01.11 - Lecture 11

LECTURE XI REVIEW. IN this lecture we propose to undertake a summary review of what has been done in previous lectures of this course, noticing a few points that have not yet been touched upon, and referring briefly to some matters of an incidental nature. THE MODE OF BAPTISM.

We have discussed the question of Baptism, dealing separately with the departments of Mode and Subjects into which it naturally divides itself. With regard to Mode, the Baptist position is that mode is essential to the right administration of the ordinance, and that immersion and nothing but immersion is Baptism. Our position is that mode is not essential to validity, that the ordinance is rightly administered by the application of water to the person, and that, as the rite is symbolical of purification, the quantity of water used is not a matter of importance. The main argument on which the Baptists rely to justify their exclusiveness as to mode is the meaning of the Greek verb baptizo. Dr. Carson held that this verb always means “ to dip and nothing but dip.” Of course it must have that meaning or some meaning closely akin to that in order to serve the Baptist purpose. That contention, however, cannot be sustained in the face of the facts. In the Classics baptizo is used to describe not only what takes place when an object is put into water, but also what takes place when water is put upon, or comes upon an object. But even if it could be shown that baptizo in the Classics always means “to dip and nothing but dip,” that circumstance would not only not be decisive in favour of the Baptist view of the question, but would actually leave the question untouched. For it is not a question as to Classical usage that has to be determined, but a question as to New Testament usage. And when we consider the circumstances of the New Testament writers, and the extent to which they were influenced by their training as Jews and as Christians, and more particularly when were member that baptizo, in its literal application, was used by them in a special and technical sense unknown to the Classics, it is perfectly obvious that the New Testament usage must differ from the usage of the Classics. Therefore it is not enough, for the purpose of this investigation, to consult a Classical Greek Lexicon, such us that of Liddell and Scott, whether you take the smaller edition used by schoolboys or the larger edition used by more advanced students. It is nut a Classical Lexicon but a New Testament Lexicon that is needed.

It is sometimes stated that baptizo and its derivatives have been left untranslated in the New Testament. That statement is not quite accurate. It is perfectly true that in most places no translation has been attempted. It would seem that the word came to be so dominated by the special and sacramental sense in which it was used that an adequate translation was not found to be possible. Certainly attempted translations have only served to show the wisdom of our translators in leaving translation unattempted. The truth is, there is no single English word that will translate baptizo all through the New Testament. If you try immerse, by way of experiment, you will find that it is unequal to the requirements of the case. But, as we have seen, there are some instances in which a translation has been made. In Hebrews 9:10, we have “divers washings” instead of “divers baptisms,” and the writer is evidently referring to the ceremonial purifications of the Old Dispensation. These “washings” or baptisms were not necessarily effected by immersion, and it is even doubtful whether immersion was used in a solitary instance. In a Baptist handbook, entitled Paedobaptist Difficulties, by Mr. John McLellan, an ex-Professor of the Baptist denomination in Scotland, which appeared a few weeks ago, and which purports to be a reply to Dr. Bannerman’s admirable hand book, Difficulties about Baptism, which appeared last year, the author tries to show that some of these “ washings “ were immersions, and he refers (pp. 29, 30) to Numbers 19:7-8, where we are told that the priest and he that burned the heifer were required to bathe their flesh in water. But surely immersion is not implied here. The flesh may be bathed without immersion. Neither the Hebrew verb radiats, which is used here, nor the Greek verb louo, by which it is translated in the Septuagint, means to immerse. It is quite true that Trench in his New Testament Synonyms tells us that louo means to wash the whole body. That, however, does not bring immersion any nearer, for the whole body may be washed without immersion. But even if immersion could be proved in some cases it would not be sufficient for the Baptist purpose. To vindicate their contention that “ Baptism is immersion and nothing but immersion,” they must prove immersion in every case. One case in which immersion was not used is sufficient to upset the Baptist position and establish ours, and in these “ divers washings “ we have not only one case in which immersion was not used, but we have an insuperable difficulty in finding a case in which it was used.

Again in Mark 7:4 we have “ they wash them selves “ (literally, “ they baptize themselves “). The washing referred to here was done with a view to purification, and was not done by immersion. I know that the Baptists contend for immersion here as elsewhere, as in consistency they are bound to do, and point with a show of triumph to the fact that the American Revised Version of the New Testament gives “ bathe “ as the rendering here.

But, as we have just seen, bathe does not imply immersion even when it is applied to the whole body. On this passage Dr. Morison observes in his Commentary (the italics are his):

“In the case before us the immersion of the whole body in water was really an absolute impossibility. We wonder that even Meyer contends for it. It would have involved a bath room, or at least a sufficiently ample plunge-bath, in every house and cot in the land. It would have involved, too, a supply of water such as has never yet been in Palestine during the present geological epoch. For the water that was once used for purifying would be ceremonially unclean, and, therefore, unfit for further u*e by a second member of the household; and what, then, would become of the household when three or four or more required to baptize themselves? For the same reason a common public bath in every village would have been an impossibility among the Jews; the use of it by a single individual would have rendered it unclean for all the rest of the population until it was replenished afresh for each. And even then the vessel itself would, until purified, be ceremonially defiled in consequence of contact with the unclean person (Numbers 19:22).... The baptism which the Pharisees and all the Jews performed on every occasion of coming home from the market-place or from any crowded place whatsoever in which they might have got entangled among a mass of miscellaneous individuals, must have been something else than immersion. It would no doubt in all ordinary cases be effected by sprinkling, the common mode of purification.”

Whatever this washing was it was not an immersion of the body in water, and if it was not an immersion of the whole body in water there is an end of the Baptist contention that baptizo means “ to dip and nothing but dip.” The Pharisees “ baptized themselves “ without immersing the whole body in water. In the same verse we have “ washings of cups “ (literally, “ baptizings of cups “). In Luke 11:38 we have “washed before dinner” (literally, “ baptized before dinner “). This was not a case of Baptism by immersion either.

John 2:6 sheds some light on the purification or Baptism of guests. It reads: “ Now there were six waterpots of stone set there after the Jews manner of purifying, containing two or three firkins apiece.”

According to the most liberal calculation these vessels could not have contained more than thirty gallons each, so that, apart from every other consideration, the quantity of water available for the purification of the guests on this occasion of festal abundance was obviously not sufficient for the purpose of immersion. It is evident that baptizein, as used among the Jews, meant to wash with a view to purification. The washing might be done by sprinkling, as in most cases it was, or by pouring, or in some other way, but in whatever way it was done, if it was done with a view to purification, it was Baptism. Now, wash is a general term that does not imply any particular mode of cleansing, and therefore it serves in these passages to translate baptizo, which, according to our view, and according to the view of the highest authorities, does not imply any particular mode of purification.

Baptists sometimes try to make it appear that we translate baptizo by sprinkle, but that is only a part of the misrepresentation that seems to be the chief weapon of the ordinary Baptist controversialist. We object to have baptizo in the New Testament rendered sprinkle just as we object to have it rendered immerse, and our objection in the one case is just as great as in the other case. And we object in both cases for precisely the same reason, and that is that sprinkle and immerse are both expressive of mode, while baptizo is not. We prefer the New Testament translation wash, which is not expressive of mode.

Agreeably to this view, the Westminster Divines define Baptism, as to its mode, as a “washing with water.” Now the Jews were accustomed to describe their ceremonial washings as baptisms. That was the technical name of these purifications. And so when John the Baptist came they were quite prepared to understand the significance of his Baptism. John’s Baptism at once linked itself on to these baptismal purifications with which the people were perfectly familiar.

It is worthy of note that in the New Testament Baptism is once implicitly referred to as purification. In John 3:25, we read: “There arose therefore, a questioning on the part of John’s disciples with a Jew about purifying.” Why did this “ questioning “ or controversy arise? The word “ therefore “ carries us back to the verses immediately preceding, where we learn that John’s Baptism was going on side by side with the Baptism of Jesus. It was quite natural in these circumstances that some of those who had received the one Baptism should get into a discussion with some of those who had received the other Baptism.

Even among ourselves such a thing could be conceived of as possible. But if it were a discussion about Baptism why should it be described as “ a questioning about purifying?” Why do we not find here the proper technical term “ Baptism “ itself?

Because the discussion would naturally turn on the effectiveness of the one Baptism as compared with the other, and as the effect of Baptism was to purify, the controversy is said to have been about purification. As far as we can gather, the disciples of John were dissatisfied with this Jew for seeking Baptism from Jesus, and they complained to the Baptist himself that men were flocking to his rival and submitting to His Baptism. But John explained that it must needs be so, that his ministry was only preparatory to that of Jesus, and that Jesus must increase while he should decrease. This passage is of the highest importance as connecting, beyond all controversy, the Baptism of John and that of Jesus with the ceremonial purifications of the Old Testament. John’s Baptism, therefore, came in direct succession to the baptismal purifications with which the Jewish people were familiar, and we know that in most cases these purifications were effected by sprinkling or pouring. Thus, the Baptism of John takes its place in its natural and historical connection, and we are put into the right attitude for considering the mode in which it was performed. The mode of John’s Baptism was discussed so exhaustively in our second lecture that I do not need to dwell upon it here. Referring to the Baptism of the Saviour we proved that the Greek words used by the Evangelists do not necessarily imply that He entered the Jordan in order to be baptized, and we showed that even if it could be established, which it cannot, that our Lord entered the Jordan for this purpose, it cannot be proved that He was immersed in the river.

“FOLLOW THE LORD INTO THE RIVER.” And here I should like to notice an expression that Baptists try to turn to account when they meet with young and not too well-informed Christians that they wish to capture. It is this, “ As a believer you are called upon to follow the Lord, and at the very outset you are called upon to follow Him into the river.” As we have seen, it cannot be proved that our Lord entered the river.

But, apart from that altogether, we are not called upon to follow our Lord in His observance of every rite that belonged to a Dispensation which He brought to a close when He offered up His life on the Cross. And, in particular, we are not called upon to follow our Lord in His submission to John’s Baptism, which served only a temporary purpose, and which passed away when that purpose had been served. For, as we have already pointed out, John’s Baptism was not Christian Baptism.

Christian Baptism was not instituted until our Lord issued His great Commission. So far as the record shows, Christian Baptism was performed for the first time on the Day of Pentecost. Besides, we learn from Acts 19:1-5, that certain disciples at Ephesus who had received John’s Baptism were re-baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. This one incident would be sufficient to show, even if we did not otherwise know it, that John’s Baptism was not Christian Baptism. THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY.

It will be remembered that in our third lecture we considered every instance of Christian Baptism that can shed any light on the question of Mode, and showed up to the point of demonstration that every one of these cases is unfavourable to the Immersionist view. In the fourth lecture we dealt with the remaining Scripture references that are supposed to bear on the mode of Baptism, and showed that they do not in any case support the Baptist view, and that, where they have any bearing on the question, they support our view. In the conclusion of that lecture I dealt with the widely circulated misrepresentation that the Westminster Assembly carried a motion in favour of sprinkling, as opposed to immersion, by twenty-five votes to twenty-four. I find that this misrepresentation has been repeated by Mr. John M Lellan, in the handbook already referred to. Quoting, as he states, from the article on Baptism in the Edinburgh Encyclopaedia, he says (the italics are mine):

“ In the Assembly of Divines, held at Westminster in 1643 it was keenly debated whether immersion or sprinkling should le adopted. Twenty-five voted for sprinkling and twenty-four for immersion; and even that small majority was obtained at the earnest request of Dr. Lightfoot, who had acquired great influence in the Assembly. Sprinkling is, therefore, the general practice in this country.” l The writer of this article does not seem to have known much about the position of the Westminster Assembly in relation to the question of Mode in Baptism, and does not seem to have known that sprinkling was “ the general practice in this country “ before the Westminster Assembly met, and that even the English Anabaptists practised sprinkling until the year 1641. It is not necessary for me to refute again this misrepresentation 1 Paedobaplist Difficulties, pp. 53, 54.

in regard to the Westminster Assembly, and to repeat what I said at the end of my fourth lecture, based on Dr. Lightfoot’s own account of the matter. But I will read you an extract from a book referred to in my fifth lecture, written by another Baptist, Mr. W. H. Whitsitt, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Ky.

President Whitsitt says (the italics are mine):

“When the Westminster Divines, who were preparing the Directory for Public Worship of God, came to discuss the subject on the 7th of August 1644, it was now their turn to reject immersion as their Continental predecessors had done. This rite had long been disused among Presbyterians, and every member of the Assembly in is agreed that sprinkling teas the best mode of Baptism. The question at issue before them was whether immersion should be tolerated CM an alternate form of Baptism and allowed to stand by the side of sprinkling? Numbers felt unwilling to go on record as rejecting a New Testament usage (?) by formal action, and hence the vote was close. If they had allowed immersion to stand, it is likely that nobody in their communion would have employed it. But their sentiments were too decided even to allow it to stand.

Twenty-five went against it, while only twenty-four were willing to concede that it was one of the modes by which Baptism might be administered. This was the most radical action against immersion which up to that time had ever been taken by one of the larger denominations of Christendom.”

We give another quotation from this book of President Whitsitt in reference to the practice of the Anabaptists. He says:

1 A Question in Baptist History, pp. 32, 33.

“ In conclusion the general result may be stated that few Anabaptists of any country were Immersionists, and that none of the Anabaptists of England in the sixteenth and first half of the seventeenth centuries were Immersionists.” l BAPTISTS AND IMMERSION.

Immersion is regarded by at least one section of the Baptists as a matter of such importance that they will not admit to the Lord’s Table in their own Churches any one who has not been immersed, and will not even sit down at the Lord’s Table outside their own Churches with any one who has not been immersed. But the most outstanding men among the Baptists of to-day do not lay so much stress on the importance of immersion. I believe I am correct in saying that the most prominent Baptists in the United Kingdom at the present time are Dr. Alex. McLaren, Dr. John Clifford, and Mr. F. B. Meyer, and Baptism by immersion is not a condition of Church-member ship with any of them. They all receive into full communion those who have been baptized in infancy and who make a profession of faith. And John Bunyan, a greater than any of them, took a similar position and followed a similar course. In his Differences in Judgment about Water Baptism no Bar to Communion he denounces, in that vigorous Anglo-Saxon of which he was a master, the narrowness of those who make too much of immer- 1 A Question in Baptist History, p. 48. sion while not making enough of other things more important. He says in one place

“I tell you again that a discovery of the faith and holiness and a declaration of the willingness of a person to subject himself to the laws and government of Christ in His Church is a ground sufficient to receive such a member “ (that is, one who has not been immersed).

INFANT BAPTISM.

I have not time to review the Scriptural argument in favour of Infant Baptism as we hold it.

It will be enough to say that the infant children of God’s professing people were in the membership of the Old Testament Church, that their status was recognised in the rite of Circumcision, that the New Testament Church is in all essential particulars the same as the Old Testament Church, that the privileges of the children have not been abridged under the Gospel Dispensation, that our Lord Himself has defined their position in relation to His Church and Kingdom, that Baptism has taken the place of Circumcision, and that the right of the infant children of Church members to receive Baptism was never once called in question, in the Baptist sense, until the Anabaptists arose in the sixteenth century, and was never once called in question in any sense until a handful of Petrobrusians, who have no claim to serious notice, arose in the thirteenth century.

Some one took exception to my statement that the Principle of Representation runs all through the Word of God, on the ground that I did not carry it back farther than Abraham. I assumed that those who heard the statement would be able to carry it back for themselves, and that they would understand that it meets us in the beginning of Genesis, and that Adam was dealt with on this principle as the representative of the race. I took it for granted also that they would know that Noah, after he came forth from the ark, was dealt with on the same principle and treated as a representative, as we learn from Genesis 9:8-9 : “ And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, And I, behold I, establish my Covenant with you and with your seed after you.” Instead of presuming upon ignorance, after the manner of certain proselytizing controversialists, I assumed that the intelligent audience I addressed would have at least some slight acquaintance with the more elementary facts of Scripture History.

BAPTIST METHODS. And here I should like to say a word in relation to Baptist methods of Church extension and controversy, more particularly in places where they are trying to secure a following and to build up a cause. It is usual for the Baptist worker who has learned his little part by rote to approach some simple-minded young man or woman who has decided for Christ and is seeking to obey the commands of Christ, but who is not too well instructed in the things of the Kingdom, and who, in particular, has never given much thought to the subject of Baptism it is usual for the Baptist worker to approach a person of this class and bring out his little arguments and put some puzzling questions which the person may not be able to answer at the time, and he feels that the Baptist has the advantage of him; and, on the impulse of the moment and on the urgent representation that is made, he may be led to think that the Baptist is in the right, and may commit himself to that admission without knowing what is to be said on the other side. What I should like to say to our young people is this: “ When you meet with kind friends who are so deeply interested in your welfare that they want to drag you away from your own Church and induce you to join their denomination, and when they ply you with objections to our teaching which you cannot meet and with questions which you cannot answer, don t come to the conclusion that because you cannot meet these objections and because you cannot answer these questions, they cannot be met and answered.

If you meet with difficulties that you cannot see your way to surmount, consult your minister, who will be glad to see you and to help you, and don t come to the conclusion that your minister and the elders and the Sabbath-school teachers are not your friends, and that your only true friend is the faddist who has set himself to capture a convert for his own cause.” The ordinary Baptist controversialist moves within a very narrow circle of argument if argument it may be called and when he is forced outside the limits of his own little programme he finds himself very much at sea. A shrewd Presbyterian farmer once remarked to me, in a somewhat similar connection, that a blackbird has just three notes, and when these have been used he is ready to take himself to another tree. I do not vouch for the literal accuracy of the statement, but the spirit of it is true, and the significance of it is unmistakable.

If you proceed to deal with the subject of Baptism in a comprehensive and exhaustive fashion, the ordinary Baptist controversialist has practically nothing to say in reply, beyond citing a few quotations of individual opinion, most of them irrelevant, and many of them torn away from the context, and thus made to convey a misleading impression as to the views of the authors from whom they are taken. Baptists call on us to supply them with Scripture proof, but they think any garbled extract from human writings good enough for us. They build greatly on the admissions of Paedobaptists, as they call them. With these admissions we have no concern. They concern their authors only. But if Baptists are satisfied with the case they can build on such a basis, we have no reason to be dissatisfied with the case that is built for us on the impregnable Rock of Holy Scripture. THE TERM “ BAPTIST.”

I must explain that I have used the term “Baptist” throughout these lectures in the common acceptation as applying to the denomination calling itself by that name. I have done so as a matter of courtesy, and not because I admit their right to be so designated. The implication, of course, is that they alone baptize, just as some good people who call themselves “Christians,” and will not allow themselves to be called anything else, imply that they alone are worthy to bear the name of Christ. I do not say that the so called “ Christians “ are not Christians, and I do not say that the so-called “ Baptists “ are not Baptists, but I do say that they are not the only Christians and that they are not the only Baptists.

We claim to be Baptists, and with good reason, because we practise Christian Baptism, and because our Baptism is in strict conformity with Scripture teaching. We deny the right of Immersionists to the exclusive use of the designation “Baptist,” and we brand as impertinent the reflection that is thus implicitly made on other denominations of Christians.

CONCLUSION.

I may say in conclusion, as I said at the beginning, that I have been led to deal with this question of Baptism simply and solely because I knew that our people, and especially our young people, needed some teaching on the subject. Three years ago I made up my mind to give a series of lectures on Baptism, but owing to the amount of time I had to give, up to last meeting of Assembly, to the editing of the Records of the General Synod of Ulster, I was unable to give attention to the matter any sooner. My object in these lectures has been expository rather than controversial. If, at times, it was necessary to be somewhat controversial I can not help it. Controversy has its place in the work of a public teacher, and, for my part, I shall not shrink from controversy when I consider it necessary in the interests of truth. I do not regard as an empty form the vow I made at my ordination, when I solemnly undertook to teach the doctrine of our Church and to defend it to the utmost of my power against all error. Some may think that the subject of Baptism is not of sufficient importance to claim so much attention. With that opinion I do not agree. I am thoroughly convinced of the necessity of all that has been said, and I am thoroughly satisfied that these lectures, whatever their imperfections may be, have been given in response to a clear call of Duty. My one object has been to serve the cause of truth, and I trust that object has been, in at least some measure, attained.