JSL-12-Chapter Twelve:

Chapter Twelve:
Baptism

Disregarding minor differences, the following exhibit will show with sufficient fullness the present views of religious society on the question of baptism:

1.That the word, as used by the Saviour in the institution of the ordinance, meant immersion, and only immersion, or some equivalent, such as dipping; and that this original meaning of the word must still direct and control us in the administration of the ordinance. Without exception, so far as I know, those who maintain this view also believe that a personal profession of faith is a necessary prerequisite to any authorized baptism. 2.That which the original word is conceded to mean immersion, the substance or essence of the ordinance is not dependent upon that precise action. This view seems to regard the baptismal formula, or, at any rate, something distinct from the act, as the essential thing in baptism, and that this something, consequently, is not necessarily bound to immersion. Hence, that the sprinkling or pouring of water upon the subject, in connection with the baptismal formula, will accomplish the same end as if the subject were immersed in water; that it will reach the same object, though proceeding to it by a different road; and that that object is the real and true baptism, as distinguished from the mere mode of its administration. Those who hold this view also believe that the ordinance may rightfully be administered to infants, especially those of believing parents, or other competent sponsors. 3.That the word as applied to the institution of baptism, whatever its signification in the classics and in common use, does not properly mean immersion at all, but rather purification or cleansing; and that, consequently, the action of baptism is best indicated by the pouring forth of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles, when they were baptized upon the day of Pentecost. This view also contemplates the baptism of infants.

While I shall not here enter into an elaborate discussion of these points, and shall say nothing in a controversial spirit, it will be appropriate, in the interest of truth, and in view of the great importance of the subject, briefly to remark upon them. Taking them, then, in reverse order, I am obliged to regard the third view as most unfortunate; for while its influence upon the baptismal controversy is extremely slight, failing as it does to command the respect of the most eminent scholastic authorities, its advocacy is on other grounds to be deeply deplored. For if its conclusion respecting baptism is true, it might certainly be shown without assuming a position which necessarily calls in question and puts in doubt the only basis upon which it is possible for us to have any trustworthy revelation from God. Certainly it the words of such revelation do not have the significations which were current at the time they were used, we have no means of getting at their true sense, which is equivalent to saying that it can not be to us a revelation. I grant that in the argument the assumption is limited to the word baptism—that it was not used in its current and well-understood sense. But if it is legitimate and right to assume this with reference to one word, why may we not deal in the same way with others? Who is to prescribe the limit? And by what sign shall we ever know, while reading, whether we are upon this or that side of the boundary?

I may dismiss the position in question with the remark that it was not the original basis of the doctrine which it has been brought in to support. That doctrine had been long held and taught upon other grounds, and it was only an afterthought that suggested this peculiar and remarkable interpretation of the Saviour’s word, as a means by which the commission could be harmonized with the doctrine. The second of the views above tabulated is not exposed to the same fatal objection. It recognizes fully the proper sense of the divine word, and frankly avows it. It seeks neither to hide it nor to pervert it, but on the contrary it openly acknowledges and proclaims it. We are obliged to admit, whatever our own views may be, that this course is honorable and respectable. It places the issue where it legitimately belongs. There is no equivocation about the meaning of the word baptism. That is a settled thing, known and recognized by all genuine scholarship. It signifies immersion, dipping, plunging; and it has no secondary meanings which are inconsistent with these. And now, after thus candidly and fairly conceding the proper sense of the word, it submits a proposition respecting the thing. It says in effect that that which was instituted was not identical with the word which created the institution. Of course every one perceives that this might have been so. It is conceivable. We may join issue at this point, and deny that in fact it was so; but we shall feel that we are in a Christian atmosphere, beyond the region of mere quibbling and equivocation. We have a distinct issue of fact, and in my opinion, so far as the action of baptism is concerned, it presents the only ground upon which any discussion can be entered upon with the likelihood of reaching profitable conclusions. It is also encouraging to note that those who have presented this issue are, in the main, not only gentlemen of lofty character, but of fine scholarship. I feel confident, therefore, inasmuch as I have tried to state their positions fairly, and to characterize it without terms of disparagement, that such objections as I may feel constrained to file against it will be considered in the spirit of dispassionate candor in which they are offered.

1.My first objection to the view as stated is that it is not clear. I have sought to present it as distinctly as possible; and I have certainly succeeded in making it as plain as its advocates have usually done, if not, indeed, much plainer. And yet I very much doubt whether the general reader will be able, after all, even to conceive of baptism apart from its action. I have already granted that in some sense it is conceivable; but still it must be allowed that the lines separating the act for the institution, the baptizing from the baptism, are somewhat blurred and confused. The conception is thus difficult from the fact that the act and the ordinances seem to be inseparably blended, so much so that when we eliminate the former, the latter also disappears. We can not find it. We can not even think of it. Where there is no baptizing there is no baptism. Hence, whatever mental discriminations we may make between the, we are obliged to view them as a unit, having no separate and independent existence. 2.But let us suppose the difficulty removed and that in spite of the mist and obscurity encompassing the subject, we have succeeded in conceiving of baptism as a veritable entity distinct from any action, and consequently that some action other than immersion may contain that entity and bring us the same blessing, we are still forced to ask, “What action?” It will hardly be held, I suppose, that any action whatever will answer the purpose. There must be some reason for giving one the preference over others; some baptismal mark or sign designating it as right and proper, and supplying the desired assurance that it would serve for baptism. But in the absence of any definite utterance of the Scriptures, the determination of the question is certainly not without difficulty, which it involves a serious responsibility. Conceding, as the representatives of the view we are considering do, that the Saviour commanded to immerse, they can not have failed to give the most profound and prayerful consideration to the matter before deciding upon a substitute action; and among the many possible substitutes, is it by any means certain that they have fallen upon the right ones? Even admitting, therefore, for the sake of the argument, that the essence of baptism may be imparted by some other action, it does not follow that it could be imparted by any other; and I am free to confess that I know of no valid reason designating either sprinkling or pouring as having superior claims in this regard. But not only is the questions of the sufficiency of the substitute, for baptismal purposes, seen thus to be uncertain and doubtful, but a still graver doubt arises respecting the authority to make any change at all. If Christ nowhere authorized even his inspired apostles to do other than execute the commission as he gave it, with no hint or intimation that he contemplated any departure from it or alteration of it, “even to the end of the world,” can we be certain that the church was justified in substituting sprinkling or pouring for immersion, or that he approves or sanctions the change? I press these questions in no partisan spirit, and with no ulterior aims, but because to my mind they are serious questions; and they are such as I can but ask, when I read the able and scholarly proofs and candid admissions made by eminent Christian teachers, that the word used by the Saviour meant immersion, while they yet claim that something else is equally valid, authoritative, and efficacious.

I have no reason for preferring the first of the three views mentioned at the head of this chapter, other than its simple and literal conformity to the words of Holy Scripture. If the term used by the Saviour in instituting the ordinance meant immerse, as all competing and ingenuous scholarship freely concedes, it is certainly safe to retain the practice of immersion until the same divine authority abrogates it, or sets it aside for some other. The avoids all the uncertainty and doubt which must necessarily inhere in the views already considered. With this practice it matters not whether baptism be regarded as a divinely appointed and significant act, or as an institution, or as both combined in one; in any case we have the most satisfactory assurance that what we administer is literally and truly “an ordinance of the New Testament,” or, as others express it, “a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life; which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world” (Presbyterian Confession of Faith, chapter 28). Certainly, if all or even any of this is true, we can not afford to have the slightest doubt or uncertainty connected with our baptism. We must find that which was “ordained by Jesus Christ,” and which, by his “own appointment, was to be continued in his Church to the end of the world”; and we must accept it and be thankful for it.

Reverent, candid and competent scholarship, rising above mere party considerations, has, to all intents and purposes, settled the first of these points, namely, what was “ordained by Jesus Christ”; it was immersion—such being the conceded meaning of the word which he used. And now the only practical question remaining is whether this action which he prescribes is to be “continued in his church to the end of the world.” I shall not argue this question, but content myself with the expression of the hope that if the Church’s “standard” is right, it will, sooner or later, realize the importance of practically conforming to it.