT" bread, in the ordinance of the Supper, he has also made it ESSENTIAL to IMMERSE the person in the ordinance of baptism. In replying to the above objections, the design has been to meet the main difficulties which are supposed to be connected with immersion. I leave this branch of the subject with three or four additional remarks.
1. The objections just considered are all founded on a false and dangerous principle, namely, that we may determine what is, or what is not, a Christian ordinance by our views of what is fit and proper, what is safe and convenient, expedient and useful. This is an error fraught with ruinous consequences. It is on this principle that the Roman Catholic justifies the unscriptural, foolish and pernicious opinions and observances which are sanctioned by his Church. In endeavoring to ascertain what is an [82] ordinance of Christ, we must consult the Scriptures; TO THE LAW AND TO THE TESTIMONY must we resort, and there must we obtain a verdict from which there shall be no appeal.
2. It is a canon laid down by a distinguished teacher in theology, that "A doctrine proved by sufficient evidence is not to be rejected on any account whatever."o This rule will apply to the case in hand. Has not the position, that immersion is essential to baptism, been proved by sufficient evidence? If so, then we must not reject this truth, even if there were objections to it which might seem to present to us insurmountable difficulties. But no such difficulties are connected with this subject.
3. Had the translators of our version possessed the light which the labors of eminent philologists during the last fifty years have thrown over this subject, they would have found themselves obliged, in conscience, to translate the word baptizoimmerse, in all cases; and they would not have consented to adopt it, instead of translating it, thus concealing the mind of the Spirit. Nay, more; had not King James, under the advice of the bishops, virtually ordered the translators not to translate the words relating to baptism, I believe it morally certain that that [83] learned and pious assembly, acting even under the inferior light which they enjoyed, would have rendered the word, in every instance, in accordance with the views maintained in this discourse.
4. If the word rendered baptize does not specifically and necessarily convey the idea of immersion, then the Greek language, the most copious of all languages, has no word for communicating that idea--an idea with which the Greeks were familiar, and which they had occasion often to express. But if this word does express that idea, and there is no word in the Greek language which more clearly expresses it, then the language of the Commission has, in the plainest terms, made immersion essential to baptism.
Again; Christ either intended to confine his people to immersion or he did not. If he did intend to confine them to immersion, the very word is used which an intelligent Greek would have used for the same purpose; if He did not intend to confine His people to immersion, then the use of such a word by His inspired Apostles is calculated to deceive and mislead His people.
5. In conclusion, I desire to record my deliberate and most serious conviction, that, could all our prepossessions and prejudices be laid [84] aside, we should never, for one moment, doubt that immersion is prescribed by Christ as essential to the nature of gospel baptism. We should find an undeniable exposition of our duty in the practice of the Apostles, and in allusions to the ordinance; and no question would ever be started respecting the will of the King of saints, or the obligations of his subjects. The Lord hasten the day, when all his children shall submit their opinions to the decisions of his WORD, and subject their practice to the dictation of his COMMANDMENTS! [85] a "The lake was tinged with his blood." Homer’s Battle of the Frogs,--where bapto, not baptizo, is used.
b Prof. Stuart.
c Vide Lex on the word baptizo, 2, (a). So Bloomfield, note upon the passage.
d So Olshausen, De Wette, Kuinoel, Grotius, Bloomfield, and others.
e Consult Ripley’s Examination of Stuart, (Boston, 1833); also Robinson’s Lexicon, Katabaino (a), Anabaino (a); likewise Doddridge, on the passage. [Thayer’s New Testament Lexicon confines Katabaino: "To go down, come down, descend." He fines: "To go up, move to a higher place, ascend." It is the opposite of Katabaino--EDITOR.]
f Prof. Stuart.
g Prof. Stuart.
h Barnes’s note.
i Ripley’s Examination.
j Sermon before the Boston Association, 1828.
k Robinson’s Lex. baptizo, I; defin. 2: remark. Comp. Nipto. [Thayer in his New Testament Lexicon defines baptizo: Properly, to dip, immerge, submerge. In the New Testament, an immersion in water. And nipto he defines: To wash one’s self, to wash one’s hands. Trench, in his "Synonyms of the New Testament," says of plunein, niptein and lowein, that we have only one English word, ’to wash,’ with which to render these three Greek words. Plunein is always to wash inanimate things, as distinguished from living objects or persons. Niptein and lonein, on the other hand, express the washing of living persons, although with this difference, that niptein almost always expresses the washing of a part of the body--the hands, the feet, the face, the eyes, the back, the shoulders--while lowein, which is not so much to wash as to bathe,.... implies always, not the bathing of a part of the body, but of the whole.--EDITOR.]
l Ripley.
m Fuller on Communion; note, p. 71. Bloomfield says, "We need not suppose all [of the three thousand] were baptized."
n Christian Review, Vol. III. pp. 91, 92.
o Manuscript Lectures of Rev. Dr. Woods, on the "Incomprehensibility of Revelation."
[MSB 23-85]