01.007-Section II-Arguments Continued

Argument 5.--If it were the case that baptizo clearly signifies to dip, or immerse all over in water, when applied to other subjects, it would by no means certainly follow, that it has this signification, when applied to the Christian rite of baptism. The word supper in English, and deipnon in Greek, have a very different sense, when applied to the eucharist, from what they have in ordinary cases. Eating a morsel of bread does not constitute a supper, in the ordinary sense; but it is called a supper, in this religious rite. Now, if the word which denotes one Christian rite, has a sense so very different from its usual sense; why may it not be so, with the word which denotes the other Christian rite? Why may it not signify, instead of a complete dipping or washing, the application of water in a small degree? This argument claims. that words may have a peculiar sense in religious rites. It does not claim this for Greek words only; for it does not object to supper as a proper rendering of deipnon. It claims that these words, both the Greek and the English, have a sense unknown elsewhere, when they are applied to the eucharist. There is. therefore. no necessity in controverting the argument, to transport ourselves to the foreign territory of the Greek language; but we are at liberty to meet it, and try its validity, on English ground. It does not object that immerse is an improper rendering of baptizo; but it claims that these words, when applied to a religious rite, may have a meaning which they possess in no other case. We are consequently at liberty, in trying the validity of the argument. to use the word immerse as a correct translation of the The whole argument rests on what is supposed to be a peculiar use of a single word, deipnon; and it deserves special consideration, that there is but a single instance of this peculiar signification, even with respect to this word. The instances are exceedingly numerous, in which other words are used with reference to religious rites; and even deipnon is frequently used with reference to the paschal supper. In all these instances it is invariably true, that words when applied to religious rites, have the same signification as in other cases, and are subject to the same rules of interpretation. If deipnon in 1 Corinthians 11:20, is an exception, it is a solitary exception. It is certainly the part of true criticism, in determining the meaning of baptizo to follow the general rule rather than the single exception. Besides, we have frequent use of bapto with reference to religious rites. The Jewish priests seem never to have thought, that, when Moses enjoined dipping in religious rites, he meant a diminutive dipping, or one that might be performed by sprinkling; and no one has suggested, that these priests mistook the meaning of their lawgiver. Is it not infinitely more probable, that baptizo follows its kindred word bapto, in obeying the general rule, than that it follows a very different word in a solitary deviation from all rule and analogy?

If on a single instance we may establish a rule, that words, when applied to a religious rite, may have a meaning which they obtain nowhere else; who will limit the application of this rule, and tell us, how many of the words which apply to religious rites, obtain an extraordinary meaning, or how far their meaning differs from that which they obtain elsewhere? Perhaps the words, which, in the institution of the supper, are rendered eat and drink, although they have this meaning everywhere else, signify, when applied to a religious rite, nothing more than to handle and to look upon. Who will determine for us? Has the legislator of the Church committed to any one a lexicon of ritual terms, by which his simple-hearted disciples may find out what he meant? Or has he given to any persons on earth authority to decree what ceremonies they may think proper, by assigning to all the ritual terms of Scripture what sense they please? That the terms used in reference to religious rites, may sometimes have a figurative rather than the literal meaning, a secondary sense rather than the primary, may be admitted. But this is what happens in all other speaking or writing, and the same rules of criticism are to be applied in this as in other cases. We must prefer the literal and primary signification, if nothing forbids it. We understand the word is, in the phrase "This is my body," to signify represents; because the literal primary signification would make the sense absurd and false. But this word has the same signification, when not applied to a religious rite, in the phrase, "The field is the world." For the same reason, the phrase "As often as ye drink this cup," is to be interpreted according to a common figure of speech, as often as ye drink the liquor contained in this cup. The same literal sense of the terms, and the same rules of figurative interpretation, are found here, as in all other cases. The premises stated in the argument, cannot, in any view of them, justify the conclusion that baptism may be administered by using a small quantity of water. The proper conclusion would rather be, that we ought to change our mode of administering the eucharist. If we do not literally and fully obey the divine command when we restrict ourselves in this ordinance to a morsel of bread and a few drops of wine, we do wrong so to restrict ourselves; and we ought rather to correct the error than establish it as a precedent.

It deserves to be noticed, further, that baptizo and deipnon are not applied to the two religious rites in the same manner. One of them is found in the words of Christ’s command; the other is not, but is, at most, merely a name which the rite has received. Our conduct, in obeying the commands of Christ, must be regulated, not by the names which His institutions may receive, but by the words of his commands. Believers are said, in Scripture, to be buried with Christ in baptism, at least twice as often as the Eucharist is called a supper. Baptism may, therefore, be called a burial; but no one would infer hence that the body should be left for a long time under the water, as in a real interment. Baptism represents a real burial, in which the body of Christ continued three days in the grave. The eucharist represents the free and abundant communion in which the Lord sups with His people,⁽¹⁸⁴⁾ in which a great supper is spread,⁽¹⁸⁵⁾ and which will be perfected at the marriage supper of the Lamb.⁽¹⁸⁶⁾ Yet Christ did not say, "Go, teach all nations, burying them;" nor, "Take a supper in remembrance of me." His command in the latter case is, "Eat this bread and drink this cup;" and he did not institute this ordinance as a supper, but "after supper." Now, if the command is eat, drink, could this command be obeyed any otherwise than by eating and drinking? Would it suffice merely to apply the bread and cup to the lips? In like manner, when Christ said, "Go, teach all nations, immersing them," can the command be obeyed in any other way than by performing a real immersion? In the eucharist, he commanded to eat bread and drink wine, but not to take a full meal; and we know, from the circumstance that this ordinance was instituted immediately after the disciples had taken a full meal, that a full meal was not intended. The Corinthians, when they converted this ordinance into a full meal, did truly eat and drink, yet they did not fulfil the command more strictly and literally than we do; while, on the other hand, they departed from the example, and manifest intention of Christ, and were censured for so doing by the Apostle Paul.

We have suggested that the eucharist may possibly be called a supper, because of the spiritual feast which it represents. So one of the Jewish feasts was called the Passover, because of what it commemorated. But, after all, it is not certain that the eucharist is, in Scripture, called a supper. The eucharist is several times mentioned in the New Testament, but is never called the Lord’s Supper, unless in this instance; and many learned men are of opinion that, what is here called by this name, is not the eucharist itself, but the Love Feast which was anciently celebrated in connection with it. Perhaps it denotes the perversion which the Corinthians made of the eucharist. The phrase is without the definite article in the original text, and might be rendered "a supper of the Lord." Paul does not deny that the Corinthians had made a supper of it, but he denies that it was a supper of the Lord--a supper which the Lord had instituted, or which he approved. What proof, then, is there, that the Holy Spirit has ever called the eucharist by the name Lord’s Supper? We have no objection to the name in itself considered; but, when so much is made to depend on it, the authority for it needs to be examined. If a universal law of Biblical interpretation, respecting ritual words, is to be established on a single fact, the fact should be well ascertained.

Everywhere throughout the New Testament, the words baptize and baptism are applied to one of the Christian rites; if the word supper is ever applied to the other, it is but in a single instance, and it may be that it is there applied to it as converted by abuse into a full meal. The word baptize was used in Christ’s command, and directly expresses the act commanded. The word supper was not used in the command; and, if it be used as a name of the institution, is not directly descriptive of it. The two cases have no analogy between them to sustain the argument.

Argument 6.--The circumstances attending the baptisms of the New Testament, do not, in any case, prove that they were administered by immersion.

They who urge this argument have alleged that, in the account of Christ’s baptism, the phrase "went up straightway out of the water," ought to have been translated, "went up straightway from the water."⁽¹⁸⁷⁾ The emendation of the translation leaves us without proof, they say, that he went into the water to be baptized. We admit, in this case, the correction of the translation. This clause, we concede, does not prove that Christ was in the water. But we have proof of this, in another verse of the same chapter: "And were baptized of him in Jordan."⁽¹⁸⁸⁾ The testimony of Mark to the same point, is very decisive. His record of the transaction may be properly translated thus: "And was immersed by John into the Jordan."⁽¹⁸⁹⁾ In the account of the eunuch’s baptism, the phrases, "they went down into the water," and "they came up out of the water," have been subjected to a similar criticism. It has been alleged that these may be translated with equal propriety, "they went down to the water," and "they came up from the water." This we deny. The preposition apo used in the former case, is not found here, and our translators have, in the present case, rendered the prepositions eis and ek according to their usual import. The opponents of immersion do not deny this, or maintain that they must be translated otherwise; but a departure from their ordinary signification ought not to be supposed without necessity. That these prepositions signify into and out of, in the common use of them by Greek authors, might be proved by innumerable citations; but, instead of these, the following extracts from Robinson’s Lexicon ought to suffice:--

"Apo is used of such objects as before were on, by, or with another, but are now separated from it (not in it, for to this ek corresponds)." "Ek [is] spoken of such objects as before were in another, but are now separated from it." This decides that our common version gives the true sense of the passage, in the rendering, "they went up out of the water." It follows that they must have been in the water when the baptism was performed; and that they must have gone down into the water for its performance.

It has been argued that, if going down into the water proves immersion, Philip was immersed as well as the eunuch; for they both went down into the water. If we maintained that going down into the water signifies going beneath its surface, this argument would be applicable; and it might also be argued against us that the clause which the inspired historian has added, "he baptized him," is superfluous. But we understand the immersion to be denoted by this last phrase; and which of the two persons was immersed, the context clearly shows. But while the phrase, they went down into the water, does not express the immersion, it proves it. No other satisfactory reason, for going into the water, can be assigned. But in truth this circumstantial proof is not needed. The phrase, "he baptized him," states expressly what was done. In the passage, "John was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, because there was much water there,"⁽¹⁹⁰⁾ it has been alleged that the proper translation is many waters; and it is argued that the waters were many small springs or rivulets, not adapted to the purpose of immersion, but needed for the subsistence and comfort of the crowds that attended John’s ministry. The word rendered water properly denotes the element, and not a spring or rivulet. It was used in the plural, as we use the word ashes to denote the element, and not separate collections of it. In the phrase "ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire and into the water,"⁽¹⁹¹⁾ fire is singular, and water is plural in the original text. If the latter word was put in the plural form, to denote the different collections of the element into which the afflicted youth fell at different times, the word fire would, for the same reason, need to be plural. Hence the phrase many waters does not signify many small springs or streams. When Isaiah said, "The nations shall rush like the rushing of many waters;"⁽¹⁹²⁾ when David said, "The Lord on high is mightier than the noise of many waters, yea, than the mighty waves of the sea;"⁽¹⁹³⁾ and again: "He drew me out of many waters;"⁽¹⁹⁴⁾--when John said, "His voice was as the sound of many waters;"⁽¹⁹⁵⁾ the supposition that many little springs or rivulets are intended, is inadmissible. The same phrase, many waters, is used for the river Euphrates.⁽¹⁹⁶⁾ It follows, therefore, that the proposed change of translation, can be of no avail to lessen the evidence of the passage in favor of immersion. As to the allegation, that the water was needed for the subsistence and comfort of the people; we answer, that this, whether true or not, is not what the historian has stated. "John was baptizing, because there was much water." Water was needed for baptizing; and the connection of the clauses shows that the place was selected with reference to the administration of the rite.