BIBLE
BAPTISM
OR
THE
IMMERSER INSTRUCTED,
FROM
VARIOUS
SOURCES.
By
JAMES E. QUAW, A. M., V.D.M.
Edited
By Jeff Paton
To
the law and to the testimony—Isa. 8: 20.
Make
all things according to the pattern—Heb. 8: 5.
Truth
is mighty and will prevail—Tertulian.
He
who hates truth shall be the dupe of lies—Cowper.
Prove
all things; hold fast that which is good—1 Thes. 5:21.
1844
From the Editor: This is a most
intriguing title which certainly rises to the task that it sets out to do! For
those that are truly open to truth, few will say that after reading this that
they were not in some way better “instructed." Some may see that author
as being repetitive, but I soon realized the method in which he employed. Under
every topic he has a new direction or basis in which he is arguing the topic.
Many writers refuse to repeat a point that they have already made to avoid any
appearance of repetition. Our author appears to regroup, and with each
successive angle, he applies any and all evidences and proofs to the
angle at hand. This benefits the reader who would scan for the topic that
interests them, then reads only that section. The author, by the virtue of
regrouping, leaves nothing out of a section in favor of brevity. One does not
have to worry whether they will give any and all proofs because they were
mentioned elsewhere. This makes the book a perfect "pick up and start
reading where you want" book that is up to the task.
As
with the length of any detailed book, this one too covers a great scope, which
is larger than most readers will wish to pursue on a computer screen. My
desire in editing is to reveal the brightest spots contained in the work, and
to condense the high-points for the reader. With this in mind, it leaves the
idea of the “best” and “most valuable” statements up to the judgment
of one man; myself. Hopefully my judgment and selection from this work will be
what most readers wish to see challenged. My greater emphasis is stated in the
title of the book, which speaks to the notions of those who are strict
Immersionists. Most of the emphasis will be on having clarity about the
Baptismal Mode of Immersion. Some sections, such as later human opinions and
resources may be generously abridged. Infant baptism will be covered, but not
to the extent of the issue of the meaning and mode of Baptism.
This book was written in a western log-cabin; in a room which, at one and the same time, answered for a study, a parlor, a sitting-room, a dining-hall, bed-room, and kitchen. The hours which, for six or eight months, the Author could spare from the discharge of the duties of a New Testament Bishop, he has, in this rather romantic study, devoted lo this work. The reader must determine whether they have or have not been profitably employed. That the work required labor will be manifest to those who may read it with care. Indeed, this is evident from the single fact, that to complete it on the plan which the Author adopted, more or less words from twelve foreign languages, ancient and modern, have been introduced into the work.
This work was written to remove the rubbish that learning and ignorance and learned ignorance have thrown round a plain Scriptural truth and duty; and then to place these clearly before the reader's mind, with the evidence in their favor. It has not been- written in answer to any hook, or in opposition to- any class of men. The subject of baptism has been examined with some degree of care. What men have said in favor or immersion being the only mode of baptism, has been brought to the test of truth and examined. Their assertions, as a substitute for Scriptural evidence, often, when examined, appear ridiculous. But when this is the case, the fault is not in the truth, or in those who present it to the mind ; both, in those who, by mistake or otherwise, substitute unsupported assertions for Divine Revelation.
If this work is noticed publicly, by the friends or enemies of Divine truth, not with- sneers, assertions or questions, but by facts and arguments which point out any error in the proof presented, or in the positions taken, the Author will be much obliged to those- who do so. This will enable him to correct any mistakes or errors which it may contain. Those who "gnaw at the cover," quibble at trifles, or misrepresent what it contains, will only show what they would do if they could. That no man ever has or ever can prove immersion to be the only Scriptural mode of baptism, is certain; because the Word of God makes no such declaration in any form of expression. But notwithstanding this, when errors are discovered in the following work, the Author will cheerfully correct them.
This book, like
most others, will, no doubt, fall into the hands of different kinds of readers.
Some of these will be prejudiced, and therefore will not judge correctly. Some
will be cynical. These can discover faults whether the book does or does not
contain any. But such persons can neither discover nor correct real errors or
mistakes. Those who are very ignorant
will of course be very severe in their censures. The jealous will judge
maliciously. The envious will judge with a jaundiced eye and an envenomed heart.
Some who hate God's truth on this subject, will rage like the sea in a storm;
while others among them will scatter their silent venom like the poison tree of
fabulous notoriety. But such persons as love Divine
truth, wherever they discover it, will examine candidly, judge impartially, and
discover and correct errors with discretion; while they will perceive and acknowledge
the force of evidence where it
exists.
BIBLE
BAPTISM
THE
RULE.
That the Bible is the only Rule in all religious duties, is a grand mark of distinction between Christians and others. To admit that any deviation from this rule, is a part of Christianity, is to declare virtually, that the Bible is defective, and that men are wiser than God. If the Bible is a perfect rule, it cannot be made better by any additions or omissions which men may suggest. Deviations from its perfect requirements cannot be holy; they must be sinful. Since the wisdom of God is revealed in his word; none can forsake this without admitting practically, that they prefer the wisdom of men to that of God. Those who take the Bible for their only rule in all religious duties, have perfect wisdom to direct them. Its teaching is plain, positive and uncompromising. It does not teach opposite and contradictory sentiments. In its declarations, we have more than the opinions of men; we have the authority of God. Those who take the scriptures of truth for their only rule in all religious duties,
1.
Ascertain the exact meaning of its words.
2.
They take the words in their literal signification, unless the context or
parallel passages require them to be used figuratively.
3.
In figurative expressions, they deviate as little as possible from the literal
signification of the words.
4.
What the scriptures teach, they take for positive proof on all religious
subjects.
5.
What the scriptures require, and that only, they receive and practice as parts
of their religion.
6.
What the scriptures forbid, they do not practice for any purpose; certainly not
as a part of their religion.
On the subject of baptism, therefore, the scriptures only can be recognized as authority to which all are bound to submit.
RECOMMENDATION.
Bible Baptism is, by many competent judges, said to be the most valuable work written on the subject of which it treats. Moreover, it is the only one in print which discusses the subject of baptism in all its various parts. They also affirm that it ought to be in the hands of every man, woman and child who can read the English language. But the publisher says; read the book. It will recommend itself.
BOOK
FIRST—BAPTISM
PART
FIRST BAPTISM
WITH WATER
CHAPTER
I
BAPTISM
WITH WATER TAUGHT IN THE WORD
OF GOD
1. The Scriptures definitely teach that baptism with water was required by Divine authority. John the Baptist repeatedly declares, in the most positive language, that he baptized "with water.” His language on this subject is; "I baptize with water;" I am "come baptizing with water;" He—"sent me to baptize with water;" John 1: 26. 31. 33. Mat. 3: 11. Mark 1: 8, Luke, 3: 16.: Acts 10: 47., Acts 8: 36.; Matt. 28:19.
"I indeed baptize you with water." That John, by Divine authority, used water in baptism, is as definitely taught by the language just quoted, as it is possible for words to leach any fact whatever. To deny therefore, that John baptized "with water," cannot be less than a positive denial of the plain declarations of God's word.
2. The disciples of Christ baptized with water after His resurrection. The language of Peter recorded by Divine inspiration, teaches this truth. It is this; "Can any man forbid water that" Cornelius and his friends" should not be baptized ?" The language of the Eunuch teaches the same fact; "See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?" Both these statements, in relation to the use of water in baptism, were made some time after the resurrection of Christ; and in each of them the fact that the disciples used water in baptism, is most clearly taught.
3. The commission to baptize shown that, baptism with water was intended. In this Christ says; "Go ye, and teach all nations, baptizing them." Here the disciples are required to administer baptism. They did baptize as they are here required to do. They administered the very ordinance included in this command. But as they did not, and could not baptize with the Holy Ghost, that being the work of a Divine person, and as they did baptize as the commission directed; they must therefore have baptized with water. When the Apostles administered the baptism mentioned in their commission, it is manifest that they then baptized not with the Holy Spirit, but with water.
4. Persons were commanded by the Apostles to be baptized with water. Peter "commanded" Cornelius and his friends after "the Holy Ghost fell on them," "to be baptized" by some person or persons authorized to administer the ordinance of baptism. As these persons had already been renewed by the power of the Spirit, and made new creatures, when Peter commanded them to be baptized, the command must have required them to be baptized with water. When Peter, with the eleven, on "the day of Pentecost," preached to the "men of Judea," and to all those who dwelt " at Jerusalem," and commanded them to "Repent and be baptized," and declared that they should " receive the gift of the Holy Ghost," It is manifest that the baptism here mentioned is distinct from repentance, and from " the gift of the Holy Ghost." This baptism therefore must have been with water, not with the Spirit; because these are mentioned as really different from each other. Besides, Peter, with the eleven, would not command the Holy Ghost to baptize persons; and if the command were given to men and executed by them, then the baptism must have been with water, not with the Holy Ghost; for baptism with the Holy Ghost, is the work of a Divine person, not of men.
CHAPTER
II
BAPTISM
WITH WATER TO CONTINUE TILL
THE END OF TIME
1. There
is no evidence that baptism with
water is to be discontinued. If the whole scriptures should be searched,
not a single passage could be found that would teach either directly or
indirectly, that baptism with water was to cease
in any age of the New Testament church. But, since it
was administered by Divine authority; and since God has not, in any passage of
scripture, directed men to discontinue the practice of baptizing with water, and
since there is nothing in baptism itself
to limit its duration, therefore to lay aside that ordinance, is a practical
repeal, by men, of a Divine law. No man can do this without great guilt in the
sight of God. Baptism with
water must therefore be continued in the
2. The commission to baptize teaches that baptism with water is to continue till the end of time. The commission to baptize includes the promise; " Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." In this promise, Christ engages to be with those whom he commissions to teach and baptize. The duration of the commission is also mentioned. It is to be in force till "the end of the world." But since the whole commission is to be in force till the end of time ; therefore that part of it which requires the Apostles and their successors in office to be baptized with water, must remain as long in force. As the same commission requires Christ's ministering servants to teach and baptize with water; the duty to teach and baptize must continue together or cease at the same period. But teaching is to continue till the end of time; and therefore baptism with water, required in the same commission which requires ministers to teach, must also continue till the end of time.
3. Inspired men teach that baptism with water is to continue till the end of time. These baptized with water after the resurrection of Christ. This shows that they understood what their commission required them to do. They thus taught that they knew that baptism with water was an ordinance in the church, which did not cease to be binding at the death or resurrection of Christ. Nor, as inspired men, could they be mistaken in this matter. Thus baptism with water was, by the example of inspired men, handed down to the church; and by the church it has been practiced ever since the New Testament dispensation of it commenced, till the present day. Those who do and will after follow the same inspired instructions and examples, will baptize with water " even unto the end of the world."
4. Baptism with water as a Divine institution, is to continue in the church till the end, of time. Our Savior in his mediatorial character instituted the ordinance of Christian baptism. He claims this character in the expression; "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." In his human nature merely, he could not have received all this "power;" in his Divine nature merely he possessed it already; but in his human and Divine natures united in one person, he could and did receive "all power." In this character he gives the commission to teach and baptize. He says; "All power is given unto me—Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them." Because he possessed all power, he directed them to teach and baptize. This commission therefore is of Divine authority. All it contains is therefore Divinely instituted. It requires baptism with water to continue till the end of time; and therefore whenever and wherever this ordinance is administered "according to Christ's appointment" and by his authority, the administration is in obedience to a Divine command; and therefore the ordinance thus administered is always a Divine institution.
PART
SECOND
BAPTISM
ADMINISTERED BY DIVINE
AUTHORITY BEFORE THE BIRTH OF CHRIST
CHAPTER
I,
BAPTISM
UNTO MOSES
1. The
Israelites were "baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea."
This baptism was administered about 1491 years
before the birth of Christ. About 50 years after his birth, we are informed that
the Jews were all "under the cloud and all passed through the sea;"
and that they "were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the
sea." If
God had not told us in his word, that the Israelites were baptized "in the
cloud and in the sea," we would not have even conjectured that the cloud
passing over them and pouring
"out water" upon them, was baptism;
or that they, passing through the sea on "dry ground," were
baptized. But this was baptism
;
and this account in Exodus is the most ancient record existing that mentions baptism.
In this baptism, no
human hand administered the ordinance. But God himself baptized the nation of
2. This baptism was typical. We are informed that a number of things among which this baptism "unto Moses," is mentioned, "were our examples;" and "happened unto them for ensamples." These things therefore were intended to symbolize certain occurrences in New Testament times. Baptism unto Moses is especially mentioned as one of these. It was therefore a typical or symbolical baptism. It may have typified Christian baptism.
3. This baptism was expressive of the union of the Israelites to Moses as their leader. They were "baptized unto" (Greek sis to, in or into) him. This expression indicates, not that they were all entirely covered over in the body of Moses; but that they were thus united to him as their leader and law-giver, under God their king. By receiving this baptism, they publicly recognized this as their relation to Moses. God, by administering this baptism to them, gave his solemn sanction to this their union. Therefore this relation to Moses as their leader was, not only expressed by this baptism, but it also in this ordinance received the Divine approbation.
4. In this baptism, their obedience to Moses was indicated. Obedience to the person or being, in, unto, to or into whom or in whose name, the ordinance is administered, is always recognized as due from the baptized. He who administers baptism or requires others to do so, essentially demands obedience from those to whom it is administered. This obedience is to be rendered to him in whose name or unto whom they are baptized. When God requires this obedience; the baptized are always bound to render it; because the requirement is then always just; and obedience therefore always proper. Hence, when the Israelites were baptized to, in, unto or into Moses; they were under baptismal obligations to render him personal and prompt obedience.
CHAPTER
II
DIVERS BAPTISMS.1. These baptisms were Old Testament washings. The "gifts and sacrifices" in Old Testament times, it is said, "stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings" or baptisms," and carnal ordinances." In the Greek, these "divers washings" are expressly called baptisms. They are also mentioned as belonging exclusively to the Old Testament dispensation of the covenant, and including all its ceremonial washings. Of these washings or baptisms, three specimens are definitely named. Two of these are with blood and one with water. These are all mentioned as ceremonial purifications. With one or both these fluids, the "unclean,"—"the book and, all the people,"—"the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry," were ceremonially purified. The various ceremonial washings therefore belonging to the Old Testament dispensation of the covenant are, by the Holy Spirit, called "Divers baptisms.'' In this expression they are all included.
2. These "Divers baptisms" were numerous. If any type of ceremonial washing existed among the Israelites before the days of Moses, they are not definitely mentioned in the word of God; nor are any kind of washings before this, called baptisms. But from the time the Passover was instituted, 1491 years before Christ, till he suffered on the cross; these washings which the Holy Ghost calls " baptisms" were so numerous that under "the law almost all things," were "purged with blood," and some with water. To produce ceremonial purification, blood was applied to "the altar,"— to "the people,"—to "the tabernacle,"—to "the vessels of the ministry ;" and for the same purpose it was frequently applied to other things. Water also was used in cleansing the "leper,"—the Israelites' "clothes,"—"Aaron and his sons,"—the other "Levites," and in several other instances. It is manifest therefore, that these "divers washings" or baptisms among the Israelites, were very numerous.
3. Certain vessel? Under special circumstances were to be cleansed by these washings or baptisms. If "the pot" in which the "sin-offering" was "sodden," was made of brass, it was to be thus ceremonially purified with "water." Vessels for ordinary use, into which any "unclean" reptile might fall; or those "of wood" touched by a person who had an "issue," were also to be cleansed ceremonially with "water," and the various other ceremonial washings or baptisms mentioned with Divine approbation in the Old Testament, the Israelites had the positive command of God. It ought also to be continually borne in mind that all these washings are, by the Holy Spirit, denominated baptisms.
PART
THIRD
BAPTISM
ADMINISTERED
BY DIVINE AUTHORITY DURING
CHRIST'S MINISTRY ON EARTH
CHAPTER
I
John's
Baptism
1. John
the Baptist was a truly great man. Before he was born, the angel who
foretold his birth, declared of him; “He shall be great in the sight of the
Lord." That he was all that “Gabriel" said he would be, will be
manifest to any person who will examine what God, in His word, says of him. John
was, (1.) by birth a Jewish Priest. He was the
son of Zacharias, a priest "of the course of Abia." And because he was
a priest's son, he was by the Levitical law, "consecrated to minister"
to God "in the priest's office." (2.) He was Elias or Elijah, not
in person, but in spirit and in power. When the Jews said to him; "Art thou
Elias I" meaning Elias or Elijah in person; “he saith, “I am not."
The angel speaking of him before his birth, said; "He shall go before"
the Lord” in the spirit and power of Elias." Our Saviour says of John the
Baptist; "This is Elias which was for to come;" that is, this is he
who was "to come" in the spirit and power of Elias, according to the
prediction of the prophet. (3.) He was the harbinger or forerunner of Christ.
God says; "Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way
before me." This is, by our Saviour, applied to John as being
“written" of him. He was also, in his very infancy, addressed in this
language; " And thou, child—shalt go before the face of the Lord, to
prepare his way." (4.) "He was a burning and a shining light."
He is so called by his Great Master; because, both by precept and example,
he clearly reflected the bright beams of "the Sun of righteousness."
(5.) He was a "voice." As such he directed the attention of the
Jews to himself, and from himself to the Lord Jesus Christ. (6.) He
was “a prophet,"—" the prophet of the Highest." In this
character, he predicted that Christ would very soon appear in public as the
Messiah so often foretold by other prophets. (7.) He was "more than a
prophet." He was a prophet; a priest; a light; a voice; the forerunner
of Christ, &c. To be all this, is to be "much more than a prophet,
"(8.) He was inferior to none who lived before him. On this point
Jesus Christ declares; "Among them that are born of women, there hath not
risen a greater than John the Baptist."(9.) He was a martyr. For his
faithfulness in reproving Herod for his sins, he was first "cast into
prison" and then "beheaded." He was the last, in all probability,
who suffered death for his religion, before the Great Sacrifice was offered on
the cross.(10.) The "least in the
2. John the Baptist lived
and died under the Old Testament dispensation of the covenant. This is
undeniably certain from a number of facts stated in the word of God. (1.) Old
Testament ordinances continued in force till the death of Christ. These were
circumcision and the Passover. Being ordinances peculiar to the Old Testament,
they could remain in force only during that dispensation. Of the last Passover,
Christ, just before his crucifixion, says to his disciples; "With desire I
have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer: for I say unto you,
I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of
God:"— and " I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the
kingdom of God shall come." This language clearly indicates that "the
kingdom of God" here mentioned, had not come, or commenced, when this was
spoken; nor that the typical Passover of the Old Testament was at that time
fulfilled in Christ our Passover," who was not then yet sacrificed for
us." But in the death of Christ, its whole design was completed. It was
then swallowed up in the great Antitype. The prophecies were completely
fulfilled at the death of Christ, our paschal "Lamb slain," in the
purpose of God, “from the foundation of the world.” As Christ eat the
Passover which was an Old Testament ordinance, a very short time before he
suffered on the cross; so whatever took place before his death must have been
under that dispensation, of which the Passover was an ordinance or a part. John
the Baptist was "beheaded" before Christ eat the last Passover;
therefore he lived and died under the Old Testament dispensation, while the
paschal ordinance was legally in force. (2.) John, in his preaching, taught
definitely that the New Testament dispensation of the covenant had not then
commenced. That which is “at hand," is near; within reach; but is not
yet in possession. “The
3. John Baptized. This appears, (1.) from his title. He is called the Baptist, because he baptized. (2.) He himself declares that he baptized. He repeatedly says; "I baptize with water." (3.) John the Evangelist, with other sacred writers, teaches that he baptized "in Bethabara"—'"in Enon..," (4.) "The baptism of John" is often mentioned in scripture, as a fact universally known and admitted- From evidence such as this, none who believe the scriptures to be the word of God, can hesitate to admit that John baptized.
4. John's authority to baptize was Divine. That this was the case, is proved, (1.) from the general evidence given in the account of his life and character contained in the Holy Scriptures. (2.) It is also expressly declared that he was "sent from God,"—"sent to baptize"—and that “the word of God came unto John." This language shows clearly that his commission to baptize was Divine. (3.) Jesus Christ informs us that John's authority to baptize, was "from Heaven" or Divine. This he does in the question; " The baptism of John, whence was it? From Heaven or of men?" This interrogatory affirmation is equivalent to a positive declaration that John's baptism was "from Heaven;" or that he baptized by Divine authority. His commission to baptize was therefore ''from God."
5. God the Father, as his personal act, commissioned John to baptize. This fact John himself teaches. He declares; “He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost." This account which John gives of his commission, shows clearly that his authority to baptize was not derived from the Son or Spirit as the personal act of either; and that therefore, since this his authority was Divine, it must have been obtained from the Father, as his personal act.
6. John's commission to baptize did not include succession. He had no right to transfer to others his authority to baptize. The commission which includes succession, not only permits, but absolutely requires this. In his commission, it is stated that John was "sent from God;" that he was "sent to baptize;" but not the least intimation is given in any portion of the word of God, that John was required, authorized or permitted, to send or commission others to baptize ; or that at any time he did or attempted to do so.
7. John
was to “decrease." Speaking of himself, he
declares; " I must decrease." (1.) He was to decrease in influence,
as the moon's influence decreases when the sun rises. (2.) He was to
decrease in usefulness, as the bright rays of the sun renders the pale
moon-beams of little or no value; or as the harbinger's work is done when his
lord whom he
announced, has appeared.(3.) The number of his disciples was to decrease.
His public ministry was soon ended; and then he could baptize, in person, no
more disciples. He had no authority to empower others to baptize and
therefore the disciples whom he baptized must soon pass into the eternal world
and leave no others to occupy their place. (4.) His office of forerunner of
Christ was to decrease in importance as the Messiah became more and
more manifest to Israel; till at last it would entirely cease when all its
duties were completely discharged; that is, when Christ was fully and
clearly pointed out to the Jews. John was to decrease. It cannot be,
therefore, that every person who is baptized increases by one, the number
of his followers, or "disciples;" as those whom he baptized are
called. (5.) John's commission to
baptize was special in its design. An important part of this design was to
make the Lord Jesus Christ "manifest to
9. John's
baptism was intended for the
Jews only. This we learn, (l.) by knowing the situation of the
places where he baptized. He baptized "in Bethabara beyond
10. John's baptism was peculiar to himself. It was administered by him and by no other person. This appears, (1.) from the fact that, by his commission, he, and no other person, was authorized to baptize. His baptism, without Divine authority, would have been mere mockery. Hence we are informed that God sent him to baptize; so that he was empowered to administer this baptism. But no person before or after him, had or has Divine authority to administer the same baptismal rite that John administered; therefore his baptism was peculiar to himself. (2.) The name by which it is called, proves this fact. It is often denominated "John's baptism" and "the baptism of John ;" but it is not specified in scripture by any other distinguishing appellation. Since therefore it is properly called "John's baptism" or "the baptism of John," and is not known in the word of God by any other name; his baptism must have been peculiar to himself. (3.) His title proves that his baptism was peculiar to himself. He is entitled "the Baptist. "
John, and no other person named in the whole word of God, is called the "Baptist." Though many others baptized, yet no other one received this title. Since therefore he only of all that baptized in scripture times, was called "the Baptist;" therefore his baptism, from the administration of which he was entitled "the Baptist," must have been peculiar to himself. If it were not so, others who baptized as, well as John, would also, in the word of God, have been called Baptists. Had not the baptism of others been essentially distinct from that of John, they would have deserved and received the same title that John did. (4.) Of those whom he baptized he chose some as his immediate followers. These are often called "his disciples." They were called “John's disciples;” because he baptized them, and then received them under his immediate care as their instructor. They would not have been called "his disciples," any more than the disciples of any other man, had not his baptism been peculiar to himself. It appears therefore from John's commission, it being confined to himself; from the fact that his baptism is called by his own name; from his title; and from the distinctive appellation given to his immediate followers whom he baptized; that his baptism was of a special kind, peculiar to himself.
11. John did not baptize “in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." In the administration of Christian baptism, this form is indispensable. But in John's baptism it was not used. This is manifest from the fact that some who had been baptized unto “John’s baptism"—" had not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost." If John had baptized in the name of the Triune God or used the form prescribed by our Saviour; those whom he baptized, would certainly have heard of the "Holy Ghost;" because in that case this name, as well as that of the Father and Son, would have been mentioned at their baptism.
12. Persons whom John baptized were re-baptized by Apostolic authority. When those who had received John's baptism without hearing of the "Holy Ghost" were instructed by Paul, they were baptized in the name of the "Lord Jesus," not deluding but including the Father and Spirit; as is manifest from the passage here quoted, taken in connection with the commission by which Christ authorized his disciples to baptize. This commission expressly required them to baptize in the name of "the Father" and Spirit as well as "of the Son." None are allowed by the word of God to re-baptize those who had received Christian baptism; but those whom John baptized were re-baptized, therefore John's ' could not have been that baptism which none are authorized to repeat.
Of the "three thousand" baptized "at Jerusalem'' on " the day of Pentecost," it is more than probable that a portion had heard John preach and had been baptized by him. It Would have been scarcely possible to find three thousand persons, at Jerusalem, in a promiscuous assembly, in less than seven years, perhaps less than four from the time John began to preach and baptize, not one of whom had formed a portion of "the multitude" composed of "Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region round about Jordan," who were baptized by John. It is highly probable therefore that not a few of these three thousand who were baptized on "the day of Pentecost," had before received John's baptism. If this was the case, the evidence that John's disciples were re- baptized would be repeated,—but scarcely strengthened; as no language can be more positive and pointed than that already quoted on this subject.
13. John's baptism was not the seal of the covenant into which God entered with his visible church. As he lived and died under the Old Testament dispensation of the covenant (a), during which circumcision and the Passover, not baptism and the Lord's supper, sealed its promises and confirmed other blessings ; so his baptism could not have been its seal. Circumcision then sealed the covenant, and was the mark by which a person's standing in the visible "congregation of the Lord,"|| was at that time known. John was therefore circumcised, and so was the Lord Jesus Christ who was born six months after him. His baptism could not therefore have been the seal of God's covenant entered.
14. The
law and the prophets did not end when John appeared.
(1.) The moral law did not cease to be binding at the birth, public
appearance, imprisonment or death of John. That law is of perpetual
obligation as a rule of life; because,” through faith"—" the
law" is not made” void," but "established.(2.) The ceremonial
law continued to be binding till, at the death of Christ, it was nailed "to
His cross;" and but just before this, our Saviour in eating the Passover,
observed a part of the ceremonial law. It was therefore, when he eat the last
Passover, yet in force. (3.) Not a few prophets, besides the Apostles and
Evangelists lived after the death of John; after the-death of Christ. The law
therefore, when John appeared, did not lay aside its binding force; nor did God
then cease to send forth men to prophesy in his name. And, although the Old
Testament scriptures, (often called "the law and the prophets,) were, until
John" appeared, the only Divine revelation which God had then given to man;
yet, it by no means follows that they should at that time, as a matter of
course, cease to be observed, or that no other prophets should appear after
those mentioned in the Old Testament. Moreover, "the law and the prophets
were, until John" came "in the spirit and power of Elias,"
continually pointing the Jewish nation to him as the harbinger of "the
Prince of peace." Besides, "All the prophets and the law prophesied
until John," of him, as a great prophet. He was to be the last prophet
under the legal or Old Testament dispensation; the "Elijah" who was to
appear “before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the
Lord;" the one who was to be the forerunner of the Messiah, and
point him out as "the Lamb of God" to guilty
15. The New Testament dispensation did not commence during John's ministry. Ceremonies peculiar to Old Testament times cannot be properly practiced in the New Testament church as religious duties. To do this would confound the legal and gospel dispensations of the covenant. It would bring Christians under "the yoke of" ceremonial "bondage," and would be only to "tempt God," not to serve Him. John, " on the eighth day" after his birth, received circumcision, the Old Testament " seal of the righteousness of—faith." At the time of his circumcision therefore, the Old Testament dispensation yet existed and was in force. Six months after John's circumcision, it still continued; for then Christ was circumcised. He had been born in "the fullness of time." When the time fixed for his birth in the Divine purpose and predicted by the prophets, had fully come, then he was born; and on the eighth day was circumcised. After John's death, our Saviour ate the Passover, an Old Testament ordinance. As therefore circumcision and the Passover which, as religious ordinances, were peculiar to the Old Testament, were in force till after John's death; the New Testament dispensation, the sealing ordinances of which are not circumcision and the Passover, could not have commenced during or before his public ministry. Besides, John lived and died under the Old Testament dispensation of the covenant and therefore before the New commenced; for none will maintain that a person can live and die under the Old Testament dispensation and yet live under the New; for a person cannot live under a dispensation which does not commence till after his death.
When Paul, about nineteen years after the death of Christ, "took and circumcised" Timothy, it was " because of the Jews," not because circumcision was then a religious duty; for then "circumcision" was " nothing;" though formerly it had been the external "seal" or "token of the covenant" entered into between God and his visible people Nor is it intimated that the circumcision of Timothy was intended as a religious rite, but merely as an act which, at that time, was in itself completely indifferent. It cannot therefore be adduced as a proof that in New Testament times, circumcision may or must he practiced as a religious rite.
During John's ministry the New Testament dispensation did not commence; because (1.) circumcision, as a religious duty, was practiced during his life; (2.) the Passover was, after his death, observed as an Old Testament ordinance; (3.) he lived and died under the Old Testament dispensation of the covenant.
16. The New Testament dispensation did not commence till all the types had been fulfilled in the Antitype. In the Old Testament, many types are mentioned. Some of these have special reference to the death of Christ for their fulfillment. The whole paschal sacrifice was typical of Christ who, as “our Passover," was " sacrificed for us" on the cross. The fact that "a bone of" the Pascal lamb was not to "be broken," was a typical prophecy, which was fulfilled when a bone of Christ was not broken on the cross. These Old Testament types, referring specially to the death of Christ, could not have their complete fulfillment in any event before or after his crucifixion. In that event, and in that only, could these types meet in the Great Antitype. Before this event therefore, the Old Testament dispensation of which these types were a part, did not and could not end, nor the New commence.
The expression, "the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the son of God," does not signify that when John appeared, then the gospel first began to be preached; for about nineteen hundred years before this. "The gospel" was preached “unto Abraham." It was also “preached to the Israelites in the wilderness. Moreover "the gospel of Jesus Christ" was preached when, in the first promise, it was said, the seed of the woman, the Redeemer of sinners. He "shall bruise" the serpent's "head." The gospel therefore instead of being first preached when John began his public ministry, had been preached four thousand years before he was born. Nor does the language used in this passage teach that when John appeared, the gospel was first preached; or that it was not preached before; or that then the Old Testament dispensation of the covenant ended; or that the New or Gospel dispensation, then commenced.
17. John did not sustain the office of a minister of the New Testament church. This appears, (1.) From the fact that John was beheaded before the office of the New Testament ministry was instituted. It was not till after the resurrection of our Saviour, that he said to "the eleven disciples" and to their successors in the ministerial office; "Go ye—and teach all nations." John was not one of "the eleven ;" nor was he one of their successors; for he was " beheaded" more than a year and a half before Christ rose from the dead. As John died before the office of the Christian ministry was instituted; so he could not have sustained that office. (2.) John was an Old Testament priest, and died under that dispensation; therefore, his was not the office of a New Testament minister. (3.) John's commission did not include succession; it could not therefore be that of a New Testament minister, which does include succession. (4.) It was confined to the Jews; and hence it was not the New Testament ministerial commission which extends to the Gentiles. (5.) His baptism was not administered in the name of the Trinity; and (6.) The subjects of it were re-baptized; his commission to baptize could not therefore have been that of a minister of the New Testament dispensation of the church. It is manifest then that John's office was not that of a New Testament minister, by which those sustaining it, ore authorized to "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature."
18. John's baptism was not the Christian sacrament called baptism. To the very existence of the ordinance of Christian baptism, several things are indispensably necessary. (1.) He who administers it, must live at least a part of his life, during the Christian dispensation; because a man cannot administer any ordinance after his death. John died before the Christian dispensation commenced, and while that of the Old Testament continued. The baptism therefore which he administered could not be the Christian sacrament of baptism ; because he lived no part of his life during the Christian dispensation. (2.) Christian baptism was not instituted till after John's death. Like the office of the Christian ministry, it was instituted after Christ’s resurrection. And as John's death preceded that of the Saviour, it must have preceded the institution of the Christian ordinance of baptism ; because this last did not precede but followed the death of Christ. John could not then administer an ordinance which was not instituted till some time after his death. (3.) He did not baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.". In this name, and in this only, can Christian baptism be administered; therefore, John's, since it was not administered in this name, could not have been Christian baptism. (4.) John's baptism was repeated by apostolic authority, therefore, John's was not Christian baptism ; for this is not to be repeated. (5.) It was not the Son but the Father by whom John was sent to baptize; his, therefore, was not Christian baptism. (6.)
John's,
instead of being the ordinance of Christian baptism,
had
very little in common with that sacrament (a). It is perfectly manifest then,
that his was not Christian baptism.
Whatever
it is supposed to be; whether it is considered as one of the "divers
washings" or baptisms of the Jews; or as an ordinance peculiar to himself
as the harbinger of Christ, in the morning-twilight of the gospel or New
Testament day, just as the darkness of the ancient dispensation was beginning to
break away; one thing is certain; his was not the Christian sacrament of baptism.
CHAPTER
II
THE
BAPTISM
ADMINISTERED
TO JESUS CHRIST
1. The
standing of Jesus Christ in the covenant, was recognized by circumcision, not by
baptism. This we may learn,
(1.) From the fact that circumcision was the "seal of the righteous
of—faith,"—the " token of the covenant," when he was
"eight days" old. He was then circumcised. By thus receiving this seal
of the covenant, he was publicly recognized and registered as a visible member
of " The congregation of the Lord," as one of Jehovah's professed
" people"—" Israel." (2.) The Jews are called “His
own" people; because, among other reasons, he was a circumcised descendant
of Abram. He was therefore in his human nature a member of the Jewish nation. By
birth he was a Jew. His standing therefore in the covenant made with Abram,
must, like that of other Jews, during that dispensation, have been recognized by
circumcision. (3.) Jesus Christ is expressly called "A minister of the
circumcision, "Being circumcised and being a minister of the circumcision,
both intimate that his standing in the covenant made with Abram was recognized
by circumcision. (4.) He eat the Passover several times during his life; and
also just before his death. By this, it is clearly taught that the Old Testament
ordinances remained in full force till his death; and therefore circumcision did
not, before that event, cease to be the seal or "token of the
covenant." (5.) His covenant relation to the visible people of God, was
recognized by circumcision, on the eighth day after his birth; and he was not
baptized till he was "about thirty years of age." Hence his standing
in the visible
2. Jesus
Christ was baptized by John. This fact is several times recorded by the
inspired writers. "Jesus" came from
3. Jesus Christ did not receive John's baptism in the same sense that others did. John's was to the Jews, “the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." They were baptized "unto repentance," confessed "their sins," and were required to “bring forth fruits meet for repentance." In the very act of receiving his baptism, they publicly professed all this. Those therefore whom John baptized, (except our Saviour,) professed, by receiving his baptism, to repent of their sins, confessed them and were to prove the sincerity of their repentance in those appropriate " fruits," by bringing forth which, they corrected the evils of which they had been guilty. Since Jesus Christ was “holy, harmless, undefiled,'' and "separate from sinners;" and since he "did no sin;" He had no sins to repent of and confess, to forsake and correct. His baptism therefore could not have been "unto repentance for the remission of sins," as was that of other Jews. He did not then receive John's baptism in the same sense that others did. When therefore John baptized Christ, and when he baptized others; the baptism had an essentially different signification.
4. Jesus Christ did not receive the ordinance of Christian baptism. This appears, (1.) from the fact that Christian baptism was not instituted till after Christ was baptized; nor indeed till some time after the death of John who administered the ordinance of baptism to him. His, therefore, could not have been Christian baptism. (2.) Christ received John's baptism. This was not the ordinance of Christian baptism. As the baptism which he received was John's, his, therefore, was not the ordinance of Christian baptism. (3.) It is improper to baptize a person in his own name; because the baptized, in the very act of receiving the ordinance, come under baptismal engagements to render obedience to him in whose name the baptism is administered. For a person to engage to render obedience to himself, and enter into a solemn obligation to do so, would be but solemn trifling. But if Christ was baptized in his own name, he thereby came under solemn baptismal engagements to obey himself personally. Of such trifling, Christ was not, could not be guilty. He was not therefore, baptized in his own name; and if he was not, then his was not the ordinance of Christian baptism; for this must be administered in the name of the Son as well as of the Father and Spirit. But it was very consistent with propriety for Christ, in a way peculiar to himself, to receive John's baptism, which was not administered in the name of the Trinity. It is evident then, that Christ's was not the Christian ordinance of baptism. (4.) Christian baptism supposes sin in the person baptized. Where there is no sin, none can be washed away; nor can the sign of the washing away of sin, in such a case, have any appropriate signification. As Christ was personally and perfectly free from sinful defilement in nature and in practice, his could not be the ordinance of Christian baptism; because this last symbolizes, among other things, the washing away of sin by the blood and Spirit of Christ. As he had no personal sins, he did not suffer for himself; "but he was wounded for our transgressions; He was delivered for our offences;"—" He did for the ungodly;"—for "sinners." (5.) He did not need Christian baptism. As Christ was inherently holy, neither His own sufferings, nor the renewing grace of the Spirit, could be necessary to make him so. He did not need these in any degree, for his own personal purification; and therefore he did not need, could not, properly speaking, receive their external sign in the ordinance of Christian baptism. Where the thing signified cannot in any degree exist in the nature of things, the external sign must be inappropriate. Christ being personally holy, did not need, and could not receive, the regenerating, converting, renewing grace of the Holy Spirit. He could not then with propriety receive Christian baptism which includes the symbolical representation of these. (6.) Christ's ministry on earth was under the Old Testament dispensation of the covenant. He "was a minister of the circumcision;" He observed the Old Testament ordinances of circumcision and the Passover; and with his expiring breath, he said; "It is finished." All this shows conclusively that his ministry on earth was under the Old Testament dispensation. But Christian baptism was not an Old Testament ordinance; the baptism therefore which he received during His ministry on earth, could not be the New Testament ordinance of baptism.
5. Jesus Christ was a Priest. (1.) He is often so called. He is said to be "a priest,"—" a priest for ever,"—" a high priest,"—"a great high priest,"—"a priest after the order of Melchisedec." (2.) He is said to have a "priesthood.": None but a priest can have a priesthood. (3.) As a priest, "he offered himself without spot unto God? He was offered to bear the sins of many;"—"Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us." This language and much more similar to it, teaches definitely that the Lord Jesus Christ was, and is, and will continue to be, a priest.
6. Christ
was, by his baptism,
set apart to
his priestly office. He was a priest. As such, he, in order
to comply with the Divine law, must be set apart to his office according to its
requirements. The moral law did not require water to be applied to persons for
any purpose; neither did the civil law of the Jews. No
part of the ceremonial law required the application of water to persons before,
at or after, they were "thirty years of age" as a religious ordinance,
except that which required the priests to be thus set apart to their office.
These were at first to serve “from thirty years old—until fifty years
old." In after ages, they were required to serve “from- the age of twenty
years and upwards." But before any of them could legally engage in
officiating as priests, they must observe the law relating to their
consecration. They must be, by Divine authority, set apart to their office. Therefore
Jesus Christ, when he was "about thirty years of age," in giving the
reason why he was then to be baptized or have water applied to him, says, it was
"to fulfill all righteousness." "To fulfill all
righteousness" is simply to
comply perfectly with every portion of a righteous law. As Jesus Christ
came into the world to fulfill perfectly every part of the Divine law; so, in
entering on the public discharge of what the office of a priest required, he
would comply with the Divine direction given to the Levitical priests by the
ministry of Moses. God commanded Moses to "wash" Aaron and his
sons "with water;" and he "washed them with water." Here the
priests are commanded to be washed with water. To comply with this law, our
Saviour must be washed with water in some mode, before he could legally enter
publicly upon his priestly office. These passages do not mention the mode by
which the priests were to be washed, but another does. It is this; "
Thus shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them; sprinkle
water of purifying upon them." The Levites then, including the
family of Aaron, were all to be washed by having "water of purifying" sprinkled
on them when they were about to begin to minister in holy things. When Christ
was about thirty years old, he was so far advanced in life that no one on
account of his age could deny his right to enter publicly upon the office of a
priest. But to
enter this office legally, he must be baptized, or have water applied to him by
a Levite of the family of Aaron, or of some other family. John was by birth a
priest, and therefore as such, as well as from his office of prophet, and that
of Christ's forerunner (a), he was a proper person to set apart legally, the Son
of God to his
priestly office. For this purpose water must be applied to him, according to the
provisions of the Levitical law.
He was not taken to " the door of the tabernacle ; for that was a mere
circumstance, essential to the ordinance only when it was mentioned, and at no
time connected with it only while the tabernacle stood. Since, therefore, our
Saviour was baptized "to fulfill all righteousness," or in other
words, to comply with the requirements of a just law; and since no law, except
that which required the priests to be washed with water, required persons, at or
about the age of thirty, to have water applied to them as an ordinance; it
follows as an undeniable inference that he was baptized in order to be legally
set apart to his priestly office.
7. To complete his consecration as a priest, Christ was anointed. The Levitical priests were to be anointed “throughout their generations." God said to Moses, "thou shalt anoint" Aaron;—" thou shalt anoint" his sons; and "Moses took of the anointing oil—and sprinkled it upon Aaron—and upon his sons." From these and similar expressions it appears that the priests, Aaron and his sons, throughout their generations, were to be anointed with oil as a part of their consecration to qualify them to discharge publicly the duties of their office. The Lord Jesus Christ, when he was about to enter publicly upon his priestly office, was also anointed. He is (1.) called the "anointed" of the Lord. (2.) He is often called the "Messiah" and "the Christ." The word Messiah in Hebrew and the word Christ in Greek, each denote the anointed. (3.) He is said to be "anointed;" (4.) To be "anointed with the oil of gladness;" (5.) In this anointing, "the Spirit" was given him "without measure;" (6.) "The Lord".—"God," the Father " anointed" him with the Spirit that Christ might legally act as a priest, he was not only baptized; but he was also anointed with the Holy Spirit. This anointing was infinitely superior to that of mere oil. Our Saviour therefore was in every respect legally set apart for the public discharge of the functions of the priesthood. For this purpose, he was baptized; for this he was anointed.
8. Christ
was not baptized as a substitute for his people. It is not said in any
part of the word of God, that he was baptized for that purpose. To say that he
was, is therefore to turn aside from the scriptures as a rule of duty (a). It
is often stated that he died to save "his people," "his
sheep,"— and to be a ransom for "many ;" but
in no passage of scripture, is it said that he was baptized for his people or as
a substitute for them. Moreover, he lived under the Old Testament
dispensation, when the ordinance of Christian baptism was
not required of his people. Hence
they did not need a substitute to do that for them, which they themselves were
not in duly bound to do. Besides, he himself expressly mentions the reason why
he was baptized. To "fulfill all righteousness," not to be a
substitute for his people, is the reason he gives for receiving John's baptism.
The
Lord Jesus Christ was not therefore baptized as a substitute for his people.
9. He was
not baptized to set an example for his followers. No
such instruction is given in the Holy book of God. Our Saviour
himself definitely declares that he was baptized for a certain purpose. This
was "to fulfill all righteousness," not to set an example for his
followers. He definitely states for what he was baptized. Men tell us that, in
receiving John's baptism, he had a design
different from that which he mentions. He says he was baptized "to fulfill
all righteousness;" men
say, he was baptized to set his followers an example. Which
are we bound to believe ? Jesus Christ ? or mere man ? Christians believe what
Christ says on this subject as well as on others, rather than the mere
assertions of mere men.
10. If Christ, in his baptism,
did set an example, it is not imitated by his followers. To
imitate an example set by a person, is to do what the person did. A number of
things concurred in our Saviour's baptism. (1.) He
"was baptized" by "John;" (2.) "In" or at or near
the "
If his baptism
was intended as an example for his followers, the whole of it must be
imitated. An example must be followed in all its parts. This must be the case,
from its very nature as an example. If the whole is not to be followed;
who is to determine which part of the example is to be imitated, and which is
not if one person, without Divine authority, may refuse to imitate one part of
an example, another person may refuse to imitate another of its parts; and thus,
by different persons, the whole example might be set aside, or be rendered
totally useless. What therefore is given to us as an example, must be imitated
in all its parts, unless God makes exceptions; and then the excepted parts do
not belong in fact to the example. What
is not given as an example for our imitation, we have no right to make such. The
Arian’s deny the supreme deity of Jesus Christ. It is said that in
Even if he were
plunged in the
It is the business of the Christian to take for examples, those actions which the word of .God mentions as such. He has no right to make that an example which the scriptures do not present for our imitation. Christ was circumcised when he was “eight days” old; he was “baptized" when he was “about thirty years of age;” and just before his death he "eat" the "Passover." But not the least hint is given which might lead us to suppose that any one of these his actions, was intended as an example which his followers are to imitate. His baptism we know was not intended for our imitation; because he himself positively declares that his baptism was intended for another purpose. To take it therefore as an example, is, in this matter to net, not only without Divine authority; but it is to act in direct opposition to the positive declaration of the Lord Jesus Christ, when he says, he was baptized "to fulfill all righteousness."
Jesus Christ complied with all the Divine institutions which were in force during his ministry on earth. In this way he honored, as well as "magnified" "the law." In the same manner also, men are bound to comply with all the Divine institutions which are in force during the dispensation under which they live. He introduced none of the traditions of men into religion. He in fact excluded from it, every invention of man. All should do this; because the word of God directs the whole human family in religious duties to go "to the law and to the testimony." It declares, "if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." What does not accord with God's word, is destitute of Divine light, and cannot therefore be, or be made by man, a part of Spiritual religion.
CHAPTER
III
THE
BAPTISM WHICH
CHRIST AND HIS DISCIPLES ADMINISTERED BEFORE HIS RESURRECTION
1. Jesus Christ himself baptized his twelve Apostles. The testimony of God's word is very plain on this point. (1.) It is positively declared that "Jesus and his disciples" came” into the land of Judea and there he tarried with them and baptized, "He came into “Judea" with” his disciples, “tarried with them" and "baptized." If it be asked, whom did he baptize? The answer must be; he baptized "them." If it is asked, who are intended by the word "them?" the answer must be, his disciples." The language when examined is very definite. Jesus Christ therefore baptized his twelve disciples. (2.) The disciples of John in addressing him, teach the same truth. They say to him; " Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou bearest witness; behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him." They declare the fact that Jesus baptized; but they do not say that he baptized all men; nor that he baptized all who came to him. Here then we have another passage to prove the fact that our Saviour administered baptism. (3.) It is also stated that "Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John." Two facts are here presented for our consideration. The first is; Jesus made and baptized disciples; the second, he made and baptized more disciples than John. The immediate followers of Christ were "the twelve." The number of John's immediate disciples or attendants was less than twelve; for Christ's disciples or immediate attendants, were only "twelve," and they exceeded John's in number. John's must therefore have been less than twelve. (4.) Jesus did not baptize any but "the twelve." This is manifest from the fact that when it is said that "Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John;" it is immediately added, "Jesus baptized not" any others, "but his disciples" did. Our Saviour baptized his twelve disciples in Enon. This is clearly intimated, if not expressed, in this language; "Jesus—baptized" his disciples;" and John also was baptizing in Enon,"—"and they came and were baptized." To say that John also baptized in Enon, shows that Jesus Christ, who just before is said to have baptized, administered the ordinance in that place as well as John. If he had not, the word also would not have been used in that connection.
2. The twelve Apostles, or at least some of them, baptized before the resurrection of Christ. This is taught in the expression, "Jesus—baptized not but his disciples;" that is, "his disciples" baptized. Who were baptized by the twelve, we are not informed. They may, however, have baptized the "seventy" disciples, or the "hundred and twenty," whom Peter addressed immediately after the ascension of Christ. A part of these might in fact have been the seventy sent out by our Saviour to every city which he intended to visit personally during his ministry on earth. But, that the Disciples of Christ baptized some persons before his resurrection, is certain from the language already quoted.
3. The baptism which the Disciples of Christ administered before his resurrection, was administered by his authority. He himself baptized by his own authority as King and Head of his own church. He needed no commission from any other being to authorize him to administer baptism. But his disciples being mere men, must derive all their authority to administer Divine ordinances from a Divine Person. That he authorized them to baptize, may be learned; (1.) from the fact that at the time they administered baptism, they were with him. (2.) He did not reprove them for baptizing. This he would certainly have done, had they attempted to baptize without his approbation. (3.) The whole passage, where it is stated that they baptized, shows that they administered the ordinance with his approbation and authority. That he authorized them to baptize, cannot in truth be denied.
4. The baptism
administered by the Disciples of Christ, was confined to the Jewish
nation. When Christ sent them out before his resurrection; he commanded
them not to go “into the way of the Gentiles," or enter “into any city
of the Samaritans;" but to go “to the lost sheep of the house of
5. This commission to go among the Jews only, did not include succession. It was given to individuals. It did not authorize them to send out others as Christ had sent them out. They therefore could not, by this commission transfer to others, the powers which, by it, they had received. It did not therefore include succession, or authorize those to whom it was given to transfer its powers to other persons.
6. The baptism
which Christ personally administered, was not the ordinance of Christian baptism.
This will be evident from a few considerations. (1.) He administered
this baptism
before the Old Testament dispensation terminated. This ended at his death.
Before this, he baptized his twelve disciples. (2.)
When he baptized the twelve, the ordinance of Christian baptism
was not instituted. Its institution did not take place till after his
resurrection. (3.) Christ's mission on earth was limited to the Jews. He
declares, " I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of
7. The baptism which the disciples administered before the resurrection of Christ, was not Christian baptism. This is ascertained, (1) from the fact that the Old Testament dispensation had not then terminated, nor the New commenced. Of the New, not of the Old dispensation is Christian baptism an ordinance. (2.) This their first commission was confined to the Jews and did not include succession (c). The baptism under it could not therefore be Christian baptism; because the commission authorizing it to be extended to "all nations" and included succession "even unto the end of the world." (3.) When they administered baptism before the death of Christ, the Old Testament ordinance of the "Passover" was in full force. Christian baptism therefore which is a New Testament ordinance, could not be in full force at the same time. These reasons, with many others which might be mentioned, show that the baptism administered by the Disciples of Christ before his resurrection, was not in very deed, the ordinance of Christian baptism.
8. The baptism
which Christ and his twelve disciples administered before his
resurrection was designed to be a substitute for Christian baptism.
To perceive clearly the truth of this proposition, it will be
necessary to attend with care to several points. (1.) If Christ, in his wisdom
saw fit, he had a right to institute an ordinance which should, for the time
being and in special cases, be a substitute for Christian baptism.
Those very perfections by which he might authoritatively institute the
positive ordinance of Christian baptism,
might, if he chose, be exercised in instituting a substitute for it to be and
continue in force for a time. As head of his church, he had a right to institute
positive ordinances; and therefore, if he saw proper, he might institute
substitutes for them. But this prerogative does not belong to mere creatures.
(2.) With Christ, "the twelve" disciples” eat the" last
"Passover." At this time their circumcision was in force as the seal
of the covenant; for " no uncircumcised person" was
allowed to eat of the Passover. If an "uncircumcised" person even
entered the "sanctuary," it was thereby rendered ceremonially unclean.
An uncircumcised person was not, by Divine authority, permitted to enter a
sacred place; much less to eat the Passover. When therefore the disciples eat of
the paschal sacrifice with Christ's approbation; their circumcision then must
have been valid. (3.) A person's standing in the New Testament Church was
indicated by baptism,
not by circumcision. This was the case with the Jews who had been
circumcised, as well as with the Gentiles who had not received that "seal
of the righteousness" of faith. Paul, though a "Hebrew of the
Hebrews" and "circumcised the eighth day," yet when he was about
to enter the New Testament Church, was directed to "be baptized;" and
"he arose and was baptized." He was taught by the Holy Spirit that his
"circumcision" was then "nothing." As, in New Testament
times this sign did not avail "any thing" to those who were" in
Christ Jesus" or to others; it could not therefore under the New
dispensation be a seal of God's covenant. While circumcision was a
"token" or seal of the "everlasting covenant" which Divine
mercy had made with his visible people, so far from being at that time
"nothing" and of no avail, its "advantage" was great
"every way." But when, as a religious rite, it became
"nothing;" then the Jews or "the men of Judea" and those who
dwelt "at
By similar evidence, it may be proved; that, if any of those to whom the apostles administered baptism before the resurrection of Christ, were, after this, publicly recognized as members of the New Testament Church; their baptism was also, by the Saviour, intended to answer as a substitute for the ordinance of Christian baptism.
PART
FOURTH
BAPTISM
ADMINISTERED
BY DIVINE AUTHORITY AFTER THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST
CHAPTER
I
CHRISTIAN
BAPTISM
1. Christian baptism was not instituted till after the resurrection of Christ. That baptism unto Moses and the divers washings or baptisms used in the ceremonial purifications of the Jews, were not the ordinance of Christian baptism, is too evident to need illustration. John's was not Christian baptism, nor was that administered to Jesus Christ; nor yet was that administered to or by the twelve apostles before the resurrection of Christ, the ordinance of Christian baptism. That the ordinance of Christian baptism was not instituted at the same time with the Eucharist, is manifest from the fact that at that time not one word is spoken concerning baptism. Nor is baptism so much as mentioned while Christ was on the cross or in the tomb. There is not therefore the least shadow of evidence to prove that Christian baptism was instituted before the resurrection of our Saviour. Those then who take the word of God for their rule of duty cannot believe that it was instituted before that event.
2. Christian baptism is an instituted ordinance. An instituted ordinance is an external requirement which is to be performed in succeeding generations. That which is required to be done in it, must be perceptible by the senses. It must also represent something Spiritual. He who issues the command, by which an ordinance is instituted, must have the requisite authority, or the observance of the ordinance, instead of being a religious duty, would be but solemn trifling. In Christian baptism is found every thing that is essential to an instituted ordinance, and therefore it must be such.
3. Jesus Christ after his resurrection instituted the ordinance of Christian baptism. In the command to his disciples to teach "all nations, baptizing them," he instituted the ordinance of Christian baptism. He commanded it to be observed. A visible emblem was to be used; it was to be performed in succeeding ages; and the command was given by him who had the requisite authority. Before he gave the command to teach and baptize "all nations," he declared; "All power is given unto me in Heaven and in earth." As in his human nature merely, he could not receive " all power;" and as in his Divine nature, he already possessed this power; he therefore in his human and Divine natures united in one Person, might and did receive all power" in Heaven and in earth." Jesus Christ therefore as Emmanuel, “God with us," instituted the ordinance of Christian baptism. Being possessed of “all power," and being "Head over all things to the church," he had all the authority which was requisite to institute this ordinance. He did this after the Angel had expressly stated; "He is not here" in the tomb; "He is risen as he said." It is evident therefore, (1.) That Jesus Christ instituted the ordinance of Christian baptism; (2.) That this was a mediatorial act; for he, as God and man in one Person, instituted this ordinance; (3.) That he instituted it after his resurrection; (4.) That people were to receive this ordinance.
4. Water
is the risible emblem to be used in Christian baptism.
(1.) The command by which Christ authorized his disciples to administer
the ordinance of Christian baptism,
shows that they were to baptize with water. These actually
administered the ordinance which was required by their commission. (2.) Inspired
men used water when they baptized. Peter enquires; "Can any man forbid
water that" Cornelius and his friends "should not be baptized?"
and the Eunuch said;” See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized.
And after he and Philip “went down into the water,"—the Eunuch was
"baptized." These, and many other similar expressions, show clearly
that water is to be used in administering the ordinance of Christian baptism.
(3.) It is to be clean water; for God, speaking to his people of New
Testament times, says; "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you." In
this passage, we are taught by the prophet of the Lord that clean water is to be
used by Divine authority in the New Testament church. But in this, water is used
as a Divine ordinance only in baptism.
In fulfilling this prediction therefore, clean water must be used in baptism.
It is evident then, from God's word, that clean
water is the visible emblem which Divine wisdom has authorized to be
used when Christian baptism
is administered.
5. The
eleven Apostles and their successors in the ministerial office, are authorized
to administer Christian baptism.
Our Saviour after proving by his resurrection from the dead, that
he possessed all power in Heaven and in earth, said to "the eleven
disciples;" " Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing
them." Before Christ gave them this command, they had no authority to teach
and baptize the various nations of the earth; because, before this, no such
authority was given them. In this command “the eleven" received their
commission as ministers of the
"The eleven" had another commission given them before they were entrusted with this. It was their apostolic commission. To have this, the person must, (1.) see the Lord Jesus Christ with his natural eyes. (2.) He must be appointed to it by a personal act of Christ. (3.) He must be able to work miracles. (4.) This commission cannot be transferred or committed to others by him to whom it is given. (5.) Those who claim, the apostolic office, unless they have these marks are called “liars." When a man exhibits these marks to prove that his is the apostolic commission; all are bound to admit his authority. But if he who claims to have the apostolic commission of the disciples, cannot show these signs of an apostle; all are bound to treat him as a deceiver who-lays claim to that which he does not possess. True ministers of Christ only claim the ministerial, and not the apostolic office of the eleven.
6. Christian baptism must be administered in the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. This, in the commission to teach and baptize, our Saviour expressly requires. He positively commands his ministering servants to baptize “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, " In administering the ordinance of baptism, he has not authorized them to omit this name or substitute another in its place. If persons do either therefore when they apply water to others; their act, with such an omission or alteration, cannot be the baptism which Christ requires to be administered; for this must be administered in the name of the Trinity. To omit, in baptism, the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, would be to attempt to baptize in no name or in an unauthorized one. In either case the act would be but solemn mockery. Whoever therefore has received Christian baptism, has been baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; for Christ has not authorized any person either directly or indirectly to administer it in any other name.
7. Christian
baptism is
to be administered to Gentiles as well as Jews. This is taught, (1.) in
the commission given
to baptize. The disciples and their successors in office are commanded to
“teach all nations, baptizing them." All nations is an expression which
includes both Jews and Gentiles. (2.) In obedience to the requirement contained
in this commission, both Jews and Gentiles were baptized by inspired men. On
"the day of Pentecost," many Jews "were baptized."
Soon after Stephen's martyrdom, not a few "men and women" in
8. Christian
baptism is
to continue in the New Testament church till the end of time. (1.) As
the whole commission requiring this baptism
to be administered, is to remain in full force “even unto the
end of the world;” so that part of it requiring this ordinance must remain in
force as long. (2.) The eleven and their successors in office are required to
administer baptism
as one part of their official duty, till the world shall end; so long
therefore will the ordinance continue to be administered. (3.) There is no
evidence either in the word of God or in the nature of Christian baptism
to prove that it will be discontinued in the
9. Christian baptism is a significant ordinance. The Lord's Supper is a lively emblem of the "death" of Christ. The bread broken aptly symbolizes his sufferings on the cross; and the wine poured out, his blood shed. When he died, his soul and body were separated. His burial was no part of his sufferings or death, though it was of his humiliation. Had his soul and body continued separate, the ordinance of Christian baptism would not have been instituted; for it was not till after he rose from the dead, that he directed his ministering servants to go and "teach all nations, baptizing them." When he rose from the dead, his soul and body were re-united again. This re-union, not his departure from the tomb, constituted his resurrection. He, after he rose from the dead, instituted the ordinance of Christian baptism to represent the work of the Holy Spirit which he, as a living Saviour, sends forth into the hearts of sinners to renew and sanctify them. That Christian baptism signifies or represents the work of the Spirit, in its various parts, will appear to the reflecting mind when the attention is directed to a few passages in God's word which mention this subject. Christian baptism signifies, (1.) Regeneration by the power of the Holy Spirit. Of true Christians it is said, "by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body." Of this same work that is here called baptism, it is said "the Spirit quickeneth" all in whom new life is produced. As regeneration or the quickening power of the Spirit on the soul, is called baptism, so baptism must represent that operation of the Holy Ghost, by which a sinner is new-created in Christ Jesus the Lord. (2.) It signifies conversion or the new birth which is the necessary effect of regeneration. Christ says of true believers that they are "born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God;" that is, of God the Spirit: and again, " except a man be born of water," or is baptized,—" he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" on earth, or become a member of the New Testament church: and, "except a man be born—of the Spirit," or made a new creature by the converting grace of the Holy Ghost,—" he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" above. (3.) It represents the coming of Christ by his Spirit, into the soul of his people. Jesus Christ, it is said, "came by water and blood." In New Testament times, water is used only in Christian baptism as an ordinance in the church. When therefore it is said that Jesus Christ came by water, it must be by water in baptism as an emblem of his Spirit's influence. (4.) It signifies union to or engrafting into Christ. It is affirmed that "so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death :" it is said again ; " as the body is one—so also is Christ; for by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body:"
(a) The Lord Jesus Christ did not institute an ordinance of any kind, either to symbolize or represent the act of laying his dead body in the tomb; for a mere man, Joseph of Arimathea, performed this net, us is taught in Matt. 27: 57-60, Luke 23: 50-53. Nor did he institute any ordinance to represent or commemorate the departure of his body from the tomb after it was restored to life; for this was an act that his mere human nature or even a mere creature might have performed.
10. Christian
baptism is
a sacrament of the
11. Christian
baptism is
a seal by which blessings are confirmed. No unbaptized person can be
publicly recognized as a member of the visible church in its New Testament
dispensation. Every person who is properly baptized is, from that fact,
recognized as a member of the visible church. This truth the word of God clearly
teaches; "they that gladly received the word, were baptized; and the same
day there were added unto" the then visible church “about five thousand
souls;" “and they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and
fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." Even Simon the
Samaritan sorcerer, "when he was baptized—continued with Philip."
Being baptized, he was so externally united with the visible people of God, that
he continued with them. Those who are baptized members of the visible Church,
are often said to be sealed. No others are thus described. But since the
baptized, and they only, are said to be sealed; baptism
must therefore be the seal; or, in other words, the seal and Christian baptism
are merely two names for the same thing. The visible Church in its members, is
baptized. This same church is called "a fountain seal." Paul, under
the inspiring influence of the Holy Spirit, says of himself and other
Christians; "God—hath sealed us and given us the earnest of his Spirit in
our hearts." The seal is here mentioned as something distinct from the work
of the Spirit in the heart. One angel said to others; "Hurt not the
earth—till we have sealed the servants of God in their foreheads." All
baptized church members are, by profession, “sealed" servants of God. The
angel noticed and marked these. For their sake, the earth was to be spared for a
time. The number of the "sealed" is very great. For them God manifests
a special regard. The "locusts" were commanded to hurt "only
those men who not have the seal of God in their foreheads." This intimates
that those who were "sealed" should not be hurt by the locusts.
"To the saints—at
12. Christian baptism requires obedience to be rendered to him in whose name it is administered. To be baptized “in the name," is to be baptized by the authority “of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." In the administration therefore of this ordinance, the Triune God in whose name it is-administered, claims sovereign authority. This includes the claim of obedience, prompt, implicit and universal. When therefore baptism is administered in the name of the Trinity; in obedience to the Triune God is unequivocally demanded. To baptize a person into the name of Father, Son and Spirit, is expressive of union to the Triune God as a sovereign. This relation includes a demand of obedience from the person baptized. Christian baptism therefore which must always be administered in or into the name of the Trinity (a) requires the baptized to render obedience to the Triune God.
13. By receiving Christian baptism, the baptized are recognized as under covenant obligations to obey him in whose name the ordinance is administered to them. When baptism is administered in the name of the Triune God, obedience is required (a). This demand is made in every case when Christian baptism is administered. It is so essential to the ordinance, that it is included in the very form of words which Christ requires to be used when it is administered. The justice and propriety of this demand, no believer in Divine revelation can doubt. The unbaptized person is under legal obligations to obey all the demands of the Divine law. Its precepts are “holy, just and good," and therefore ought to be obeyed. But in addition to this, the baptized individual is recognized as being in a state in which he, actually, or virtually and externally, stands bound also in covenant by the reception of this ordinance, to obey the Divine requirements. The duties of the baptized are not increased; but by this ordinance they are more firmly bound to obey; because now they are bound by law as others are to do all that God requires; and they, by being recognized as in a state which admits the propriety of all God's demands, are also bound in covenant to render obedience. Hence by receiving baptism in the name of the Trinity, the baptized are acknowledged as in a covenant state with the Christian’s God, and therefore recognized as under covenant as well as legal obligations to obey him.
14. Christian baptism does not change the state of the baptized. In whatever light this ordinance is viewed, it cannot, by the mere act of receiving it, change the state of the person baptized. If, before his baptism, he is in a sinful and condemned state, he is not delivered from it by this ordinance, but by the converting power of God's Spirit. It is expressly declared that men are "justified by faith." But no passage of God's word contains the least intimation that persons are, by water baptism, justified or delivered from a state of condemnation. If baptism is viewed as a seal of the covenant into which God has entered with his visible people; then it can only be applied to those in this covenant; for it is the property of a seal to confirm the promise made in the covenant. If the baptized are already "justified by faith," this ordinance does not, cannot reduce them to a state of condemnation. Christian baptism therefore does not change the state of the baptized. It supposes a covenant relation to exist between God and the person to be baptized. The ordinance seals or confirms the promise of this covenant. But it does not change the state of the baptized.
15. The institution of Christian baptism supposes that all the bloody rules were abolished. The Lord Jesus Christ just before he suffered, "eat" the "Passover." At this time therefore, it was, as a religious rite, still in force. As such however it was to cease, when "Christ our Passover" was "sacrificed for us." As the Passover was an annual* sacrificial feast; it was impossible for it to be again observed before his resurrection, which was to take place on "the third day" after his crucifixion. During this short space of time, the Passover could not be eaten by Divine authority. As soon therefore as the last legal Passover was observed by him; he instituted the holy supper. But during the time Christ was to suffer on the cross and lie under the power of death in the tomb; it might be necessary, in order to obey the Divine law, to circumcise children. Circumcision, with the other rites and ceremonies peculiar to Old Testament times, would cease to be binding as religious ordinances, when their whole design was completely accomplished in the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. But before his death, it was a positive duty, originating in the Divine command, to observe religiously all these precepts. While therefore these were in force and men might be called upon by the Divine law, to observe them; New Testament ordinances were not instituted; for Christ came not "to destroy the law" in any of its parts, "but to fulfill" it in all its demands. Since, while he suffered on the cross and lay in the tomb, children might, by the law, be required to be circumcised; he did not therefore institute the ordinance of Christian baptism at the time or before he instituted the Eucharist; for then circumcision was in force. But after his death "the hand-writing" of these “ordinances" being blotted out, baptism might, with propriety, be instituted. And instituting it thus as a New Testament ordinance, was a public declaration that the rules peculiar to Old Testament times were abolished. But these being abolished, all bloody rites must cease as none of these belong to the New Testament dispensation of the covenant. The institution of baptism therefore supposes that all bloody rites had then ceased to sustain the character of religious ordinances.
16. Christian baptism is not regeneration. To generate or beget literally, denotes that natural act which is followed by a natural birth; or it is the procreation of a natural creature in addition to those already in existence. To regenerate is to generate or beget again; or it denotes to re-beget. The same person that is once generated or begotten and is then born into the world, is often said to be regenerated, re-begotten or begotten again. That this regenerating or re- begetting is not a repetition of the natural act by which he was pro-created, is too manifest to need proof. In the word of God, regeneration is several times mentioned. To that which it signifies the mind is not infrequently directed. Persons are said to be "begotten—again;" to be "begotten—through the gospel;" to be begotten "of the Father's will,"—"by the word of truth ;" ministers of the gospel are mentioned in connection with this act as the persons who present the truth to the mind of others; and those who are regenerated are, as the result of this act, said to be "born again,"—" born— of the Spirit,"—" born of God." To be regenerated then or to be begotten again, is to have the Spirit of God to operate in such a way upon the person in the act of regenerating him, that he is born of God the Spirit, and thus made a new creature in Christ Jesus. Since regeneration results in the Spiritual birth of a Spiritual creature, it must be a Spiritual act. As natural generation results in the birth of the natural man; so regeneration or Spiritual generation results in the Spiritual birth of the new man. Regeneration therefore in its literal import, signifies, (1.) That act of the Spirit of God, which produces, in the regenerated person, a new” nature,""—" a new heart,"—" a new spirit,"—new life, and therefore makes him a “new creature." The same operation of the Spirit is what truly converts the sinner or turns him away from the love and practice of sin to the love and practice of holiness; that is, it produces in him a love to the principles and practices required in the word of God, and a desire to turn away from every invention of man, that claims to be a part of the religion of the Lord Jesus Christ. It also, at the same time, implants in the regenerated person, all the graces and affections of the child of God. It produces in him the principle of faith, of repentance, of love to God, of hatred to sin, and gives him desires after holiness. These are only a specimen of what is done for the sinner who is regenerated by the Spirit of God. (2.) The word of truth is the means usually employed by the Holy Spirit in regenerating sinners. (3.) The ministers of the gospel who preach the word of truth, not those who preach falsehood in the name of the Lord, are usually employed by the Spirit in presenting the truth to the mind of the sinner by which he is truly regenerated. (4.) The truly regenerated receive, believe, love and practice what God in his word teaches; while they turn aside with a degree of abhorrence from false doctrines and unscriptural practices as parts of their religion. No person truly regenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit, can possibly believe that regeneration is effected by Christian baptism, by whomsoever or in what manner whatsoever it may be administered. To say that water applied to the body, in any mode or by any person, regenerates the soul, is a perfect absurdity to the true Christian. That the Holy Spirit does not always regenerate the baptized is manifest from the case of Simon the sorcerer; for after "he was baptized," he was still "in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity." Every person in Christian lands knows, from his own observation, that not a few baptized persons give no scriptural evidence of being regenerated; for none will say that intoxication, profane swearing, card-playing, and such practices, are scriptural proofs that those who are guilty of them, are the children of God. In these the baptized sometimes engage. This proves that they are not truly regenerated.
This act of the Spirit is called "the washing of regeneration," (not the washing of baptism;) because by it the sinner is purified from the guilt of his sins. It is called "the renewing of the Holy Ghost ;" because in it, the renewing or sanctifying work of the Spirit, is commenced; and from this point it will continue to increase during the believer's life on earth. To the true Christian no truth can be more evident, therefore, than that baptism with water is not regeneration. Nor indeed can an intelligent man whose soul has not been enlightened by the Spirit of God, believe that water applied to the body in baptism, regenerates the soul; unless he has become the mere slave of superstition. Let any intelligent man reflect on the subject untrammeled by superstitious bigotry, and he cannot believe that Christian baptism administered by a mere man, is the regenerating act of the Spirit of God upon the soul, by which the sinner is made "a new creature."
17. Christian baptism is not to be repeated. Christian baptism cannot be administered without Divine authority. Every attempt to perform a religious act the observance of which, God in his word has not required, is mere mockery. It is a positive violation of that command which directs men to go "to the law and to the testimony" for instruction in all religious duties. It is "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Such "worship" is " vain." It has but a mere "show of wisdom and humility," while it is really rank "will-worship." It is an insult upon the wisdom of God. It is not only a practical declaration that his wisdom is defective; but it is also an act by which men declare that their own wisdom is superior to that of God. For if his was perfect wisdom in their estimation, they would not then desire to practice any thing for religion, which, in his word, he had not required. Moreover if they did not fancy themselves to be wiser than God ; they would not desire to introduce into his worship that which he had not mentioned as a part of the service which he requires of his creatures. Without Divine authority then baptism could not be administered as a religious ordinance. Without Divine authority therefore it cannot be repeated as a part of true religion. But God has given no authority in his word, either by precept or example, to repeat the ordinance of Christian baptism; or in other words to baptize a second time, any person who had already received that ordinance. To attempt to do so then would be an act of mere mockery; a direct insult offered to the God of wisdom. Besides, as the regenerating work of the Spirit on the soul, is an act which Christian baptism signifies and is not, cannot, in the nature of things, be repeated, so there would therefore be a manifest impropriety in repeating its external sign. It is evident then that Christian baptism cannot be repeated without offering a direct insult to the King of the universe.
The expression
"repent and do thy first works," addressed to the church at
18. Though Christian baptism is not, the Lord's Supper is, to be repealed. In relation to the holy supper, the Spirit of God in addressing professing Christians, says to them expressly, “as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." In this passage of scripture it is stated that Christians are "often" to commemorate the death of Christ; till, at his "second" coming, “he shall appear without sin unto salvation." The Lord's supper then is to be frequently observed by the children of God; while Christian baptism is not to be, indeed cannot be, repeated; because for its repetition, God has given no authority ; and because an attempt to repeat it is a direct insult offered to God himself.
CHAPTER
II
DOCTRINE
OF BAPTISMS; ONE BAPTISM;
BAPTISM
FOR THE DEAD
1. The doctrine of baptisms is mentioned as one of the first principles of Christianity. A doctrine is a principle taught. All doctrines are either true or false. When truth is taught; the doctrine is true. When falsehood or a mixture of truth and falsehood, is taught; the doctrine is false. “The doctrine of baptisms," is true; because it is mentioned as one of "the first principles of the oracles of God." A plurality of baptisms is here mentioned. The word “baptisms," in the plural number, clearly teaches this. In this expression more than one baptism is necessarily included. But what baptisms are intended, is not so manifest. These may be, (1.) The ordinance of Christian baptism and Spiritual baptism denoting regeneration. These may be intended; as they are among the very first principles of vital godliness in the soul, and of external religion in the life. No true Spiritual religion can exist in the sinner's heart before he is regenerated; nor can he be recognized as a member of the visible church, before he has received the ordinance of Christian baptism. These therefore may be presented as among the very first principles of true religion. This view of the subject is confirmed by the fact that the “laying on of hands" is mentioned in connection with "the doctrine of baptisms." By the laying on of the apostle's hands, the miraculous gifts of the Spirit were often communicated to men. This being an act accompanied by the Holy Spirit and mentioned in connection with the doctrine of baptisms, intimates that one of these baptisms may be Spiritual. It may also be remarked that the ministerial office was also transferred by “laying on"—" the hands of the presbytery." But (2.) this "doctrine of baptisms" may denote what is taught of the different kinds of ceremonial “washings" or baptisms, mentioned in the word of God, and especially in the Old Testament. A number of these baptisms are mentioned. The doctrine or what is taught by these, may with propriety be called "the doctrine of baptisms." That all these had ceased to be binding at the death of Christ, and no baptism or ceremonial washing, except the Christian ordinance of baptism, was to be in force after that event, was and is, one of the first principles of true religion.
The "doctrine of baptisms," is therefore an expression which may denote (1.) Christian and Spiritual baptism, which will continue till the end of time; or, (2.) it may signify those ceremonial washings which ceased at or before the death of Christ; or, f3.) it may include all these ; as they are all " first principles of the oracles of God."
2. 'The expression, one baptism, is used by the Holy Spirit. As the word “baptisms" necessarily includes more than one; so the phrase “one baptism necessarily limits the mind to a single baptism. (1.) This expression cannot relate to the baptisms administered before the resurrection of Christ because these were numerous. This expression (2.) cannot teach the doctrine that there is but one mode of baptism, or that but one person is to be baptized; because the word mode or person is not used in the sentence or in the connection in which the words are used. Nor does any word in the passage of which this phrase is a part, express unity of mode in baptism; or that but one person is to be baptized. The word “one" does not express mode or person. If the word "baptism," in the singular number, expresses "one" mode of baptism; then the word " baptisms" in the plural number, must, by the same rule, denote several modes of baptism; for if one baptism signifies one mode of baptism, then ten baptisms must denote ten modes of baptism; because, on that principle, every baptism must denote a mode of baptism. But, as, in the passage, the mode of baptism is not mentioned either directly or indirectly, so those who take the word of God for their only rule of duty, will not be readily induced to mistake for scripture, the addition of the word mode, which men, to sustain a favorite system, may please to make to this portion of Divine revelation. But (3.) the expression "one baptism," teaches that the baptism which is intended, is one in its nature; however various the modes of its administration may be. If Christian baptism is intended, then the language shows that this ordinance is one, whether the mode of its administration be one or various. If spiritual baptism or regeneration is intended; then the phrase "one baptism," shows that the operation of the Spirit on the soul in regeneration, is one act of Almighty power, however various may be the means employed or the modes of this operation. (4.) That this "one" is spiritual “baptism" or regeneration, may be easily learned from the connection in which the words are used. In the context “one body,"—" one Spirit,"—" one hope,"—" one Lord,"—"one faith,"—"one God and Father of all," are mentioned. In this connection the attention is directed to seven unities. Six of them are manifestly spiritual. The "one body" is a spiritual, not a literal body; the " Spirit" is the Holy Ghost the "hope" is an expectation of a spiritual "calling ;" the "one Lord" is a spiritual sovereign ; the "faith" is a spiritual grace ; the "one God" is a spiritual king. As all the other unities mentioned in the connection, are spiritual ; so the "one baptism" must be a spiritual ordinance or regeneration, as there is nothing in the language itself or in the connection or in parallel passages of scripture to require or even authorize a different sense to be given to the words in this passage.
3. Baptism for the dead is mentioned in God's word. The language used is this; " what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead." On this passage, it may be remarked, (1.) That baptism for the dead is mentioned as an evidence to prove that a resurrection of the dead shall take place. This is evidently the design of the passage, as is manifest from the language used and from the connection in which it is found. (2.) The expression “baptized for the dead" does not teach that one living person may or must be baptized as a substitute for or in the room of, one or more of the dead. The language used in the passage does not affirm this; nor could the fact that a living person was baptized as a substitute for the dead, be an evidence to prove that the body will be raised to life again after it has moldered to dust in the tomb. The word for in the English language, does not always, or necessarily, or even frequently, express substitution; and when it does, that idea is clearly determined by the connection in which the word is found. The original word in this passage translated for, does not literally denote substitution. The connection does not allow this sense to be given to the word ; and no such a signification can be found for it in parallel passages, for no other passage in the word of God so much as mentions baptism for the dead in any form of expression. That this passage of scripture therefore does not teach that a living person may or must be baptized as a substitute for the dead, is manifest, from the language used in the translation and in the original ;—from the fact that such an act could not prove the resurrection of the dead, as this passage does;—and that to baptize a living person as a substitute for the dead, would be but a mere farce, as it could be of no possible use to the dead or to the living;—and also that no such sense can be given to the language used, in its literal signification, from the connection or from a reference to parallel passages. Whatever therefore this portion of God's word teaches; it is evident that it does not authorize or require a living person to be baptized as a substitute for the dead. (3.) If, in the passage, it was stated as a positive fact, that the living were baptized as substitutes for the dead, that would not prove it to be right or authorize others to do so; because there is not a word in the language or in the connection, or in any other portion of scripture, which could lead a reflecting mind to suppose that God required or approved such an act, or that he commanded, authorized or even permitted others to make it an example for their imitation (a). Men have no right to take that for an example which God has not made such. To do so would be substituting their own wisdom for his. It would be forsaking "the fountain of living waters," for their own "broken cisterns." (4.) The expression "baptized for the dead" may or does teach, that the living who were baptized for the sake of obeying the command of a Saviour who had died and rose again, proved by this act to all to whom it was known, that they had evidence in their own mind sufficiently powerful to convince them that the doctrine of a-resurrection from the dead was true. Without such evidence, clear and conclusive, they would not, in the face of danger and of death, have been baptized in his name. The Greek word translated "dead," is in the plural number. This form of the word may be the intensitive plural, used to intimate the dignity of Christ, the Person mentioned. (5.) The original word translated for, literally signifies above. The expression therefore, "baptized for," or above " the dead," may signify that living persons had such clear and undeniable evidence of " the resurrection at the last day," that they would willingly receive the ordinance of Christian baptism and thus profess their faith in Christ, over the very dead bodies of those who had received the martyr's crown, and to whom the iron heart of cruelty had denied the privilege of being laid in the grave. (6.) As the original expression may embrace both these ideas; the Holy Spirit may, by using this language, have in- tended to leave on the reader's mind, both these impressions. It appears then that the expression "baptized for the dead," does not, cannot signify that the living may or must be baptized as a substitute for the dead; but that it may and does teach the careful reader of God's word, that those who have, for thousands of years, been held in the cold embrace of death, will, at the last day, all spring again into life, by the vivifying power of Almighty God.
PART
FIFTH
BAPTISM
WITHOUT
WATER
CHAPTER
I
BAPTISM
WITH THE HOLY GHOST
1. In the Scriptures, baptism with the Holy Ghost, is taught. This is proved, (1.) From the fact that this is the very language used by the Holy Spirit on this subject. "He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost," is the language of the scriptures and it is often repeated; again, it is said of Christ; "He—baptizeth with the Holy Ghost;" and yet again; "Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." This language expressly shows that baptism with the Holy Ghost is a truth taught in the word of God- (2.) Many synonymous expressions teach the same truth. Some of these may be noticed. One is, "I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh;" another is," The Holy Ghost fell on" Cornelius and those with him; another, "On the Gentiles—was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost;" and yet another is, "The Holy Ghost came on" those who were re-baptized by the direction of Paul. Other instances might be mentioned; but these are sufficient to show those who will take the language of scripture for proof, that baptism with the Holy Spirit is positively taught in the word of God.
2. Baptism
with the Holy Ghost is extraordinary and ordinary.
It is (1.) Extraordinary or miraculous. In the case of the Apostles the
miraculous power which it expressed, was of a peculiar kind. When they were
first sent to preach to the Jews only; they were empowered to work miracles. Our
Saviour after his resurrection directed the eleven to "tarry—in the city
of
3. Jesus Christ baptized with the Holy Ghost. Speaking; of him to the Jews, John the Baptist positively and repeatedly declares "He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." From this and similar language it is undeniably certain, that to baptize with the Spirit, is not the work of mere man, but of the Divine Redeemer. The converting, as well as the miraculous work of the Holy Ghost, was therefore a part of what the Great Shepherd purchased for his sheep. To some whom he baptized with the Holy Ghost, he gave miraculous powers; to others he gave only converting grace, sanctifying power and eternal glory, with whatever is necessary to make an enemy of God his true friend.
4. Upon those baptized with the Spirit, he, in his influences, descended. Of such, it is said; the Spirit was poured "out" or "fell on them." This, with much similar language which is used in relation to baptism with the Holy Ghost, shows that when persons were thus baptized, the influences of the Spirit descended or came upon them. This is manifest. Indeed, nothing can be more evident than, that when the Spirit is "poured out" on men and falls on them or enters them so that they are "filled" with it, they are not, at the same time, put all over into the Spirit. From the language of God's word then it is manifest that the Spirit in his influences descends or comes upon those who are baptized with the Holy Ghost.
5. When the Apostles were baptized with the Holy Ghost, there was an external appearance. This was that of "cloven tongues like as of fire." It "sat upon each of them." The word it stands for the fire, or rather the fiery appearance which remained for a time on each of the disciples. The appearance of "cloven tongues" resembling fire, resting on each of them, as the Holy Ghost was baptizing them, may indicate that then each of them was about to be enabled to speak with new tongues. These were "cloven" or divided. This might indicate to them that they were soon to be sent to different parts of the then known world to use their miraculously acquired power of speaking different languages, in publishing the gospel of salvation. But whatever might have been the design of God in causing this visible appearance at the time the Holy Ghost was baptizing them; the fact that such an appearance existed, is certain.
CHAPTER
II
BAPTISM
WITH
FIRE
1. Baptism with fire is taught in the word of God. The language of scripture on this subject is very definite. Baptism "with fire" is twice explicitly mentioned. The fact that baptism “with fire" is taught in the word of God, must then be manifest to every person who will read its language.
2. Jesus Christ baptizes with Fire. Of him it is said to the Jews; " He shall baptize you—with fire.": That the Lord Jesus Christ baptizes with fire is here taught in language too plain to be disputed by any who can believe the evidence of their senses.
3. To baptize with fire is forcible language. Literal fire either purifies or consumes material substances. To baptize with fire then may indicate that those who receive this baptism, are either by it to be purified or consumed. Christ baptizes his people with fire, when he purifies them "in the furnace of affliction;" or when he sanctifies them by the operations of his Spirit in their souls; or when he uses both these for the purpose of making them more and more holy. When both are used for this purpose, afflictions are the means, and the Spirit the efficient operator by which the means are made effectual in sanctifying the soul. He baptizes his enemies with fire when he sends upon them fearful temporal calamities, or the horrors of an awakened or of a seared conscience; and especially when he consigns their immortal souls to the gnawing of the "worm" that never dies, and to the dark dismal flames of that fire which shall not be "quenched."
4. This baptism usually manifests itself by its effects. That afflictions are generally manifested by their effects, all can perceive. When baptism with fire denotes sanctification; it manifests itself by leading those who enjoy its purifying influence to become more and more conformed to the word of God, in principle and in practice. When "God," to the sinner out of Christ becomes "a consuming fire," his hardened heart, his seared conscience, his careless rebellion against Heaven, his adoption of unscriptural principles and practices for religion, his hatred of Divine truth, proclaim the fact to all who will hear; and in the world of woe, his "weeping"—and "wailing" and "gnashing of teeth" cannot be concealed. It will be evident therefore to the observing mind that baptism with fire is usually, if not universally, manifested in its external effects.
CHAPTER
III
BAPTISM
WITH
SUFFERINGS
1. This baptism is taught in the scriptures. Our Saviour after describing his sufferings and death by crucifixion, calls them "the cup that" he should "drink of," and "the baptism that" he, at that time, was, and was soon more manifestly, to be "baptized with." In addressing James and John, he says; 'Are ye able—to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?" This shows that at the very time he was speaking, he was receiving this baptism; and that at that time it was not yet completed, appears when he says of it; "I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished?" That baptism which, when he addressed James and John, he was actually receiving, and which was not then completed, could be no other than the baptism of suffering. It could not be that which John the Baptist administered; because that was completed long before this time. It is therefore evident that the baptism mentioned in these portions of God's word, is baptism with sufferings.
2. Jesus Christ received this baptism. He declares expressly "I am baptized with" this baptism; and "I have a baptism to be baptized with and how am I straitened till it be accomplished?" This he says in relation to his baptism with sufferings.
3. The
Apostles, James and John, were to be, and were baptized with sufferings. That
they were to be thus baptized is positively stated. Christ said to them;
"Ye shall—be baptized with the baptism
that I am baptized with." That they were thus baptized, is certain;
for Herod killed "James— with the sword;" and "John—was"
banished to " the isle" of "
4. The martyrs were baptized with sufferings. Many of these have suffered death with " fire, with the sword," with various kinds of torture, with scourging, with " imprisonment," with being " sawn asunder," with wandering " in deserts,—in mountains and in dens and caves of the earth." More than fifty millions of the professed followers of the Lord Jesus Christ have suffered death by the unrelenting hand of persecution. These, like their blessed Master, were severely baptized with sufferings.
5. All true Christians receive this baptism in a greater or less degree. Jesus Christ says to all his disciples; "In the world ye shall have tribulation ;" and again, the same truth is stated in this language; " AH that will live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution." All such persons shall be baptized with suffering. The distress of some will be exceedingly great; that of others only like a drop from the ocean. But as a general rule, the more holy and devoted the Christian is, the more persecution he will in this life be called to endure. The more he conforms to the word of God in principle and in practice,—the more he resembles in heart and life the great Redeemer; the more will the enemies of God hate and persecute him. Those who profess to be Christians, while they hate God and the truths of his word, will generally be most bitter and unprincipled in their persecuting attacks upon his children. Indeed, persecutors may be so blinded with sin that, while they are killing the disciples of Christ, they may imagine, they are doing "God service?" But all true Christians must expect to " suffer persecution." In whatever way their enemies persecute them, or by whatever means they may attempt to justify their wickedness; one truth is undeniably certain; all who, in this life, truly love God, will find the world a “vale of tears." They will all be baptized with sufferings.
PART
SIXTH
BAPTISM
WITHOUT
DIVINE AUTHORITY
CHAPTER
I
BAPTISM
WITHOUT
DIVINE AUTHORITY BEFORE CHRIST’S RESURRECTION
1. The ordinary self-baptism of the Jews was unauthorized by Divine wisdom. The fact that they did frequently baptize themselves, is positively stated in this language; "when they come from the market, except they wash or “baptize,” as it is expressed in the original, "they eat not." In the practice of these their ceremonial washings or baptisms; our Saviour charges them with laying "aside the commandment of God" and observing "the tradition of men." Moreover, it is said on a certain occasion, that a Pharisee "marveled" because the blessed Redeemer "sat down to meat" before "he had—first washed," or baptized. The fact that the Pharisee "marveled" because Christ did not wash or baptize before dinner, shows that the custom of doing so, was very general if not universal among the Jews; and the fact that he did not wash or baptize before he "sat down," proves that such ceremonial washings were not of Divine appointment. The Lord Jesus Christ therefore, both in words and actions condemns those washings or baptisms which the Jews practiced without Divine authority.
2. The baptism
by the Jews of various domestic articles was not required by the law of
God. When they, under the direction of the Pharisees, turned aside from
the Divine rule laid down in the scriptures; they received from them various
traditions. Among these they had adopted, as a religious rite, "the
washing" or baptizing "of cups,
and pots, and brazen vessels, and tables," or couches. Though some of
these, under certain circumstances, might, by the Divine law, be ceremonially
purified with "water". Yet the Jews had no
authority to wash or baptize them when they returned from market. Our Saviour
therefore charges them with laying "aside the commandment of God" and
adopting "the tradition of men," when they baptized or ceremonially
washed these articles without Divine authority. In relation to these and
"many other such like things," which they had invented and practiced
as portions of religious service, our Saviour says; "in vain do they
worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." The washing or
baptizing of these domestic articles was a mere act of will-worship. It was in
fact an insult offered to the God of wisdom; as are all human inventions
introduced into religious worship.
3. God did not authorize the Jews to baptize proselytes. The fact that they did baptize them is not explicitly stated in the word of God. Indeed, concerning their baptism, nothing is said in the scriptures. The copy of Josephus examined on this subject, does not intimate that the Jews baptized proselytes. But notwithstanding this, the fact that they did baptize, as well as circumcise, proselytes, is sustained by unanswerable evidence). That they had no Divine authority for doing so, is manifest, (1.) From the fact that, in the word of God, no authority is given for such a practice. (2.) This practice may be condemned in the expression of disapprobation used by our Saviour to the Jews, when he says ; they had "many other" unauthorized washings or baptisms, besides those which he had definitely mentioned. (3.) The passage of scripture upon the authority of which they profess to act when they baptize proselytes, does not so much as mention or even allude to the baptism of persons with water. The passage is this; "And the Lord said unto Moses, go unto the people, and sanctify them to-day and to-morrow, and let them wash their clothes." (4.) This direction was given more than four hundred years after circumcision was instituted. It could not therefore have with it, any necessary connection. (5.) But if it had, the language does not express baptism with water. To sanctify does not necessarily denote to apply water to the person in baptism: to "wash"—"clothes" does not signify to baptize or wash the person. (6.) Besides, this direction is given to the Jews themselves on a particular occasion and for a particular purpose. It was not an established ordinance for perpetual observance even among the Jews, much less was it applicable to the Gentiles who might desire to embrace the religion of Israel; and least of all, did it require these last to be baptized as well as circumcised when they were received by the Jews as proselytes to their religion. The baptism therefore of proselytes by the Jews was unauthorized by Divine wisdom.
CHAPTER
II
BAPTISM
WITHOUT
DIVINE AUTHORITY AFTER CHRIST'S RESURRECTION
1. Baptism administered by laymen is without Divine authority. Sometimes mere laymen or those who do not sustain the office of Christian ministers, perform the act of baptizing persons. This is only a solemn farce. The Lord Jesus Christ gives to his ministering servants, and to no others, the authority to administer baptism. None but such can therefore administer this holy ordinance. For others to attempt to administer it, is solemn mockery, is practical blasphemy, since by such an act, a man assumes the prerogatives of a Divine person, for he acts in this matter as if he were independent of God.
2. Females have no Divine authority to administer baptism. Among Romanists, females, under certain circumstances, are allowed, if not required, by their regulations, to administer baptism. But the word of God does not give them any such authority. In giving the New Testament commission to his disciples and to their successors in the ministerial office, by which they were empowered to preach the gospel and administer the Christian sacraments, Jesus Christ did not authorize females to baptize. The apostles and their official successors were not directed to transmit this office to females, but to "faithful men who" should "be able to teach others." Since therefore, in the scriptures, females have no authority given them to preach or baptize; whenever they attempt to do either, they are engaged in practical rebellion against God.
3. Christian
baptism cannot
be administered except in the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The
Sabians of Syria, some Arians and a few others, apply water in what they call baptism,
without using the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. These Sabians, or
"Daily Baptists," as they call themselves, use a form in their
baptismal ceremony which, when translated, reads thus; " / baptize thee
with the baptism with
which John the Baptist baptized''. They call this ceremony "the baptism
of Light." Some Arians apply water simply in the name of God,
without using the name of the Trinity. Some others, it is understood, use this
or a similar form; "I baptize, or I immerse thee in or into the
To attempt to administer baptism without Divine authority, is treating the Great Head of the church with contempt. It is, by those who do so, a practical declaration that they have as good authority as he had, to say who may baptize, and what form is to be used; and by practicing on their own plan, they declare it to be superior to his. The sin of such a system must be great in the sight of the King of Zion. Can a true Christian be guilty of thus habitually insulting his crucified Redeemer?
PART
SEVENTH
MODES
OP BAPTISM
CHAPTER
I
THE
VARIOUS MODES OP BAPTISM
MENTIONED
1. The word mode ought to be understood. The mode of doing a thing denotes the particular manner in which it is performed. It is evident to any reflecting mind that the same thing may be performed in a variety of different ways or modes. A man may be killed with a dirk, with a pistol, with poison or with a sword. The same crime may be perpetrated in these and a thousand other modes. Indeed the mode or manner of performing an action, whether in the discharge of a duty or in the commission of a crime, is never essential to the action, unless the command requiring or forbidding its performance, specifies or includes the mode. The command, "thou shalt not kill," prohibits murder in what mode howsoever it may be perpetrated. But the command, "thou shalt not kill" with a dirk, forbids the crime to be committed in one particular mode and in no other. If God commands an action to be done or a duty to be performed, without specifying in what mode or manner it is to be done, then it is manifest that the action or duty may be attended to in any mode. But if God requires a duty to be performed in a particular manner and in no other, then attempting to perform it in any other mode is simply rebellion against his command. If he requires a duty to be performed, and does not specify the mode, men have no right to do so. If the mode or manner of doing an action is, by Divine authority, made essential to the performance of it; then to attempt to do it in any other way, is an insult upon the wisdom of God. It is a virtual attempt to correct Omniscience. If God has required baptism to be administered in one particular mode and in no other; then he has mentioned this in his word in definite language. If he has not so mentioned it, then we know that he makes no such requirement of his creatures. To say that God teaches men to baptize in a particular mode of which he says nothing, is to affirm that he teaches what he does not teach; or in other words; to make such a statement would be to utter a positive untruth. It is certain then that in investigating the subject of baptism, the term mode ought to be understood.
2. To sprinkle is an expression easily understood. It signifies to cause a fluid to fall in drops. When it is used to denote the application of water in connection with baptism; it signifies to cause water to fall in drops on the forehead or upper part of the face, of the person to whom the element is applied. But to sprinkle is an expression too plain to need farther illustration.
3. Water is sometimes poured upon persons for baptism. To pour signifies to cause a small quantity of a fluid to flow down upon some object. A person is said to be poured in baptism, when a small quantity of water is poured on his head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. In the word of God, to pour signifies to fall in drops as a shower of rain descends. When it is said; "the clouds poured out water;" the expression shows that a shower of rain fell in drops. In the scripture sense of the word therefore, pour does not materially differ in its meaning from the word sprinkle. They both denote to fall in drops.
4. Men often say that immersion is baptism. When it is used as a substitute for baptism, it expresses a very complex action. With those who immerse adults and no others; the action which they express by it, is eight-fold. In immersion, after adjusting their dress, they (1.) repair to some river, pond, brook or cistern; (2.) the person to be immersed wades into the water nearly or quite up to the waist; (3.) the administrator takes both the hands of the person to be immersed into one of his and places the other between the shoulders of the subject who, at this stage of the operation, sometimes stands and sometimes kneels; but when he kneels he generally chooses more shallow water than when he stands; (4.) the administrator puts that portion of the person which is yet above water, entirely under its surface, by laying him down on his face or on his back, so that the external garments of the person, if he is dressed, is usually for a moment under the water; (5.) he immediately raises the person up again; (6.) the subject wades out of the water ; (7.) he then leaves the stream, pond, or cistern; (8.) he changes his dress, substituting dry for wet garments; unless he had performed the operation in a state of nudity. When immersion is practiced for baptism, two of these actions are always and necessarily included in the signification of the word. These are the fourth and fifth. The parts of the body which are yet above are, by the administrator, put entirely under the surface of the water, and then immediately raised up again. When a person is immersed, the body must be entirely under water. If he was left in this state, the action certainly would not be complete. If he was left entirely under water, his natural life must, in a very few minutes, be destroyed. Few, even of those most in favor of a "watery grave," would be willing to remain many minutes totally covered with water. If they were thus left; indeed, if they were not very soon raised from beneath the surface of that element; nothing but a miracle could save them from almost instant death. As therefore to put a person entirely under water and leave him' there, would be one mode of killing him; no Immerser who is not in favor of destroying life, will affirm that the whole action of immersion as a substitute for baptism, ends when the person is completely covered with water. To be immersed therefore for baptism, is to be put entirely under water and taken out again; a part at least of which acts must be performed by the administrator.
Those who immerse infants exclusively, or nearly so, (a) besides a great variety of ridiculous ceremonies, usually put the child entirely under water. The fluid is usually warmed a little. The child is frequently put under the water by a minister. It is thus immersed three times. He sometimes uses the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost and sometimes he does not. Indeed sometimes the god-father of the infant immerses it three times without using any form of words whatever.
Some Immersers
immerse only a part of their communicants. Some do not view immersion
as the only mode of baptism
and some do. Some of them will admit unbaptized persons to partake with
them of the Lord's Supper. Some will, and some will not, immerse infants. Some
put on an over-dress when they are immersed, lest their bodies should be
entirely wet with water. But in Western Europe and in
For a person to be entirely covered with air, or fog, or smoke, or sand, is not to be immersed. If that were the case, then every person is constantly immersed; as each individual of the human race, is, while living, entirely covered with air, and often with smoke and fog. If a person should be entirely covered with sand; not many Immersers would suppose that he, on that account, was properly baptized. It is undeniable, then that to be immersed is to be covered entirely with water, and not with any other material.
It generally appears like a voluntary act on the part of the immersed when they are grown to years of manhood. But it seldom is so in reality; because very few of them examine the subject and compare it with the word of God before they are immersed. They therefore act under the guidance of those to whom they submit themselves as their leaders. If they ever examine the scriptures in relation to the matter; it is to find something to justify them in what they have already done; not to ascertain what God the Lord teaches them to do.
CHAPTER
II
THE
POINT TO BE EXAMINED STATED
1. It is important to know the point in dispute. If this is not known and definitely fixed, the mind is in constant danger of wandering from it, or of being led away from it by those who have more cunning than honesty. But when the point to be examined is clearly perceived and well understood; then the connection of an argument with it will be perceived; and the fallacy of sophistry will more readily be discovered. Truth never shuns the point; falsehood always does. If a position is true, the more evident it is, the brighter it will shine; and if it is false, the more easily will it be detected by having the point clearly stated. It is then, in all subjects of dispute, a matter of great importance to have a clear view of the exact point to be examined. Without this, little can be done to ascertain the validity of the claims of immersion to be the only mode of baptism.
2. What the point is not, deserves attention. The point to be decided is not (1.) Whether baptism with water is or is not a duty. That it is, both parties admit; (2.) Not whether immersion is a mode of baptism or not; (3.) Not whether immersion or another mode is more or less convenient; (4.) Not whether it is more or less desirable or solemn than another mode; (5.) Not whether it is or is not a cross; (6.) Not whether it is shame or pride or fear or the influence of others that leads persons to choose or refuse to be immersed; (7.) Not whether many or few adopt this or another mode; (8.) Not whether men sanction or disapprove one mode of baptism or another; (9.) Not whether Immersers are good men or bad; wise or unwise. Whether these matters are important or otherwise, they form in fact no part of the subject of discussion between those who do, and those who do not, maintain that immersion is the only mode of baptism.
3. The
point to be settled is this. Is immersion
the only mode of baptism?
Men often declare that immersion
and that only is baptism.
They say that it is so essential to the ordinance, that without it, baptism
cannot exist; and that those and those only who are immersed are
baptized. The evidence in favor of this exclusive claim, is the point to be
investigated. "
4. This point has two parts. The position laid down by the exclusives on this subject, is, that immersion is the only mode of baptism; or in other language, they say, that immersion and that only is baptism. When it is said that immersion is the only mode of baptism, a twofold declaration is made. It is affirmed, (1.) That immersion is baptism or a mode of baptism; and (2.) That it is the only mode of baptism; or that immersion and nothing else, is baptism. Both these ideas are manifestly included in the assertion that immersion is the only mode of baptism; because, as the same thing may be done in different ways or modes (a), so baptism may be performed in different modes unless God requires it to be administered in some one particular mode and in no other. In the examination therefore of this subject, it is necessary, (1.) To see whether the word of God definitely teaches that immersion is a mode of baptism; and (2.) See whether it informs us that immersion is the only mode in which that ordinance can be administered. If either or both these positions are true, then we have definite evidence to sustain such truth in the word of God.
5. Exclusive claims must lie sustained by positive evidence. When a man affirms that immersion is the only mode of baptism; to prove his statement he ought to show at least one passage of scripture which positively states that immersion is baptism; or he ought to show a passage which declares that some one person was baptized by immersion. He should then point to a portion of God's word, which states that immersion is the only mode of baptism; or that there is no other mode or only one mode of baptism. If he fails to do this; his exclusive claim stands unsupported by proper evidence. It is a mere proof-less assertion. He who makes exclusive claims, must not expect, among persons of reflection, to sustain them by positive assertions or by asking questions. He must expect that persons of sense, will call upon him to present plain, positive, pointed evidence to sustain his dogmatic assertions; and if he is unable to do this; he must not be surprised if he finds himself ranked among mere demagogues. To suppose that an exclusive claim may be sustained without positive testimony is an insult offered to the good common sense of mankind. When a man makes a positive assertion of any kind; it is but right that he should sustain it by proper evidence; much more should this be demanded of him who makes an exclusive claim. Those therefore who affirm that immersion is the only mode of baptism, ought to have something more than an assertion and a question to prove their position. They must bring a "thus saith the Lord" for it, if they would fairly convince intelligent men that their claim is supported by the word of God. When a man makes a positive assertion which includes an exclusive claim, and then undertakes to sustain it by conjecture or saying, it may be so, or there is no proof of something else, or by saying it must be so, or by asking why such a thing was done if it was not so; he either knows very little concerning the nature of evidence or supposes his hearers know but little on that subject. In a word, such a step would seem to intimate that he had either very little knowledge or very little honesty.
BOOK
SECOND—IMMERSION
EXAMINED
PART FIRST
IMMERSION
SOUGHT
FROM THE WORD OF GOD
CHAPTER
I
IN THE SCRIPTURES,
PERSONS
ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE IMMERSED
1. God,
in his word, does not command persons to be immersed. In
no portion of the scriptures is it said to any person, for any purpose; Be
immersed; or ye shall be immersed; or thou shalt be immersed. There is therefore
no command in the word of God given in any form of language requiring any person
to be immersed for any purpose whatever.
2. God
does not require any person to immerse others. He does not direct
any of his ministering servants or any individual of the human race, to immerse
others. He does not, in any passage of his word, say to any; go ye and immerse;
nor does he in any form of words command them to immerse any one person or more.
No person can find in God's word any such direction; for this plain reason; none
such is recorded in that Holy book. God,
therefore, does not in his word, command any person to immerse others.
3. God does not direct persons to be baptized by immersion or to baptize others in this mode. New Testament ministers are commanded to "Go—and teach all nations, baptizing them." But they are not told to administer this ordinance by immersion. In no portion of the book of God, are men directed or authorized by any requirement, to baptize by immersion. Persons are commanded to be "baptized," but not a word is said in such directions to them concerning the mode in which baptism is to be administered. Nor are they in any other passage directed to be baptized by immersion.
4. No
person speaking of himself or others, is, in the scriptures, represented as
saying I or they immerse or baptize or were baptized by immersion.
John said, "I baptize;"—and Paul, "I
baptized;"—and another sacred writer; “men and women" were
baptized. But no person mentioned in
the word of God, says; I immerse or I immersed or they immersed, or that any
individual baptized or was baptized by immersion.
5. The
word immerse is not found in the word of God. Any person can
determine this matter for himself by reading the scriptures. He will not find
the very word immerse itself in any part of Divine revelation. It is not so much
as mentioned by any sacred writer, either in the Old or New Testament. It is not
used in God's word for baptism
or for any other purpose. So
far therefore are men from being required, by Divine authority, to be immersed
or to immerse others, that the word immerse itself is not once used for any
purpose whatever, in any part of the scriptures of truth.
6. In the original scriptures, men are not commanded to immerse or to be immersed for baptism or to be baptized by immersion. In the Greek language there are two words which frequently but not always signify to put the thing mentioned entirely under water or under something else. Neither of these is the very word immerse itself; nor is either of them, at any time, used in the original spriptures to denote baptism. Indeed, only one of them is used by the Spirit of God for any purpose whatever; but that one is not at any time or in any passage in the Greek Testament, used to signify baptism. If God had intended to teach the world that immersion is baptism or the only mode of baptism; he would certainly for this purpose have used, at least once, one of the words which sometimes signify to immerse or to put entirely under water. In the original Hebrew of the Old Testament, no word is used for baptism, which denotes immerse. If the King of kings had intended to inform the world that immersion is the only mode of baptism; it is strange, passing strange, that he has not told men so in a single passage in his own holy book ! ! It is truly astonishing that men should be called upon to believe that immersion is the only mode of baptism, when the word immerse is not used so much as once in the whole word of God, for baptism, or in English for any other purpose! And when neither of the original words which sometimes denote immerse is, at any time, used in Scripture for baptize. If the word immerse was ever employed in the scriptures for any purpose resembling baptism; men might fancy that in such an instance the word denoted baptism.— But how can they imagine that the word is recorded in the book of God and that it denotes baptism! And then to crown the imaginary climax, they appear to fancy that they can make people of sense believe that immersion is not merely a mode, but that it is the only mode of baptism. Is it possible for a man to believe, that God commands him to be immersed or to immerse others, when the scriptures do not so much as mention immersion as a mode of administering that ordinance? If he can, he can believe that God commands what is not so much as once mentioned as baptism in the whole of Divine revelation.
7. God, in his word, does not say that baptize signifies immerse. Any person by reading that holy book can easily perceive, that God therein does not say, that the word baptize always denotes immerse. He does not say that to immerse is its radical meaning; nor does he so much as intimate that it is ever used in that sense. Not even a suggestion of this kind, is found in the whole word of God. By explaining the word therefore, God does not teach that baptize always or ever denotes immerse. Had he chosen, he could have so defined the word baptize. His wisdom could have discovered an expression by which it might have been explained, if none such had existed among men. But words did then exist in the Greek language, by which mankind might have been taught that baptize meant immerse, if that was in truth its signification. Either of the two words which in Greek frequently signify to immerse, might have been used as a substitute for or to define the word baptize. If either or both these words had at any time been used by Divine inspiration, for baptism, or to define that word; probable evidence would have thus been furnished to prove that immersion is one mode of baptism. But neither of them is ever used in the word of God, either as a substitute for or to explain the word baptize. The word for immersion is used three times in the Greek Testament; but in not one of them does it denote baptism; and it is by no means certain, that in any of them it denotes immerse.— God therefore in his word does not teach mankind, that immerse is the only meaning, or the radical meaning, or any meaning of the word baptize. To affirm that this is its meaning, is, therefore to make an assertion unsupported by the language of inspiration. It is to turn aside from the Divine instruction of God's word.
8. In
no passage of Scripture does the word baptism
evidently signify immerse. In the English New Testament,
the word baptize, in its various modifications, is used eighty-nine times; and
in the Greek Testament the original word for baptize in its different forms, is
found in ninety- three places. In some of its forms, it is translated into
English by the words " wash "—"washing"—"washed,
"and "washings." But
in no one of these ninety-three passages does the connection evidently show that
immersion is
necessarily the meaning of the word baptize. To give it a different
sense will not, in any place where it is used, destroy or injure the meaning of
the passage. If it be said that John baptized at the
CHAPTER
II
NO
EXAMPLE Of IMMERSION
RECORDED IN SCRIPTURE
1. God in his word does not say that any person was immersed. It is “said” of Christ and of the Eunuch and of Paul and of others; they were "baptized;" but of not one person, is it said, in the whole book of God; he was immersed.
2. No one named in the word of God says of himself that he was immersed. In the scriptures, persons are often mentioned as speaking of themselves. But in no instance are we told in the word of God; that any person good or bad, declares of himself, I was immersed, or I am about to be immersed, or I will be immersed, or God requires me to be immersed. No one individual mentioned in scripture, wise or unwise, Christian, Jew or Heathen, pretends to present himself as an example of immersion.
3. The original Scriptures do not present any example of immersion for baptism. No word denoting immerse is used for baptism in the original scriptures. Neither of the two words used in Greek sometimes denote immerse, is used of any person to express his baptism. Only one of these words is used in the Greek New Testament. It is employed by our Saviour when he says; "He that dippeth" "his hand with me in the dish shall betray me." "It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish;"— "When he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas." No person, in any of these expressions, is mentioned as being baptized. Since no word which definitely expresses immersion, is used in scripture to denote any person's baptism; it is evident that the word of-God contains no definite example of any person being baptized by immersion.— And without positive precept or example in the word of God to sustain the position, men are called upon to believe that immersion, and that only, is baptism!! What an unblushing demand!!
4. No person mentioned in Divine revelation intimates that he immersed others or that he baptized any one by immersion. It is often stated that persons baptized others. John "baptized " the Lord Jesus Christ; Paul baptized " Crispus and Gaius ;" Philip " baptized " the Eunuch ;t and many other examples of baptism being administered, are mentioned in the Divine word. But not an instance is mentioned of one person immersing another for baptism or for any other purpose whatever. Moreover, it is not stated in a single passage of God's word, that any person baptized another by immersion; or that the word baptize ever signifies immerse. There is therefore no example of immersion for baptism mentioned in the whole word of God,
CHAPTER
III
IMMERSION
NOT
INFERENTIALLY TAUGHT IN THE WORD OF GOD
1. What is intended by an inference or inferential evidence may be properly noticed here. An inference is not a mere assertion; nor is it taking for granted the point to be proved; nor yet is it an artful evasion of the subject in discussion. But an inference is a conclusion fairly drawn from what is admitted to be true or has been before proved. That which is a proper inference, must be found in, and be a component part of, what is admitted or proved to be true; or it must be manifestly and inseparably connected with it. If this is not the case, the conclusion drawn, is not, properly speaking, an inference. It is only conjecture or assertion. In consequence of man's imperfect judgment; inferences may appear fair to one person, and dark, if not fanciful to another. In religious matters therefore but little reliance can be placed upon inferences or upon the inferential evidence resulting from-them, where there is no positive scripture testimony on the subject. This remark has the more force, as every religious doctrine or duty which God requires men to believe or practice, is expressed in some portion of his word in plain, positive language. Every doctrine or practice therefore which claims to be religious, and which has no positive scriptural evidence to support its claims, ought to be rejected as being destitute of Divine authority by which it can be sustained.
2. From
the use of the word “into”, it
cannot be inferred that persons were immersed for baptism.
One essential part of immersion
is to go or be put entirely under water (a). This is not the only meaning
of the word “into." Indeed this is not even one of its significations. It
does not denote under or entirely under. When
"Abram went down into Egypt," he did not go under the ground; when
Christ went up into a "mountain," he did not
go down under it; when the two Marys' entered "into" our
Saviour's "sepulcher," they did
not go under it; when the mariners with whom Paul was sailing to Rome,
were in distress, "they were minded" to "trust" the ship
" into," not under a
"certain creek." These
and similar passages in the word of God, show most conclusively, that the word
into does not mean under. When it is said of Philip and the Eunuch;
“they both went down into the water;" the language does not convey the
idea that they went under
the water; or performed one essential part of immersion.
If it had been said that both Philip and the Eunuch went down under the
water; then each of them would have performed one act which is essential to immersion.
But to go “down into the water" is
not to go under it; because
into never means under. To go down into the garden, or into
the meadow, or into the cellar; is not to go under the garden, or under the
meadow, or under the cellar. To go into, then, is not to go under; and to go
down into the water is not therefore to go under it in any proper sense of the
words used. Nor did going “into the water'' baptize the Eunuch. But after they
had both gone down “into the water,"… then
Philip baptized him. The language used plainly teaches this fact. It is this;
"And they went down both into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch; and he
baptized him." If it were asked; what did Philip do to the Eunuch after
they had both gone "down into the water?" the answer would be; “he
baptized him." The act of going into the water, was not therefore
going under it, was not immersion
in any of its essential parts, was not baptism;
for the ordinance of baptism
was administered after
they were both in, or at the water. To say
therefore that the Eunuch was immersed because he went down into the water, is
to affirm what the language does not teach either wholly or in part. Here then
we have no inferential evidence in favor of immersion.
In this passage there is no position mentioned or admitted, or proved,
from which to infer that the Eunuch was immersed. The
declaration that he was baptized by immersion
is a mere assertion un-sustained by Divine authority or by even a
tolerable inference. It is mere unsupported fancy.
3. From
the use of the words "out of," immersion
for baptism
cannot be inferred. Because it is said that "Moses—
brought" the children of
4. The
doctrine of immersion
cannot be inferred from the use of the Greek word (eis) translated "into."
This Greek word is found more than six hundred times in the Greek Testament.
It is used in a great variety of senses. Twelve of these are here mentioned. It
denotes on, to, in, unto, into, (not under,) at, against, before,
upon, for, towards, among. But
it does not signify under, nor is it so rendered in the New Testament.
From the use of this word by the Holy Spirit, it
cannot be ascertained that either Philip or the Eunuch wet so much as the soles
of their feet, when "he baptized him." All we
can certainly know from its use is, that the Eunuch was not immersed; for
the word (eis) or
into, does not denote under.
If the Spirit of God chooses to use a word which denotes to, at, towards, and
the like; no person can, without presumption, say positively, that it means in
or into in a particular connection, unless the sense of the passage requires
it to have that particular signification. As the sense of the passage which
speaks of the baptism of the Eunuch, will not be injured by translating the word
(eis) for "into," by to or towards; either of
these may, in that very connection, be its signification. From
this word therefore, it cannot be fairly inferred that either Philip or the
Eunuch touched the water with their feet when Philip administered the ordinance
of baptism
to
him; and much less that either of them was entirely under its surface. Besides,
this Greek word (eis) does not denote under or below the surface, and to
go or be put under water is indispensable in immersion.
Since
therefore, when it is said ; they "went down" (eis) " into
the water," the sense would not be injured, if the word (eis) was
rendered to or towards, instead of into; and since this Greek word
does not denote under or below the surface; no fair inference can be drawn from
it to sustain immersion.
Indeed,
that the Eunuch was not immersed is certain, because the language used by
inspiration does not signify immersion.
5. From
the use of the Greek word (ex) translated "out of," immersion
cannot be inferred. This word is used by the Holy Spirit,
when it is said; " Philip and the Eunuch came "up out
of the water," and in more than three hundred other places in the
Greek Testament. It literally denotes from. It is so translated in nearly
two hundred passages in the New Testament; It marks the point from which a
movement is made. This appears from the expression; “there came other
boats" (ex) "from Tiberias." These boats must have
commenced their movement from some part of the water near which the town of
6. From
the use of the, Greek word (en) rendered
“with," immersion
cannot be inferred. In the Greek Testament this word (en)
is used about three hundred limes. It is translated into English by the word
“at," more than one hundred times; and by the word "with,"
in more than one hundred and fifty passages; and by other words in other
places. But
it does not signify, and is not translated, under, in the whole
New Testament..
This word therefore cannot be forced into the service of immersion
by any fair construction; nor can it be made the ground from which immersion
can be inferred. As the word (ev)
does not denote under or below the surface; when it is said, "John
baptized" (en) " in"
(not under) "Enon,"—(en)
"in Jordan," (not under it,)—(en)
"with water;" it cannot be inferred from this language, that he
baptized under the waters of Jordan or under those at Enon; because
the word (ev)
in Greek never denotes under; nor is this
the signification of either in or with, in English. But from the
language used, it may be fairly concluded, that John baptized at or near Enon or
the Jordan, "with water" taken from that fountain or river; because
the Spirit of God uses a word (en) in
these passages of scripture, which almost universally signifies at or with,
though it is not used to express under. And it should always be borne
in mind that in receiving immersion
the person not only goes near or to or in or into,
but he must necessarily go or be put under, the water in order to be
immersed. From the use of this word (en),
it cannot therefore be inferred with any degree of propriety, that John, when he
baptized, wet the soles of his own feet; or that the foot of any one whom he
baptized came in contact with water. No
one can
therefore, from the use of this word (en),
even conjecture that John immersed or put entirely under water, all whom he
baptized.
Even when this Greek word (en) is translated in, it frequently denotes at or near by. This is manifest from the following language; "In" (en) "the place where" Jesus "was crucified, there was a garden." Certainly, this garden was at or near, not under, the place where our Saviour was crucified.
7. Immersion cannot be inferred from the use of the Greek word (apo) translated, “out of." It is used in the Greek Testament more than three hundred times. It literally signifies from, and is so translated in the New Testament more than two hundred and fifty times. It not only may, but often must, be so translated; as in the question which John proposed to some of the Jews; " Who hath warned you to flee" (apo) "from," (not out of,) "the wrath to come." Besides, this word (apo) never signifies from under, any more than do the English words "out of". The expression, "Jesus—went up:—out of the water" might, without injuring the sense or deviating from the original, be rendered ; Jesus went up from the water. As therefore the original word (apo ) here rendered "out of," never signifies from under; it cannot, when used of our Saviour, intimate that he had been under the water or immersed. If a person comes “out of” the water, it may be fairly inferred that he had been in it; but to infer that because he came "out of," that therefore he had been under, the water, would be absurd. But how much more absurd would it be, to infer that because Jesus Christ came (apo) from, that therefore he had been under the surface of the water. From the use of this original word, all that can be fairly inferred is, that our Saviour had been at or near, and then came (apo) from the water; and by no means that he had been under the water or below its surface.
8. Immersion
cannot be
inferred from the use of the word baptize. This is the word, the
meaning of which is sought. To
say that the word baptize denotes immerse, because some men assert that it does,
is not fair inferential evidence. To infer immersion
from the use of this or any other word; it is necessary to find it so
situated in some one passage at least of the word of God, that no other
signification can fairly be given to it without destroying, or at least
injuring, the sense. The word baptize is not so situated in any passage of
scripture. In every place where it is found in God's word; it may have a
signification different from immerse. In the baptism
of Christ, or of the Eunuch, or of Paul, or of any other person or
persons mentioned in the word of God, not a
single expression is used which necessarily includes or teaches immersion.
That the word baptize denotes immerse cannot therefore be inferred from
the connection in which it is found in any passage of scripture; because the
connection in no passage necessarily requires this to be its signification.
Since therefore, God in his word, does not say that baptize signifies immerse;
since he does not use the word in any connection which requires it to have this
meaning; since he does not, in one passage of scripture, call that baptism,
which in another, he calls immersion;
we have no scriptural evidence that immersion
is the only, the principal or any meaning of the word baptize. As
that cannot be fairly inferred from a word, which is not proved to be in
it; so
no one can, consistently with reason, infer that the word baptize denotes
immerse; because this is not necessarily one of its scriptural significations;
nor is this proved, from the word of God, to be one of its meanings. From
the use of the word baptize, therefore, no proper inference can be drawn in
favor of immersion
being even a mode, and much less the only mode of baptism.
9. That immersion is baptism cannot be inferred from the fact that the word baptize is transferred into the English Bible. In every passage, except four, where baptize is used in the Greek Testament, it is transferred into English by merely omitting the prefixes and giving the words an English termination. This one fact proves conclusively that the translators of the Holy Scriptures into the English language, were wise and faithful men. There is no other single word in the English language, which can express all that baptize frequently signifies. When water is, by a New Testament minister, applied to a person "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;" he is said to be baptized. This one word often expresses all that is denoted by this whole sentence. But all this cannot be expressed by any other single word in the English language. A log or an animal may be immersed or put entirely under water; but neither can be baptized. A person who is not a minister of the gospel, may immerse himself or another; but a minister only can baptize (a). Indeed there is no one word which is originally a part of the Hebrew, Syriac, Chaldee, Arabic, Ethiopic, Latin, French, Italian, Spanish or English language, which will convey to the mind, the exact meaning of the Greek word (baptidzo) for baptize. Perhaps no other word in any language, would be a complete substitute for the word baptize. This being the fact, wisdom to discover this point, and faithfulness in presenting the original idea in proper words, will lead those who translate the New Testament from the Greek into other languages, to transfer the original word (baptidzo) for baptize into their translations. Nor would this transfer of the word baptize imply that it denoted immerse; nor could any person on that account infer that immersion was one of its significations. To alter the word baptize, therefore, in order to sustain a favorite notion, is not a mark of that “wisdom" which “is from above.” But to do so shows a bigoted attachment to preconceived opinions, and a reckless disregard of Divine truth. The Christian loves his religious principles and practices, because God in his word teaches them. But he does not adopt the scriptures of truth; because, and so far as, they sustain his peculiar opinions.
10. Learning cannot find in the word of God, any inferential evidence in favor of immersion. Learning cannot find that which does not exist. And, as there is no inferential evidence in the Holy Scriptures to sustain the claims of immersion; so learning cannot find any such evidence in God's word. Learning does not create evidence of any kind on any subject. It only discovers and presents evidence clearly to the mind. Ignorance leaves evidence undiscovered or unperceived, and substitutes assertion for argument. And when learning throws so much light on a subject that even ignorance cannot but perceive in some degree the force of truth; then it begins to revile learning, as if it’s great and principal business was to deceive those who were able to perceive the force and application of the evidence which it presents in favor of truth. Thus the votaries of ignorance are led on by its despotic influence in the paths of self-deception, till they stumble on the dark mountains of vanity, and are “destroyed for lack of knowledge." These, at the same time, are, by this their tyrannical master, induced to believe that ignorance is almost immaculate purity, and learning only varnished vileness. When a subject is made so plain by learning that even the ignorant cannot avoid perceiving the convincing power of evidence, they then immediately fancy that learning can prove wrong to be right and right, wrong. In this way ignorance keeps its slaves bound in its chains, and will continue to do so, unless they allow themselves to believe that learning which makes difficult subjects plain, is at least as likely to be honest as ignorance which darkens "counsel by words without knowledge.” Indeed, a wiser "than Solomon" teaches us, that men love" darkness rather than light, because their deeds" are “evil." Upon ignorance therefore which loves "darkness rather than light,"! Must the charge of dishonesty rest. That which brings matters to the light cannot be chargeable with keeping them in the dark. If a charge of dishonesty is to be made, it must therefore be made against ignorance, not against learning. Besides, ignorance costs nothing. No. labor, no time, no means are required to make a person ignorant. But not a little of all these is required to make a person learned. Now since ignorance can deceive as well as learning, if not better, (because it may be sincere in its deceptions,) who would labor long and hard for the sake of deceiving others when by remaining in a state of ignorance, he could, without labor, accomplish his object better? There is little danger of real learning deceiving any person in relation to baptism or any other subject; while sophistry, self-sufficiency, bigotry and ignorance are to be dreaded by all who would not be their dupes. There is no danger of true learning ever presenting any inferential evidence in favor of immersion, as if that were thus taught in the word of God ; for this plain reason, that true learning, when it is brought to bear on that subject, will soon perceive that, in the Scriptures, there is no such evidence in favor of immersion.
CHAPTER
IV
NO
ALLUSION TO IMMERSION
IN THE WORD OF GOD
1. An allusion cannot, properly speaking, be made to that which does not exist. To allude or make an allusion is to refer to something. In making an allusion, the thing alluded to is not generally at the time, mentioned in plain words. But the fact that an allusion is made to any thing, proves that what is alluded to, does exist. If therefore a thing does not exist, it cannot be alluded to. But as immersion is not so much as once mentioned in the whole word of God, no person ought to expect to find therein an allusion made to it; for it must be but a fanciful conjecture to suppose that Omniscience would allude in the Divine word, to what he, in it, does not even once name. Nor would it be less fanciful to. imagine that God would very often mention baptism in his word by its own proper designation, and not once call it immersion, or in any way describe it by language which denotes immerse, if he intended to teach mankind that this was- baptism or the only mode of baptism. To find an allusion made in the word of God to immersion, is not to be expected; because the thing itself is not there.
2. The word bury does not allude to immersion. The word in English does not either literally or figuratively refer to immersion. To say that a person is buried, might allude to the decay of his body, or to its resurrection, or possibly to the immortality of the soul of him whose body was buried; but to say that bury literally alludes to immersion, is mere unbridled conjecture. Every one knows that to bury the dead is not the same thing as to put the living entirely under water. To bury does not mean to immerse. To say that a person is buried then cannot literally teach or allude to immersion. Figuratively, the word bury denotes to hide or conceal, not to immerse. The person who is immersed is not even concealed the moment he is under the water. Nor is there any attempt made in immersion to conceal or hide the person immersed. Nothing of this kind was attempted, when individuals, both male and female were immersed in a state of perfect nudity. So far then is the word bury, in its figurative signification, from alluding to or teaching immersion, that Immersers themselves do not even attempt to conceal or hide the immersed. This act therefore does not, cannot bear any resemblance to the figurative meaning of the word bury..
The Greek word used for bury expresses all the parts of an ancient funeral. These were various. (l.) The dead body was washed, not by immersing it entirely under, but by applying water to it; (2.) It was wrapped in a clean cloth; (3.) It was laid out; (4.) It was laid in a suitable place, usually for one or more days; (5.) It was anointed; (6.) It was embalmed; (7.) It was carried out to the narrow "house appointed for all the living;" (8.) It was deposited in the grave. This original word in its various modifications, expresses much more than the English. For a person therefore to say that, when this word is used, an allusion is made to immersion, or that immersion is taught by it, is to bluff their way through with dogmatic assertions and not intellect. If a person should affirm that the word funeral referred to immersion, or that going to a funeral indicated that immersion was baptism; the assertion would be sufficiently absurd. But to say that a word which denotes to wrap in a cloth, to anoint, to lay out and to embalm, besides expressing all that is included in the term funeral, alludes to immersion; is crowding too hard on the common sense of mankind.
3. The
word bury or buried does not in any passage of scripture, allude to immerse.
Men have quoted three passages of the word of God, to prove such an
allusion. In two of these, the word buried is used; in one it is not, though the
death of Christ is mentioned in this last. These are (1.) "We are buried
with him by baptism
into death;" (2.) Ye are "buried with him in baptism;"
(3.) "So many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into
his death." These expressions of scripture are sometimes supposed to allude
to immersion. Men
often assert that they teach this to be a mode, if not the only mode of baptism.
As the word bury or buried does not, either
in its literal or figurative sense, denote immerse; so in the use of
that word, no such allusion can be found. If these portions of God's word are
carefully examined, no allusion to immersion
can be found in them. This appears (1.) From the fact that the word bury,
or "buried," does not signify any thing that resembles what
is done to a person who is immersed. The word bury or buried does not in itself,
allude to immerse. (2.) Moreover, in the burying mentioned in these passages,
persons are said to be “buried with" Christ” by
baptism into
death," not into the grave. The death of Christ took place on
the cross. We "are buried with him by baptism
into death." But death by crucifixion has no resemblance to immersion;
therefore baptism into
Christ's death on the cross, does not, cannot, teach, or even allude to immersion.
There
is not the least resemblance between the Saviour's death on the cross several
feet above the ground, and the putting of a person entirely under water. That
any person should ever imagine that being buried with
him by
baptism into
death on the cross, had any reference to immersion,
is
truly surprising.
(3.) Besides, if this burying, instead of being into death on the cross, as it
is, had been, buried with him into his grave; still there could be, even then,
no allusion to immersion.
Our
Saviour when buried was laid in a "new tomb—hewn out of a rock.” A
"great stone" was "placed at the door of" this his
"sepulcher." The place in which he was laid was so large that the two
Marys' " entering into the sepulcher—saw a young man sitting at the right
side" of it; and that Peter and the beloved " disciple" entered
it at the same time. Our Lord's sepulcher was therefore a small room hewn out of
a rock, sufficiently large for a number of persons to enter and remain, in it
together. There
is then no more resemblance between the act of laying the dead body of Christ in
the tomb and that of a living person going entirely under water, than there
would be between immersion
and
laying a dead body in a small bed-room.
Between the two acts, there is not the least resemblance; nor is there the most
distant allusion in one of them, made to the other. (4.) Between the mode of
disposing of the dead in any country by any people and immersion,
there is not the least resemblance; and consequently in the one there can be no
allusion made to the other. Some portions of the human race consume their dead
on funeral piles; some deposit a part of them at least on trees; some place the
body in a sitting posture; some place the dead in a kind of artificial caves
called vaults; and some remove the earth and lay the body in the place from
which the material was removed and then sprinkle or shovel the earth in upon the
corpse. The last two modes are adopted by Christian and civilized nations. The
others are practiced by the savage and semi- barbarous. It is manifest that to
consume a body by fire or place it on a tree, or in a sitting posture, cannot
resemble immersion.
To lay a
corpse in a vault is like placing it in a cellar, not like putting a living man
under water. Nor does that mode of interment resemble immersion,
in which
the earth is removed from its original position; the body laid in the place from
which the earth was taken, and then the dead covered by putting upon it a small
quantity of earth at a time. This mode of burying might resemble sprinkling or
pouring, but could not resemble immersion;
because in this, there is no one act that looks in the least like putting a
living person under water. Immersion
as
practiced by any class of Immersers, does not and cannot resemble the mode in
which any people bury their dead. (5.)To
be buried with Christ "by baptism
into
death," does not teach or allude to any mode of baptism
with
water. It
is expressly stated that those who are buried with him by baptism
into
death, are "baptized into Jesus Christ;"
"walk in newness of life;" have their "old man—crucified
;" do "not serve sin ;" are dead " unto sin;" are
" alive unto God ;" are " alive from the dead ;" have
"obeyed from the heart;" are " made free from sin;" are
" the servants of righteousness ;" are "become the servants of
God ;" are "risen with him through the faith of the operation of God
;" are " quickened together with him;" and "have their
trespasses" forgiven. The persons here described must have been true
Christians. No external application of water in any mode or by any person, could
possibly remove from the sinner, his "carnal mind which is enmity against
God," and produce in him that spiritual mind which is here described. To
do this is the work of the Holy Spirit (a); not of baptism
with
water. It is manifest
from facts that baptism
with
water, whatever may be the mode or whoever the administrator, is not always
preceded, accompanied or followed by the regenerating and converting grace of
God's spirit. Too many after they are baptized, no matter how or by whom the
ordinance may have been administered, prove by their actions that they are yet
"enemies" of God "by wicked works." Simon the Samaritan
sorcerer, after "he was baptized" with water, was still "in the
gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity." His could not therefore
have been that baptism
which
leads those who receive it to “walk in newness of life." As no baptism
but that
of the Holy Ghost can produce this new and spiritual “walk;” so whenever
this "newness of life" is produced, baptism
with the
Holy Ghost or regeneration has taken place. But this holy walk results from
being "baptized into" Christ's" death;" therefore
this baptism
must
be "with the Holy Ghost," and not with water; because this does and baptism
with
water does not, invariably produce "newness of life."
The baptism
therefore
mentioned in these passages, being baptism
with
the Holy Ghost does not teach or allude to immersion
or
any mode of water baptism.
(6.) Christians, it is
said, "are risen with" Christ," through the faith of the
operation of God." This rising is not the act of coming out of the grave.
Christians, as well as others, will start from the sleep of ages, when the sound
of the
4. Noah and his family were preserved in the ark, but this fact docs not teach or allude to immersion. The language in which some persons fancy that immersion is taught or alluded to, is this; "God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was—preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water; the like figure whereunto, even baptism doth also now save us." In the ark, Noah and his family were saved from the all-devouring flood. They "only remained alive" of the whole human race who then lived on earth. The ark, the vessel in which they were saved from this overwhelming calamity, was borne up by, and "went upon, the face" or surface "of the waters." Noah and his family were saved in the ark. This vessel was borne up, "upon the face of the waters." This deliverance from a tremendous temporal judgment, of all who were actually in the ark, represents the deliverance, from eternal misery, of all true believers. This spiritual salvation is enjoyed by those, and by those only, who have by faith entered the spiritual ark, the Lord Jesus Christ. By faith sinners are brought into this ark; for by faith, and by faith only, are they united to Christ. God the Spirit, in regeneration, or when they are baptized with the Holy Ghost, produces this "faith" in their souls. The baptism here mentioned saves us. As no baptism is essential to salvation, except that of the Spirit; so this baptism which saves us, or is essential to salvation, must therefore be baptism with the Holy Ghost, and not with water. It is this spiritual baptism therefore, of which Noah's preservation in the ark was a figure. But his preservation in the ark could not be a figure of immersion; because there is no resemblance between the one and the other. That there is no allusion to immersion in the preservation of Noah and his family in the ark, appears; (1.) From the fact that they were saved by being in the ark, above the water, not by being put under that fluid, as is the case with all who are immersed; (2.) From the fact that the ark "went on the face of the waters," or floated on their surface, so that even the vessel in which they were saved, was not immersed or put entirely under water. (3.) To be carried in the ark above water, could not possibly allude to, or represent immersion, or the putting of persons all over under its surface. (4.) They were under the roof of the ark; and persons are usually immersed in the open air. (5.) They were entirely hid from those who were on the outside of the ark; but when persons are in the act of receiving immersion, they are visible to those who are near them; because water is transparent, but the covering of the ark was not. (6.) The covering of the ark did not come in contact with Noah and his family, or with their dress; but those who are covered with water in immersion, have the covering element, water, in contact at least with their dress. It is manifest therefore that the preservation of Noah and his family in the ark, did not, in any sense of the word, allude to immersion. In those who perished in the flood, an allusion to immersion might easily be discovered; for these were entirely covered with water, and so are the immersed. Here then is a very manifest resemblance between those who were wholly covered with the waters of the deluge, and those who are wholly covered with water in immersion. But Noah and his family were not immersed or put entirely under water. Even the very ark in which they were preserved, was not immersed; for it moved on the surface of, instead of sinking entirely under, the water. A person in the ark was as safe from being immersed, as he would be in a house or church, in which no cistern could be found. In the preservation of Noah and his household in the ark, there was not a single point which resembles immersion in the least. Noah and his family were saved from being immersed in water. Those who enjoy that baptism of which their preservation in the ark was a type, are now saved from being immersed in sin, from remaining under “the wrath of God" and from legal condemnation. They will also, in the world to come, be saved from being immersed “in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." In the preservation, therefore, of Noah and his household in the ark, there can be no allusion to, or evidence in favor of, immersion.
5. The expression “washing" or “washed with water," 'does not allude to immersion. The language used by inspiration, and which includes the words "washing" and "washed," is this; "Ye are washed;"—"Christ—loved the church—that he might—cleanse it with the washing of water by the word ;"—" He saved us by the washing of regeneration;"—" Let us draw near" to God, " having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water ;"—and " wash away thy sins." In relation to these passages, it may be remarked, (1.) That the word immerse is not used in any of them. (2.) If the washing mentioned in them, is literal; then to perform such a washing, more is necessary than to dip that to be washed into water, so that it may be entirely covered and then immediately take it out again. No literal pollution could be removed in this way. To wash away literal defilement supposes more than this. Indeed, in washing literally, a part of the thing washed, if not the whole of it, is frequently out of the water during the operation. Moreover, in washing a person, or almost any vessel, the water is applied to what is washed, instead of even dipping what is washed into the water. If the article washed is not so much as dipped into the water, certainly it could not be immersed or put entirely under water in the act of being washed. When persons wash themselves, or are washed by others, or when tables, churns, tubs, pails, or the like, are washed; they are not usually, if at all, immersed in water. A literal washing therefore requires more than immersion; and it is not usually performed by immersing the articles washed. (3.) In ceremonial washings water is applied to a part only of the person washed, to make him ceremonially ' clean every whit." (4.) The word wash is used to express the falling of tears on the part washed. Our Saviour's feet were "washed" with "tears." Every one knows that tears always fall in drops. That which is washed "with tears," is therefore washed with drops falling upon it; or in other words, it is washed by sprinkling. This washing then could not possibly teach immersion; for no one can, for a moment, suppose that our Lord's feet were put entirely under water in the tears with which they were washed. (5.) If the washing mentioned in these passages, is spiritual; then the body is not represented as being washed either wholly or in part; because, spiritual washing is that of the soul,—not the washing of the body in any of its parts, or for any purpose. (6.) The first of these passages may denote that Christians "are washed" in the blood of Christ ; in the second and fourth, the persons washed had water applied to them in some mode to symbolize the washing away of sin. The third, as it is expressly called “the washing of regeneration," not the washing "of water," or of baptism, must denote the purifying influences of the Holy Spirit in his regenerating power upon the soul. In the fifth, the washing “away of sins," is mentioned. No truly converted person can be made to believe that this work is affected by the application of water to the body. Only two of these passages therefore can possibly speak of baptism. And in neither of these is any word used, that denotes immersion; nor is any such word found in the context. Not the least intimation then is given us in any one of these passages that immersion is baptism. But as nothing is said in them, either directly or indirectly, in favor of immersion for baptism or for any other purpose; they can therefore contain no real allusion to that substitute for a Divine ordinance. (7.) As sprinkling is mentioned in one of these passages, that mode may be taught or alluded to when the application of water is mentioned. (8.) But it is clear that immersion is not taught or alluded to, in any of these passages, whether a literal, ceremonial or spiritual washing is taught in one or more of them. (9.) The word wash does not signify immerse. This is not one of its meanings in the English language. (10.) If it, at any time, signifies baptize, this is a figurative sense of the term; as baptize and wash are by no means synonymous in their significations. It is manifest therefore that to wash with water, is not an expression which alludes to immersion.
6. To
be covered all over with any material, docs not allude to or teach immersion.
If to be covered with any substance is immersion,
then all persons are constantly immersed; for all are at all times covered with
atmospheric air. This is essential to our very existence. In the ordinary course
of
CHAPTER
V
IMMERSION
NOT
THE ONLY MODE OF BAPTISM
1. Christian baptism is mentioned in the word of God. This fact is taught in the commission given by the Lord Jesus Christ to the disciples and their successors in the ministerial office. These are commanded to teach and baptize. That they did baptize with water, in obedience to Christ's direction, is a fact often stated in scripture; and that persons were commanded to receive the ordinance of baptism after his resurrection, is also too frequently mentioned to be denied by any person who believes the bible to be a revelation from God. That the ordinance of Christian baptism is mentioned in the book of God, is therefore an undeniable fact.
2. Immersion is not, in the Scriptures, mentioned as a mode of baptism. Any person who reads the word of God, can easily determine this point for himself. It is a mere matter of fact. If the word immerse or immersion is once recorded in the scriptures of truth, it can be found and the chapter and verse mentioned. The person who examines this subject, with the least degree of care, will soon discover that the much-loved word immerse is not, in the scriptures, used for baptism. Notwithstanding all the noise which has been made to induce persons to believe that immersion is the only mode of baptism; God has not definitely taught mankind in his word that it is even one mode of administering that ordinance. It will be difficult to make men of sense believe that what is not so much as once mentioned in the whole word of God as baptism, is the only mode by which it can, be administered.
3. Immersion, as a mode of baptism, is not, by other language, definitely taught in the Holy Scriptures. There is, in, the word of God, no command for immersion; no example of immersion; no inferential evidence in favor of immersion; nor is there in the scriptures even a manifest allusion to immersion. This therefore cannot be the only mode of baptism. But though to sustain its claims, it has no authority from the word of God, no evidence in its, favor either direct or indirect, from Divine truth; -yet immersion, with all the self-importance of an Eastern Despot, Steps forth and demands to itself submission from all, as the only mode of baptism. It is so self-opinionated that it is not, (without any definitely expressed scriptural evidence of any kind; in its favor,) satisfied to be allowed a standing as a mode of baptism. It even demands to be acknowledged as the only mode.
4. If any number of passages of Scripture stated expressly that immersion was baptism, and that persons were immersed for baptism, this would not prove immersion to be the only mode of baptism. If one passage or ten or ten thousand, stated expressly that immersion was baptism, or a mode of baptism then scriptural evidence would thereby be furnished to prove that immersion was baptism. But no number of declarations to prove immersion to be baptism, would prove it to be the only mode of baptism; or that nothing but immersion is baptism. If Immersers could prove from the express language of scripture that immersion was baptism; the same express language of scripture, might prove that water applied in a different mode was baptism also. To prove the position therefore which the exclusive Immersers always take, that immersion is the only mode of baptism; they must furnish proof to the point. They must first show by some express declaration, of scripture, that immersion is baptism. This they cannot do, for this plain reason; there is no such passage recorded in God's book. And then after they have accomplished this impossibility; they have another to accomplish, which is not less difficult than the former. They have then to produce one passage of scripture or more to prove that immersion is the only mode of baptism. But no portion of' the word of God, teaches explicitly that immersion is baptism; and, much less that it is the only mode of baptism. So far therefore as Divine, revelation is concerned; there is not the least intimation given to mankind to prove that immersion is the only mode of baptism.
5. If there is but one mode of baptism, that cannot be immersion. That which is not expressly mentioned in the word of God, cannot be the only mode of baptism. Immersion is not thus mentioned; it cannot therefore be the only mode of baptism. In no portion of scripture, is immersion called a mode or the only mode of baptism. God, in one passage of his word, speaks of "one baptism; but in no. portion of it, does he speak of one mode of baptism; and least of all does he say that there is only one mode of baptism. But if there is only one mode of baptism, it is perfectly certain to those who take God's truth for their rule of duty in all religious matters, that immersion is not that mode. Those who read the scriptures know full well that Divine truth does not declare that immersion is a mode or the only mode of baptism. It is manifest to them that what is not once definitely named, in God's word, as baptism, either in the original or in any correct translation, cannot be the only way in which that ordinance is to be administered. What God does not plainly teach in his word, cannot be even a religious duty which men are, by Divine authority, required to observe. That immersion is not thus taught, is too manifest to be denied by any person who reads and believes what is revealed in God's word.
6. Baptism, in some mode may be explicitly revealed in the Holy Scriptures, though immersion as baptism is not so revealed. Because the word immerse is not found in the translation of the scriptures into English; it does not follow that no other word is used in them. Though immersion is not plainly taught therein; other words may be used, which may teach a mode of baptism entirely different from immersion. And although no word in the original scriptures denoting immersion, is so much as once used for baptism or to define that word; yet words in the original languages of God's book may be used to teach another mode of baptism. It does not therefore follow that if there is no evidence to prove that immersion is baptism; then no evidence can be found to prove that baptism may be administered in any other way. The point then to which the mind is brought on this subject, is; not whether a person is to be immersed or not baptized-; but whether a person is to substitute immersion which is not mentioned in scripture as a mode of baptism, for that which is so mentioned; and let this thing which as baptism, is totally nameless in the word of God, arrogate to itself the exclusive privilege of being the Divine ordinance of baptism!! From these remarks it can be seen of how much value is the assertion; “If immersion is not the mode or the only mode of baptism, then there is no baptism." Would such persons really lay aside the word of God rather than their own beloved substitute for baptism ? From the language they often use, it appears that at least some of them would.
CHAPTER
VI
IMMERSION
FOR
BAPTISM IMPROBABLE
1. It
is not probable that persons were immersed in places where it is certain they
were baptized. (1.) John baptized “in Bethabara beyond
2. It is not probable that the Jews always immersed themselves before their meals. That they were accustomed to ceremonially wash or baptize themselves before meals is clearly taught in the word of God. A "certain Pharisee besought" our Saviour " to dine with him." He accordingly "went in and sat down to meat; and when the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that he had not first washed," Greek “baptized,” " before dinner;" and again it is said of "all the Jews," "when they come from the market, except they wash," or baptize, "they eat not." It was therefore the custom of the Jews to baptize or wash themselves before eating their ordinary meals. It is by no means probable that they always or generally immersed themselves before they eat, or when they returned from market. Besides, the custom of the Jews was to wash or baptize themselves for these their ceremonial purifications, in "water- pots of stone—containing two or three firkins apiece" or less than twenty-five gallons each. There is not, therefore, the least probability that, when they washed or baptized themselves in these before their meals or when they came from market, the act of ablution was by immersion.
3. Persons
did not leave the place where they applied for baptism
in order to receive that ordinance. This may be easily
learned from the facts relating to this point. Persons are often mentioned as
being baptized in the same place where they heard the gospel. This was the fact
with "both men and women" who were baptized; of Paul, who "arose
and was baptized;" of "Cornelius—and his friends;" of
"Lydia—and her household ;" of " the jailer and all his;"
of the twelve men who were "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus;"
and of John who "did baptize—and preach"
in the same place. As persons heard the gospel, believed, and without changing
their location, were baptized, it is certainly improbable that they were always
taken away to some river, pond or cistern, to be immersed ; and that this
circumstance should not be so much as once mentioned in the word of God. If
persons were always immersed for baptism,
then there must have been water of sufficient depth for this purpose where they
were immersed. This deep water must have been where they heard the gospel and
applied for baptism,
or they
must have gone to some water deep enough for the purposes of immersion.
There is
no proof in the word of God or elsewhere that either was the case. Men who
believe that for which they have good evidence, cannot believe without the least
evidence that deep water was always found at the very spot where persons asked
to be baptized, or that they always went to places where such deep water was to
be obtained.
4. It
is not probable that persons are required to be immersed in places where they
are required to be baptized. Christ commands his ministering
servants to "teach all nations, baptizing them." All nations are
therefore to be taught and baptized. It may be remarked than, (1.) that the
inhabitants of Greenland, Iceland, Labrador, Norway, Lapland, and other Northern
regions, are to be baptized. In many of these countries, in order to immerse, a
hole must be cut through the ice. This, in high latitudes, for more than half
the year, is from ten to fifty feet thick. Moreover for months in succession,
the cold is so intense, that in a very few minutes, perhaps two or three, after
a hole was cut in the ice, the water would again be frozen over. It is not
probable that all adult persons, even delicate females, are required to be
immersed in these bleak regions. Even in the more temperate climates of Europe,
Asia and
5. It is very improbable that those who were "baptized” for the dead were immersed. This baptism for the dead is mentioned as a proof of the resurrection from the dead. In immersion a living person is put under the water. This could not prove that a dead person was to be restored to life by Almighty power. Besides, the original word (huper) rendered ''for" literally denotes " above.''' It is not probable that a cistern was made above the dead in which to immerse the living. It is very improbable, therefore, that living persons were immersed when they were baptized for or above the dead.
6. Facts
show that immersion
is not, in all probability, the only mode of baptism.
(1.) It is a fact,
that the claim of immersion
to be the only mode of baptism,
“un-churches” a very large portion of professing Christians. Let a
Universalist, a Unitarian, a Deist, an Infidel, a Pantheist, an Atheist, and the
most devoted Christian, present themselves at the Communion Table of many
Immersers; and each would receive the same treatment. Each would be debarred.
Not one of them would be allowed to taste the crumbs that might fall from the
Lord's Table. And why is this devoted Christian put on a level with the Atheist?
Why? Simply because he has not been immersed as
a substitute for baptism;
because he has not taken that for the Divine
ordinance of baptism,
which is not so much as once named in the whole word of God.
All professing Christians, save the immersed, and even some of them, are thus
un-churched. They are, so far as external ordinances are concerned, put by many
Immersers, on a par with Atheists. There are in the world more than one hundred
and seventy-five millions of professing Christians. Of these, about one million
maintain that immersion
is the only mode of baptism.
All these persons have or may have the same Bible. Nearly half of them
profess to be guided by its instructions in all religious duties. Now, it is
certainly very improbable that in a matter, where the intellect only is
concerned, but one out of more than a hundred, should be right, and all the
others wrong. And this must be the case, if immersion
and that only, is baptism.
(2.) It is a fact, that many of those denominations
of professing Christians, which do not admit that immersion
is the only mode of baptism,
require their public teachers of religion to be thoroughly educated men.
They require them to be particularly well versed in Hebrew and Greek, the
languages in which the scriptures were originally written (a). It is not
probable that all these men, thoroughly educated for the ministry, should be
entirely mistaken in relation to the mode of applying water in baptism.
(3.) It is a fact, that no denomination which
maintains that immersion
is the only mode of baptism,
does now, or ever did, require their ministry to be thoroughly educated
men. Many of their preachers have not even a good English education. They
frequently speak of learning in a minister as useless or even pernicious. It is
not probable then that one such uneducated preacher should be wiser than ten,
twenty, fifty or a hundred, educated men, in relation to the mode of baptism.
(4.) It is a fact, that almost all errorists who
baptize, adopt immersion
as one of their modes, if not as the only mode of baptism.
Errors are generally found in clusters. When therefore a number of
uneducated errorists uniformly adopt immersion
as their mode of baptism;
and more than ten times as many sound educated men, as uniformly adopt a
different mode, and turn aside from theirs; it becomes exceedingly improbable
that immersion is
the only mode of baptism
(&). Indeed, among those who profess to take the word of God for
their only rule of duty in religious matters; immersion
for baptism
usually assumes an importance in proportion to their love of human,
instead of Divine authority. Accurate knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, and
habitual obedience to the positive commands of
7. It is not probable that to baptize, a large quantity of water is necessary. Baptism is a significant ordinance (&). It symbolizes the work of God's Spirit on the souls of the truly converted, when, in regeneration, he applies to them the atoning blood of Christ. A large quantity of water is not necessary for this purpose. Neither scripture nor reason teaches that water enough to immerse the body is necessary to symbolize the purification of the soul from sin. It is not probable therefore, that this quantity is required or was always used for baptism.
8. It is not probable that tables or couches upon which persons formerly reclined at meals, were immersed. These were so large that at least twelve persons might recline at once on one of them while they were eating together. The "washing" of these “tables” is, in the original, expressly called for the baptizing of them. Now it is entirely improbable that these tables or couches (a) were immersed every time they were washed or baptized. It is therefore utterly improbable that baptize always means immerse, or that immersion and that only, is baptism.
CHAPTER
VII
IMMERSION
FOR
BAPTISM IMPOSSIBLE
1. The Lord Jesus Christ would not require baptism to be administered in such a way as to destroy life. To imagine that he would, is to suppose that he would act totally inconsistent with his character. He "came not to destroy men's lives, but to save." He " was holy, harmless," and "undefiled." To imagine therefore that he would direct his ministering servants to baptize in such a mode as to violate the command, "Thou shalt not kill," would be to suppose that he would act inconsistent with himself. That he would thus act, is impossible; because to do so would be inconsistent with his Divine nature. The commission, "Go ye—and teach all nations, baptizing them," includes persons in every state or condition in life. It therefore includes the sick, whatever may be their disease. To immerse or put entirely under water, especially in winter, those who are in certain stages of some diseases, would destroy life almost as soon as poison. Humanity shudders at the very idea of killing a sick person by immersion. And if that is the only mode of baptism, then Immersers must destroy life by this act or some diseased persons cannot obey the command which requires them to be "baptized." To command all the sick in every stage of every disease and at any season of the year to be immersed, is manifestly inconsistent with the character of him who "will have mercy and not sacrifice." He does not, in the case of any diseased person, dispense with obedience for a single day, whatever may be the degree or nature of his complaint No person, however severe the cold may be, is authorized by the word of God to defer his baptism for any length of time, till his health is restored. In (he scriptures no direction is given by which an individual is required, authorized or even permitted, to defer his baptism in consequence of disease. If it is impossible for believers in Divine revelation, to suppose that Christ would require his ministers to destroy life in the administration of this ordinance, it is equally impossible for .such to believe that immersion is the only mode of baptism. The opinion that death has been caused or hastened and disease induced by immersion, is not mere theory. Instances are known where both these evils have resulted from putting the bodies of diseased persons and others under water for baptism. The command, "Thou shalt not kill," stands in the way, therefore, of the notion that immersion is the only mode of baptism.
2. It is impossible for a person to be immersed while standing. Paul was directed to "arise and be baptized;" and it is expressly stated that he "arose and was baptized." To be immersed, a person must be laid down on his face or on his back in the water, and then thrust under the element; or he must kneel down in it and be turned over forward till he is entirely covered with the water. Some Immersers adopt one of these modes and some another, as their fancies or leaders may dictate. But none of them ever think of rising up to be immersed; this impossibility they have not yet attempted. It is, therefore, as impossible for immersion to be the only scriptural mode of baptism, as it would be for Paul or others to be immersed while standing. Acts 22:16, and 9:18.
3. A
person cannot lie immersed by applying water to him. In every
mode of immersion,
and in every case, the person is applied to the water, and not the water
to the person. No class of Immersers, however their fancies may lead them into
absurdities, have yet attempted to immerse persons by applying water to them.
But wherever in the word of God this matter is mentioned, water is spoken of as
being applied to the person baptized; and in no one instance is the person
represented as being applied to the water. John, it is said, "baptized with
water"; but in no instance is it said that he applied persons to
or put them under the water. Peter says, "can any man forbid water
that" Cornelius and his friends" should not be baptized?" Not…
“can any man forbid these to be put under water?” As water is applied to the
person in baptism,
and as it is impossible to immerse by applying water to any one, so it is
therefore impossible for immersion
to be the only mode of baptism.
The use of the
preposition with after the word baptize
excludes the possibility of immersion
being the only mode of administering that ordinance. "With
water" does not signify under water. The word with
never denotes under or below the surface. When therefore God in his
word declares that baptism
"with water" was practiced, he
teaches, by such language, that immersion
was not the mode. Indeed, the language used shows that in such instances
immersion could
not have been the mode. The original word (en) translated with, often
denotes at, sometimes in, and occasionally it has other
significations; but in the Greek language it does not signify below the surface
or under water. When, therefore, it is said of a man; he baptized (ev)
"with water," it is certain
that the language teaches that water is by him applied in baptism
to persons, and not the persons to the water. It
is also certain that to baptize "with water" cannot be immersion;
because to immerse is not to baptize "with
water." It is to put or have the person go entirely under that element. To
those who are baptized "with water,"
the fluid is applied. Such
baptism
cannot be immersion;
for in this last the person is invariably applied to the water, not the water to
him.
4. It
is impossible to immerse persons on dry ground. This is so manifest that
no one ever thinks of making the attempt. Nor could any person who had no
favorite scheme to defend, ever imagine it possible to put an individual
entirely under water on dry ground. The Israelites in escaping from Egyptian
bondage passed through the
5. It is impossible for a person to immerse himself or be immersed in a vessel containing less than twenty-five gallons. It was the custom of the Jews to perform their ceremonial purifications in stone "water-pots"—" containing two or three firkins apiece". These might contain from one to twenty-three gallons each. Of these purifications of the Jews, it is said, "except they wash" or baptize, as it is in the original, "they eat not." That the Jews were accustomed to wash or baptize before their ordinary meals, is manifest from the fact that the Pharisee "marveled" because our Savior had not " washed," or baptized "before dinner, " Had the omission to wash before meals been customary, the Pharisee would not have marveled" when he observed the Lord Jesus Christ sitting down at the table without attending to this traditional ceremonial observance. It is manifest therefore that the Jews were accustomed to wash or purify themselves ceremonially before they ate their ordinary meals. These their ceremonial washings are in the original expressly called baptisms. When it is said of these purifications, they "-wash" or "washed," the Greek word for baptize or baptized is used. But they were accustomed to wash or baptize themselves in "water-pots of stone," containing, at the very most, less than twenty-five gallons. That these baptisms or washings were by immersion, is, therefore, as impossible, as it would be to immerse a full-grown man in a vessel containing not less than one, or more than twenty-three gallons. It is perfectly manifest that an. adult, person could not possibly be immersed in such a, vessel. But as the washing of adults in these water-pots, is called baptism, so it is perfectly certain that this baptism in these pots, not greatly exceeding in size a half-barrel, and perhaps much less, could not possibly be immersion; and therefore, immersion cannot possibly be the only Scriptural mode of baptism.
6. Without
a miracle, it would be impossible for one man to immerse five thousand persons
each day for five hundred days in succession. The time which
intervened between the commencement of John's, public ministry and its close,
did not much, if any, exceed a year and a half. During this time, "
7. Twelve men could not immerse three thousand persons in about five hours. Peter "with the eleven" began his discourse to the Jews "at the third hour of the day;" or about nine o'clock in the morning. After he had spoken some time, they said to him, "and to the rest of the Apostles, men and brethren what shall we do? Peter answered this inquiry, and "with many other words," he exhorted them. How much time was spent in these discourses we are not informed. But we cannot suppose that after all these exercises more than five hours of the day remained. Peter and "the eleven" are the only persons mentioned as being, on this occasion, engaged either in preaching or baptizing. There is no evidence that the seventy disciples were there; and if they had been, they had no authority to baptize; for Christ, when he sent them, out, did not authorize them to administer baptism. In part of a day, these twelve baptized "about three thousand," or about two hundred and fifty each. If these were immersed, and four minutes, a shorter time than Immersers usually occupy in performing the ceremony, be allowed to put each person under water, it would have required more than sixteen hours to have immersed the whole three thousand. Without a miracle, no twelve men could immerse three thousand persons in part of a day. In this case we have no evidence that a miracle was-performed or was necessary. Immersers cannot deny that the three thousand were baptized in part of a day; for "the same day," they were received into "fellowship'' with the apostles. According to most of them, the only door into Christian fellowship and of the "breaking of bread" in the Lord's Supper, is immersion. That the three thousand therefore were baptized on that day, before or at the time they were received into fellowship, no exclusive Immerser can deny or doubt. Besides, at or near "Jerusalem," where these three thousand were baptized, there is no stream, pond or brook, sufficiently large to immerse an adult person in; and the hatred of the chief priests and other Jews to Christianity and to the apostles, would not allow them to permit the pools, (if they were deep enough, or the public cisterns, if any such existed and were suitable,) to be used for the administration of the ordinance of baptism. The Jewish rulers would not allow the apostles to occupy in peace, even their own private apartments for religious purposes. Certainly then, these Jews would not allow them to use for such purposes, any water over which they could exercise control. It is therefore manifest, (1.) That, as these three thousand were all baptized in part of a day, and as it was impossible for them to be immersed by twelve men in so short a time; so it is impossible for the baptism of these to have been by immersion. (2.) It was impossible for the apostles, at that time, to immerse at Jerusalem even if they had been so disposed; for the Jewish rulers who had just before "crucified the Lord of glory," had then both the will and the power to prevent them from doing so. And those who so sincerely hated every thing holy, as they did, could not, consistently with their hatred, have, either directly or indirectly, encouraged the apostles in the practice of any part of their religious duties. (3.) At or near Jerusalem, there was no water deep enough to immersion. To suppose therefore that the three thousand persons added to the church on the day of Pentecost, were immersed is to suppose an absolute impossibility.
8. To be immersed into death, on the cross is impossible. Christ died on the cross. When therefore true believers "are buried with him by baptism into death;" they are "baptized into" (eis) "his death" on the cross. It is impossible for baptism into such a death to be immersion. Death on the cross is produced by elevating the person above the earth; and in immersion, the person goes or is put entirely under water. No two things can be more unlike than death by crucifixion and immersion. It is therefore impossible for that baptism which is into the death of Christ on the cross to be immersion.
9. That baptism which is a figure of Noah's preservation in the ark, cannot be immersion. Noah and his family were preserved from being overwhelmed by the universal deluge, by being carried in the ark "on the face" or surface "of the waters," not by being immersed in them. The baptism then which is a "figure":): of their preservation, cannot be immersion. They were saved from being destroyed in the flood, because they were in the ark above the waters, not because they were thrust under their surface. It is impossible therefore for immersion to be the mode of baptism which figuratively represents the preservation of Noah and his family from the deluge. Immersion or going under water, cannot be a "figure" of sailing in the ark above or "on the face of the waters." What a wild fancy that man must have, who can suppose that being in the ark "on the face of the waters," is symbolized by putting the body of a person entirely under their surface!!
10. That baptism which is a seal cannot be immersion. A seal never covers the whole, nor even the greater part of what is sealed. The size of a seal does not affect its binding force. Whether it is large or small, so long as it is a seal, its binding force remains the same. But if the whole or even the greater part of the instrument intended to be sealed is covered with the sealing material; its validity, instead of being confirmed, would thereby be destroyed. To cover a deed or bond or mortgage or will, with wax or wafers, would not confirm but destroy its validity. That to cover it thus with the sealing material would destroy the binding force of the seal, is too manifest to need farther illustration. Christian baptism is a seal (a). It confirms the promise of blessings to the person baptized. As a seal cannot wholly cover the thing sealed; so immersion, as in it, the immersed are covered all over with water the sealing material, cannot be a seal to them. Immersion destroys the very nature of a seal; because in it the persons intended to be sealed, are entirely covered with the sealing material. It is impossible therefore for immersion to be that baptism which is a seal.
11. Baptism ''with the Holy Ghost" cannot be immersion. In immersion the body is put entirely underwater. In baptism "with the Holy Ghost," the Spirit of God operates on the soul in his regenerating power or in his miraculous gifts or in both (b). In regeneration, neither soul nor body is immersed; but in the subjects of this gracious operation a new nature, a new heart, spiritual life, all the Christian graces and affections, are produced by that "Divine power" which gives to God's people "all things that pertain unto life and godliness." In baptism with the Holy Ghost, therefore, when the expression denotes regeneration, nothing like the entire submersion of either soul or body in water or in any thing else, is mentioned. No person surely, can imagine that the regeneration of the soul, is the immersion of the body.
Baptism with the Holy Ghost, is an expression which also denotes his miraculous powers, especially the gift of tongues on the day of Pentecost. The disciples were thus "baptized" not "many days" after the resurrection of Christ. When they received this miraculous baptism; "there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind and it filled all the house where they were sitting." "Cloven tongues" then "sat upon each of them”—"and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost," not immersed in the Spirit; and then they "began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance." The apostles in this baptism were ''filled with the Holy Ghost;" and the cloven tongues or the fire or the sound "sat upon each of them." It was impossible for them at that time to have been immersed in the Spirit; because they were then filled with the Spirit or the Spirit was in them. Nor is it said or intimated that they were entirely covered with the Spirit. The tongues sat upon them; the sound like that of a mighty wind, came "from heaven" into the house; so that into these there could be no immersion; and if there was, it would not be immersion into the Spirit, but into sound or wind. But no man can imagine, that to be baptized with sound or wind, if such a thing was mentioned, is the same as to be baptized with the Holy Ghost. God, in no passage of his word, says any thing of baptism with sound or wind. Besides, they were not put into the sound or wind; but the sound, like that of a rushing wind, came into and filled the house in which they were. As the sound or wind filled the house, the disciples might have been surrounded with one or both of these; but this would be essentially different from immersion; and it would be impossible for any person to suppose that sound or wind resting on them, was baptism with the Holy Ghost. When baptism with the Spirit, signifies his miraculous influences; it simply intimates that God works miracles of some kind by the persons thus baptized. In this baptism, Divine power is exercised through those who are thus enabled to work miracles. But that the baptism in which the Spirit entered the apostles, or by which they were enabled to work miracles, or by the influence of which persons are truly regenerated, is immersion or the putting of the body entirely under water, is not only impossible, but absolutely absurd.
12. Baptism "with fire" cannot be immersion. The expression, "baptism—with fire" when used of Christians, may denote the purifying influence of the blood of Christ applied to the soul by the Holy Spirit in the work of sanctification. But whether this is or is not the true import of the expression; it is certain that it cannot mean the immersion of the body in water. To baptize "with fire" cannot signify to cover the body with water. Fire and water are opposite elements; to be baptized with fire therefore cannot signify to be immersed or covered entirely with water.
13.
The baptism
of the Saviour with sufferings in the
14. That which is indecent, cannot be the only mode of baptism. In Christ's kingdom "all things" must "be done decently and in order." But in immersion are many things so indecent that to them, modest females could not easily be induced to submit, if their minds were pointedly directed to them. A few of these may be noticed here. (1.) The immersed wade up to the waist in water. (2.) They are laid down flat in the water. (3.) The dress of females often floats on the surface of the element. (4.) The wet dress adheres to the limbs of females in a very indecent manner, while they are walking out of and returning from the water. Such indecent practices cannot be indispensable to an ordinance of Christ's church; where "all things" must" be done decently" as well as "in order." Many indecencies formerly practiced by Immersers are too gross to be mentioned here.
15. That cannot be the only mode of baptism, which agitates the mind and renders it for the time unfit for serious thought and solemn devotion. That immersion does this, every one knows who has been suddenly put entirely under water. By the act of immersing a person, his ears and nose are filled with water. During the time his head is below the surface, he cannot breathe. While this part of the ceremony is in progress, the person can have no serious devotional exercises. The expectation of being submerged, agitates the person more or less. Wet garments must, after immersion, be removed and their places supplied with others. This always and almost necessarily follows immersion. All these and similar exercises are very far from being consistent with the solemnity of a Divine ordinance As therefore immersion agitates the mind, is inconsistent with solemnity and turns away the thoughts from God and devotion, at, and for a time after, the person is put under the water; so it cannot possibly be, that Divine wisdom has adopted that as the only mode of baptism. God acts consistently with himself. He does not command men to offer him solemn service and devout worship, in that, the very performance of which destroys solemnity and devotion. If any person is not convinced that immersion does this, he can satisfy himself of the fact by going suddenly under water.
16. It is impossible for that baptism which denotes the Old Testament washings, to be immersion. These washings are collectively called baptisms. In the whole Old Testament scriptures, where these various ceremonial washings are very frequently mentioned, they are not once called immersions. When the mode of these is mentioned, it is not in any case said to be by immersion. For one who takes the word of God for his only rule in all religious duties, to believe that these baptisms which are never called immersions in Divine revelation, were always performed by immersion, is impossible.
Moreover, it may be observed here, that all religious ordinances of Divine appointment, are addressed to the understanding, to the heart and to the conscience; never to the imagination or to the fancy. It is a well known fact that immersion so operates on the imagination or fancy of the careless and prayerless part of a community, that they will, at almost any time, leave their other amusements to see a person immersed. Immersion therefore, since it is addressed to the imagination or fancy, cannot be one of those Divine ordinances which are not addressed to either of these mental powers. Thus it is manifest that the word baptize is often used where it is impossible for it to denote immerse. It is therefore absolutely impossible for a true believer in Divine revelation, after he has carefully examined this subject, to believe that immersion is the only mode of baptism.
CHAPTER
VIII
ASSERTIONS
AND QUESTIONS
1. Assertions cannot prove immersion to be baptism, or the only mode of baptism. If they could, proof in abundance on this subject would thus be furnished. That immersion is the only mode of baptism, is often asserted with as much assurance, as if the declaration was, not only made, but frequently made, in the word of God. When the inquirer after truth, takes the liberty of reading the scriptures for himself, and does not find the word immerse used so much as once for any purpose whatever, in the whole of Divine revelation; nor yet find it intimated in a single passage, that any person was put under water for baptism; he feels as if attempts had been made to impose on his common sense. The assertions most frequently made by Immersers on this subject, may here be noticed. (1.) They often assert, that the original word (baptidzo) for baptize always signifies immerse. But God in his word does not tell us that it always or ever has such a signification; so that on this point, we have merely their assertion instead of proof. This does not pass current with all persons as a substitute for Divine revelation. (2.) They often assert, that immersion is the principal meaning of the original word for baptize. But the word of God does not say this. It is mere assertion without proof. If however this were its principal signification; no evidence would thereby be furnished to prove that immersion is the only mode of baptism. If this assertion were true, (but it is not,) it would simply prove that immersion is one mode of baptism; not that it is the only mode. (3.) It is often asserted, that immersion is the original meaning of the word baptize. By this expression, they seem to intimate that the Greek word for baptize originally denoted immerse and nothing else. But here again we have nothing but a bold assertion, totally destitute of truth. Besides, the word of God makes no such statement. (4.) It is often asserted, that the root (baptidzo) from which the original word for baptize is derived, always signifies immerse. But in the scriptures no such declaration is made. Moreover, the assertion itself is entirely destitute of truth. All these and similar statements are mere assertions without the least semblance of proof from the word of God. They are in fact only false assertions. (5.) It is stated, that Philip and the Eunuch went down into the water; but it is not said that they went down under the water (a). When persons are immersed, they do more than go into, they also go or are put under the water. To go into the water is not to be immersed. Many persons go into the water who do not go under its surface. (6.) It is asserted, to prove immersion, that the Lord Jesus Christ, as well as Philip and the Eunuch, "came up out of the water;" but to come out of the water is not to come from under it (4). Many persons have come out of the water who had never been immersed, or been under its surface. Those who have been immersed come from under, not merely out of the water. Those who have been in or into the water one inch or six, come out of it. Those who have been immersed, come from under it, or from below its surface. (7.) It is asserted, that pious men believe that immersion is the only mode of baptism. But pious men's belief is not Divine revelation. Besides, ten, twenty, fifty, a hundred or more pious men believe that immersion is not the only mode of baptism, where one believes that it is. (8.) It is assorted, that learned men say that the original word (baptidzo) for baptize, always denotes immerse. But these men are not God. The scriptures contain no such declaration. Besides, when a man makes such an assertion as this, either his learning on this subject, or his veracity will be questioned by every person who understands the original scriptures and has carefully examined that word. (9.) It is often stated that, if immersion is not baptism or the only mode of baptism; then this ordinance is not mentioned in the word of God. It does not follow however, that if immersion is not found in God's word, then nothing else is found there. Baptize or sprinkle may be found recorded in Divine revelation, though immersion is not. But if nothing was said in the scriptures concerning sprinkling or baptism in any mode; this silence would not prove immersion to be the only mode of baptism. (10. It is frequently asserted that there is as much evidence in favor of immersion, as there is in favor of any mode of baptism. If this were the case, it would not prove immersion to be the only mode of baptism. It would simply prove that it is one mode. But if, in God's word, there is no more evidence for baptism, than there is for immersion; then there is none for either; because it has already been shown, that, in the whole scriptures, there is no precept for immersion, no example of immersion, no inferential evidence in favor of immersion, nor even an allusion made to immersion.
Moreover, it may be remarked that the assertion so often made, that there is as much evidence, in the word of God, to sustain immersion as there is in favor of sprinkling, is not really the position which Immersers are to prove. Their position is that immersion is the only mode of baptism. But if there is as much evidence in favor of sprinkling as there is for immersion, then sprinkling, according to this their own admission, must be a mode of baptism, sustained by as good evidence as immersion is. If this is true, then immersion cannot be the only mode of baptism; and the assertion that it is such cannot be true. When he who asserts that immersion is the only mode of baptism, does not even attempt to present scriptural evidence to sustain his position, but affirms that there is as much evidence for immersion as there is for sprinkling ; he shows, by employing such sophistry, that he is himself satisfied that God's word does not sustain his exclusive position. Besides, if it was expressly declared in the scriptures, that sprinkling is not a mode of baptism, even such a declaration would not prove that immersion is the only or even one mode of administering this ordinance. If it was made, (but it is not,) it would simply prove that sprinkling is not baptism. But such a declaration would, by no means, prove that immersion is what it pretends to be, the only mode of baptism. It is often imagined that the preceding and similar assertions prove that immersion is the only mode of baptism. When men substitute assertions for proof, it is no wonder that they mistake falsehood for truth.
2. Questions do not prove that immersion is baptism or the only mode of baptism. They only show the amount of knowledge which the individual to whom they are proposed may possess or may wish to communicate on the subject to which they relate. The fact that an individual does not answer a question proposed to him, merely proves that he either cannot or will not do so. It does not prove that the question asked cannot be answered by others. It does not even prove that the question is a difficult one. But to prove that any one person or more possesses a large or a small amount of knowledge on the subject of baptism, or on any other subject, cannot prove that immersion is or is not baptism or the only mode of baptism. To prove the exclusive claims of immersion, something more than asking questions, is necessary. Indeed, this plan of asking questions, instead of presenting positive proof, is a plan often resorted to by designing men to sustain, in appearance, a cause which they perceive, has, in reality, no support. They suppose the person cannot answer the question proposed to him. If they are right in this their supposition, they endeavor to leave the impression on his mind, that the proof of the position is therefore complete. If the first question they propose is answered correctly, they ask another, and thus continue on, till the person they are questioning discovers their intrigue or fails to answer. But it ought always to be remembered that asking or answering questions never proves any thing, but the amount of knowledge possessed by him who answers them and the intrigue of such as propose them. On this point, they make an appeal to the real or supposed ignorance of the persons they question; and then endeavor by that ignorance, if it exists, to sustain their position, instead of doing so by fair argument or positive proof.
When Immersers
begin to see how utterly unfounded their exclusive claims are; and how
completely destitute they are of scriptural evidence to support their much-loved
system of immersion
as the only, or even as a mode of baptism
expressly taught in Divine revelation, they then resort to questions. They
enquire; why did John baptize "in
These questions
are not answered in the word of God. The answers to them cannot therefore be a
matter of importance in a religious point, of view. They cannot be even a part
of the religion of the Christian; for this plain reason; they are not recorded
in the scriptures. What is not revealed in God's book, is not, and cannot be
made by man, a portion of the religion of Christians. It is however, no
difficult matter to find answers to these questions. But it ought to be
remembered, that whether they are answered right or wrong, or not at all, no
proof can be furnished by the answers in favor of immersion
being the only mode of baptism.
John baptized in or at the
PART
SECOND
HUMAN
AUTHORITY RELATING TO IMMERSION
CHAPTER
I
LEXICONS
AND DICTIONARIES ON IMMERSION
1. Greek Lexicons do not teach that immersion is the only mode of baptism. Whatever these teach, it should be remembered, is only human wisdom. The instruction which they contain, is, in fact, no authority in a Divine ordinance. Whether therefore they do or do not teach that immersion is a mode or the only mode of baptism, is not material. The word of God and that only can decide with authority as to the mode of baptism. Each of the principal Greek Lexicographers teach that the original word (baptidzo) for baptize has a great variety of meanings. Seven of the principal authors who have made it their business to explain the meaning of Greek words, give together, more than forty different significations to the Greek word (baptidzo) for baptize. The whole of them present the following as the true signification of the original word in the various connections in which it is used by different writers. It denotes, they say, to purify, wash, sprinkle, dip, immerse, submerge, plunge, sink, depress, humble, overwhelm, bathe, paint, be dejected, cleanse, baptize, saturate, perform ablution, imbue largely, cleanse ceremonially, soak thoroughly, receive baptism, to baptized, bestow liberally, confound totally, drench with wine, be immersed, overwhelm with any thing, administer the rite of baptism, procure one's own baptism, receive the gifts or miraculous effusion of the Holy Ghost, be immersed in a sea or flood of afflictions, endanger one's life, to die, bind to the performance of some duty, impose obligation by baptism, receive the rite of baptism, be baptized to any one, bind one's self to honor, obey and follow any one, be initiated by the rite of baptism, be prodigal towards one, be immersed in or overwhelmed with miseries, oppressed with calamities, wash with water in token of purification from sin or spiritual pollution, immerse repeatedly into a liquid, voluntary reception of baptism, and dip in a vessel and draw. Several of these meanings, it will be seen, are nearly synonymous. They are all that are given by seven of the principal Greek Lexicographers. Nor is it known that any other Greek Lexicon will add any thing of importance to these significations. Certain it is, that no other Lexicon will add any thing more to what these say on the subject of immersion. The original word (baptidzo) for baptize has however a number of other meanings, though the Lexicons do not mention any more. (It is worthy of observation here that a few years ago, Immersers were accustomed to admit that the Lexicons were against their exclusive notions;) These Greek Lexicographers, it is manifest, do not teach that immersion is the only signification of the original word for baptize; neither do they intimate that immersion is the only mode of baptism. Four of them clearly teach that in the New Testament, the original word (baptidzo) for baptize, does not signify immerse; and these alone of the seven distinguish between its meanings in the New Testament and in other books. Two of them explain the original by Latin words. To define the Greek word (baptidzo) for baptize, they use the Latin words (baptizo) for baptize, (mergo) for dip, (abluo) for wash, and (lavo) for lave, sprinkle or draw out. All these Latin words are used in common by both these writers to express the meaning of the Greek word for baptize. These seven Lexicons are therefore very far from supporting the exclusive claims of immersion. Four out of the seven definitely teach that the word (baptidzo) for baptize does not, in the New Testament, signify immerse. One of these four does not give this even as a definite meaning of this term (baptidzo;) the other three do not say whether it does or does not, in the original scriptures, signify immerse; and not one of them so much as intimates, that this is the only, or even the principal meaning of baptidzo,) the original word for baptize. These authors therefore furnish no evidence to prove that immersion is the only mode of baptism. Besides, from the meanings which these principal Greek Lexicographers give to the original word for baptize, it is evident that its general signification is fourfold. According to them, it denotes, (1.) The application of water; as when it is used to signify wash, sprinkle, &c. (2.) It is used when water may or may not be used; as when it denotes to cleanse, saturate, overwhelm, &c. (3.) It is used when the idea of water applied in any way, is not included in its meaning; as when it denotes to paint, depress, humble, bestow liberally, and the like. (4.) It denotes to drink largely; as when it implies to drench or physic with wine. These are the significations which the best Greek scholars give of the word (baptidzo) for baptize, instead of saying that it always denotes immerse or the submersion of what is baptized entirely under water.
These same writers inform us that the word (baptidzo) for baptize is derived from another (bapto) which signifies, to dip, dip in, sprinkle, tinge, sink, wash, wet, moisten, bathe, steep, imbue, dye, stain, color, plunge, immerse, submerge, draw out water by dipping a vessel into it, fill by drawing out of one vessel into another, temper metals by immersing them in water, draw up, fill by drawing up, and to be lost as a ship. This word, it appears, does not always signify immersion, any more than the original one (baptidzo) for baptize. Like its derivative (baptidzo) it has a large number of meanings. It is used (1.) Where water is applied; as when it denotes to wash, wet, sprinkle, and the like. (2.) It is used when water is not applied; as when it denotes to color, dye, stain, &c. (3.) It expresses destruction whether by water or otherwise; as a ship may be lost or wrecked on a rock as well as be foundered at sea. It is undeniably certain, from the various meanings of the word for baptize, and also from those of (baptidzo) the root from which it is derived, that immersion is far, very far, from being the only signification of the word baptize, as given in the Greek Lexicons. It is moreover, from the same evidence, equally manifest that immersion cannot be the only mode of baptism.
2. Latin Dictionaries do not teach that immersion is the only mode of baptism. The principal writers of Latin Dictionaries) inform us that the word (baptizo) used in that language for baptize, denotes to baptize any one, to wash in a baptismal font, to sprinkle, to initiate into the Christian religion, and to initiate a person into a Christian assembly. But they do not represent immerse as being even one meaning of the Latin word for baptize; and much less do they intimate that immersion is the only mode of baptism.
3. French and German Dictionaries do not sustain the exclusive claims of immersion. The French Dictionaries explain baptize to mean, to christen, to administer the sacrament of baptism; and the German explain it by a word (taufen,) which signifies to christen, to baptize. These Dictionaries do not even intimate that immersion is ever one of the significations of the word baptize. They cannot therefore be said in truth to inculcate the sentiment that immersion is a mode, or the only mode of baptism.
4.
Other Gothic languages do not teach
that immersion is
the only mode of baptism.
5. English Dictionaries do not inform us that the word; baptize always denotes immerse.
6. Writers of Concordances do not teach that immersion is the only mode of baptism. In these are frequently collected the various meanings of important words found in the scriptures. The principal one of these says that baptism is, (1.) An outward ordinance or sacrament wherein, the washing with water, represents the cleansing of the soul from sin by the blood of Christ, 1 Pet. 3: 21; (2.) An inward, spiritual washing whereby the gifts and graces of the Spirit, signified by the outward sign, are really and actually bestowed, Mat. 3: 11; (3.) The sufferings of Christ, whereby he was consecrated and prepared for his entrance upon his kingly office, Matt. 20: 22, Luke 12: 50; (4.) So much of the gospel as John the Baptist taught his disciples when he baptized them, Acts 18: 25. In all this, immersion is not so much as mentioned as one mode of baptism. It is not once even named as a meaning of the word baptize. It is certain therefore that immersion is not here represented as being the only or even as being one mode of baptism.
7. Hebrew Lexicons do not teach that immersion is the only mode of baptism. The word baptize is not found in the Hebrew language.
Of more than twenty of the principal Dictionaries and Lexicons in eleven different languages, not one sustains the notion that immersion is the only mode of baptism. Not one half of them mention immerse as one of the meanings of the word baptize ; nor do those among them which give this as one of its meanings, intimate that they use it to express the action of putting a person under water and then immediately taking him out again. Not one of them teaches that when he gives immerse as a meaning of the word baptize ; he intends by it to express the idea of putting a person under the surface of water. And this is by no means the necessary or only meaning of the word immerse. The exclusive claims of Immersers cannot therefore be sustained by the Lexicons and Dictionaries.
CHAPTER
II
WRITERS
RELATING TO IMMERSION
1. Where the word baptize is used in the Apocrypha, it does not teach that immersion is the only mode of baptism. Judith, it is said, “washed herself in a fountain," literally she baptized herself at, over or on the spring or well of water. The same preposition which is used here, is used where it is said of Christ, "he sat"—"on the well;" and also in the expression, "he shall reign" “over the house of Jacob.” In that country springs or wells did not usually contain a sufficient quantity of water to immerse adults in. Moreover the Greek word (epi) does not denote under nor convey the idea of immersion. A participle from the same word is used to indicate the ceremonial washing of a person who had touched a dead body. The mode of performing this purification was not by immersion. It was always by sprinkling. In the Apocrypha therefore Immersers can find no support for their exclusive system; no proof that immersion is the only mode of baptism or the only meaning of the Greek word for baptism.
2. Greek
writers do not countenance the notion that immersion
is the only mode of baptism.
Many early Christians wrote in Greek. Some Jews also wrote in
that language. These, as well as the heathen natives of
3. Pedobaptist(c) writers do not hold or teach that immersion is the only mode of baptism. Immersers frequently assert this; but to sustain this assertion they have not the least shadow of evidence whatever. They sometimes affirm that Henry, Doddridge, Scott, and others, teach that immersion is the only mode of baptism. But no one of these, or indeed any other Pedobaptist writer of any note, and probably not one of any kind, does now, or ever has taught that immersion, and that only, is baptism. Immersers have so altered Henry's exposition of the Bible, as to make it say many things which its own author did not say, or teach, or believe. But by all these alterations, they can scarcely make that old saint's writings help to build up their exclusive system. Indeed, they have not yet named a single Pedobaptist writer, good or bad, wise or unwise, who has sustained their exclusive notions. Those they have named are very far from sustaining their position. Besides, with all their boasting on this point; it is believed that they cannot name one Pedobaptist writer who now does, or ever has, maintained the opinion, that immersion is the only mode of baptism. While several of them admit, that baptism may be administered by immersion as well as by sprinkling; it is not known that any among them denies the validity of the ordinance when administered in this last named mode. Moreover, it is not known that an individual among them teaches in his writings or in words that immersion and that only is baptism; or that immersion is essential to the ordinance of Christian baptism. To assert therefore that Pedobaptist writers sustain the doctrine that immersion is the only mode of baptism, is a crime which will not here be named. Immersers cannot, on this point, even appeal to the Greek Church for support; for, though that church, among its other deviations from the word of God, generally practice the immersion of their infant children; yet there is no evidence that they maintain the exclusive notion that nothing but immersion is baptism; but there is positive evidence to the contrary.
4. In
Greek writers the word for baptize, its root, and their compounds, have a
variety of meanings not usually mentioned, by Lexicographers. Some of
these may be noticed here. The various significations given in the Lexicons to
the' Greek word for (baptidzo) baptize, and to the one from which it is
derived, have already been mentioned. Some others, from Greek authors, will here
be presented. The reader, especially if he has an accurate knowledge of the
Greek language, will readily perceive the propriety of these significations,
from the connections in which the words are found. The principal meanings of
these words which are not mentioned in the Greek Lexicons, are (1.) To wet a
very small part. It is said of the priest when preparing to cleanse the leper;
“he shall take" the living bird, and the cedar-wood, and the scarlet, and
the hyssop, and shall dip them—in the blood of the bird that was killed."
It is evident from this and other passages of scripture, that the Greek word (bapto)
translated dip, signifies to wet a very small part of what is dipped. (2.) To
extend to, toward or near to; as in the passage "he that" "dippeth
his hand with me in the dish—shall betray me." As it would be
inconsistent with common propriety for each of two persons to immerse or put a
hand entirely under the food in a dish out of which they and others were eating,
or even to put any part of their hands into the food; so the meaning of the word
here translated dip, must be to extend to, towards or near to the dish out of
which they were receiving food. (3.) To touch; as in the passage "the feet
of the priests"— "were dipped in the brim of the water" of the
CHAPTER
III
CHRISTIAN
DENOMINATIONS AS RELATING TO IMMERSION
1. The
Greek Church does not sustain the exclusive system of modern Immersers. This
Church extends over nearly twenty countries in Europe, Asia and
2. A very large portion of the Denominations into which the Christian world is divided, reject the notion that immersion is the only mode of baptism. The thirty millions connected with the Greek communion who, while they usually immerse, do not hold that immersion is the only mode of baptism, need not here be mentioned. Nor is it at all necessary, in order to swell the amount of human testimony on this subject, to name the more than seventy millions of Romanists who invariably sprinkle in what they call baptism. Without these, the evidence from human testimony that immersion is not the only mode of baptism, is completely overwhelming. Of at least, sixty-five millions of Protestants, more than sixty-four millions uniformly deny that immersion is the only mode of baptism. This they constantly do both in principle and practice. Many of them do not at any time immerse persons for baptism. Indeed, among Protestants, the more biblical knowledge and scriptural piety any denomination of Christians, has, the less is, usually, if not uniformly, their regard for immersion even as one mode of baptism. Of all the Protestant denominations, less than one person in a hundred rejects baptism with water entirely; and about the same proportion hold that immersion is essential to baptism. When more than sixty millions of Protestant Christians, many of whom are confessedly men of extensive scriptural knowledge, and devoted piety, reject immersion as the only mode of baptism, the fact becomes manifest that most of the professedly Christian world turn aside from and refuse to sustain the exclusive claims of Immersers.
3. Some denominations of Immersers admit that immersion is not the only mode of baptism. The Baptists of Holland, are called Mennonites, after Menno Simon, one of their early champions. These last have for more than one hundred years, laid aside immersion. Both these, as well as the Greek Church and some others, admit that sprinkling is baptism; though some of them habitually practice immersion. This proves that truth can find its way, a little at least, into some minds, notwithstanding the blinding influence of superstitious bigotry.
4. The
most bigoted of the exclusive do not, in fact, teach that immersion is the only
mode of baptism.
After showing from what the word (baptidzo)
for baptize is derived, they affirm that it signifies "to dip, plunge,
immerse, imbue, drench, soak and overwhelm." Now these words are not
synonymous. They do not all denote the same thing. If all the meanings of the
original word (baptidzo) for baptize
are accurately given by them, (but they are not,) then it has
more than one signification, Immersers themselves being judges. But if this word
has more than one meaning, then there may be more than one mode of baptism.
This will
certainly be the case, unless in the word of God, one mode is specially
mentioned. But so far as the use of this one word is concerned, according to
their statement, dipping is one mode of baptism;
plunging is another; immersing is another; imbuing another;
drenching another; and so on. The words used by Immersers to express the
sense of the original word for baptize, have various significations. To dip is
used (1.) where no fluid can be supposed to exist; as " to engage in an
affair, to engage as a pledge, to enter slightly, to choose by chance, to drop
by chance into any mass. A man dips into a book, when he becomes slightly
acquainted with its contents. The dipping-needle is said to dip, when it moves
from a perpendicular towards a horizontal position. The word dip therefore may
be properly used where a single drop of water is not present. (2.) It denotes
also "to put into any liquor, to moisten, to wet" generally a small
part. When a swallow dips in the pool, it wets the tips of its wings in the
water. To plunge signifies "to put into any state suddenly, to hurry into
any distress, to force in suddenly, to fall or rush into any hazard or distress,
to put suddenly under water". These are the principal meanings of this
word. It is said of a horse, he plunges into a river, when he is forced or leaps
into it carelessly, though his legs only are covered with the water. A man
plunges into sin, when he engages in it with reckless perseverance. A stick is
plunged into a liquid, or a sword into a man, when only a part of the stick or
sword enters. To imbue is "to tincture deep, to infuse any tincture
or dye"; and to infuse denotes to instill, infuse by drops or bring in
imperceptibly; that is, to fall into or upon any thing in very small drops, or
to sprinkle. To drench is "to soak, to steep, to saturate with drink
or moisture, to physic by violence". When a man is drenched or drunk with
drink, the liquor is in him, not he in the liquor. To soak is “to lie
steeped in moisture, to enter by degrees into pores, to drink—intemperately,
to macerate in any moisture, to steep, to keep wet till moisture is
imbibed, to drench, to drain, to exhaust". A log may be soaked in water
for years and not sink below the surface in all that time. To overwhelm is
“to crush underneath something violent and weighty, to overlook
gloomily". If stones, or earth, or a heavy rain, or sand, should, in large
quantities full on a man, he would be overwhelmed. But to force him against or
even under any of these, would not overwhelm him. To immerse is “to
sink or cover deep, to depress," as well as "to put under water".
When therefore Immersers themselves define the word (baptidzo)
for baptize, they do not teach that immersion, in their sense of the term, is
the only mode of baptism.
Even the inelegant Latin word (immersio) modified into immerse, in
the use of which they take so much delight, is not exclusively confined, either
in Latin or English, to one meaning. When the significations of the words used
by Immersers to define the original one (baptidzo)
for baptize, are accurately examined, they teach that, among other things, it
denotes to wet a small part, to descend, to touch water, to sprinkle, to fall
upon, &c. Strange,
that men with such language on their lips, should still insist that in baptism,
the person must always be put entirely under water!
5. Immersers do not pretend that the word baptize expresses the whole of what they do in immersion. The action which they perform in immersion, is eight-fold. Two parts of this action are so essential to it, that it cannot exist without them. These are putting the parts of the person not before wet, under water, and taking him up out of it again. No Immerser pretends that the word (baptidzo) for baptize, or its root (bapto,) always and necessarily denotes both these parts of immersion. They do not pretend that baptize ever expresses them both. Immersers, with all their learning, and ignorance, and learned ignorance, have never pretended to discover in the Greek (baptidzo) or English word baptize, but a very small part of what they do in immersion. If the word baptize always signified to put entirely under water, instead of seldom or never having that meaning; even this would not authorize them to perform all the other parts connected with immersion. They would not thereby be authorized to perform even the two parts which are indispensable to it, and without both which, it cannot exist. If "compliance must be so, and no more, and no less, and no otherwise", and this principle seems to be correct, then in immersion, they do not render obedience; for they do more than they pretend the word (baptidzo) for baptize ever means. If they will neither do more nor less, than what they say the word means, then they will not wade into the water or raise up the person after he is put under its surface. To do this, is to do more than what the word means, according to their own assertions in relation to the original term. They do more than they say it means; and therefore, as they themselves decide, do not render obedience. They do not practice according to their own rule. They do not conform, even in a tolerable degree, to what they say the word signifies. The word for baptize in Greek, is very far from ever denoting even the two essential parts of the action performed by them in immersion, and much less the whole eight parts, of which this action is usually composed. It may be well doubted whether any word in any language has this complicated signification. When the word (baptidzo) for baptize, or its root (bapto) or any other word in the Greek language, does not signify the whole or even the greater part of what they do in immersion; how absurd to talk of that being the only mode of baptism! When this word (baptidzo) in the scriptures is not once definitely used to denote any part or even any portion of any part, of what is done in immersion; to expect an intelligent believer in Divine revelation, who has examined this subject, to believe that immersion is the only mode of baptism, is to suppose that such a person can believe without evidence. It is to fancy him to be an infant in intellect; or that he can be made to take assertion for proof.
6. Immersers
do not put the person immersed entirely under water. The person
himself generally, if not always, wades or enters into the water some distance.
In this way, a considerable part of the subject is, by his own act, covered or
wet with water. The part which is thus wet, is immersed by
himself, not by the preacher who immerses the remainder of the body. The
subject performs one part of the immersion;
the preacher the other. It is
manifest therefore; that, since the administrator immerses but one part of the
person immersed, only one part of him is properly immersed, unless he has a
right to immerse one part, while the preacher does the other. Besides, this
semi-self
immersion is
not performed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Now if a man
without authority, can, in no name, perform properly this half immersion
of himself; he might, one would suppose, on the same grounds, immerse
himself without the preacher's assistance. If
the preacher only has a right to immerse, and if he must perform this act in the
name of the Trinity; then that part of the body which the person himself
immerses in no name whatever, cannot be properly immersed; for that part is
not immersed by the preacher; is not immersed in the name of the Trinity.
Since, when a person is immersed; the Immerser puts only a part
of the body under water; he, if immersion
was baptism,
could be only half baptized. It is a wonder that the advocates of the opinion,
that for baptism, a
person must be put entirely under water, do not take up the subject and,
after holding him above the surface, at least for an instant, so that all
present might see that he was fairly out of it, put him entirely under its
surface. By doing this, they would act according to their professed principles.
But none of them do this. None of them usually, if ever, put more than a part of
the immersed under water, the other part being immersed by the subject himself.
It appears therefore that if to be baptized, a person must be put entirely under
water, then modern
Immersers in Western Europe and in
7. In being immersed, a person is seldom entirely in contact with the water. His clothes are generally put entirely under water by himself and the operator; and usually most parts of them are wet. But where the dress is tight, especially round the waist; the water does not and cannot penetrate through the garments, during the moment they are under the water. This partial wetting, Immersers admit to be baptism. If the washing or wetting of the whole person is essential to baptism; then very few of the immersed, particularly of those who wear the over-dress, are baptized. But if water applied by a minister to a part of the body, in the name of the Trinity, is baptism; then sprinkling, as this is water thus applied to a part of the body, must be baptism. If it be said that the intention of the parties renders this partial application of water, valid in their case ; it may be remarked that if this Romish principle will answer in their case; it may, at least in their estimation, answer as well in the case of those who intend to administer baptism by sprinkling. It is manifest therefore that, both in theory and practice, Immersers, notwithstanding their loud professions to the contrary, admit that water applied to a part of the person, or, which is the same thing in fact, that a part of the person applied to the water, is valid baptism. By their own admissions and practices therefore, their exclusive system is overthrown.
CHAPTER
IV
SEVERAL
MATTERS OFTEN
SUPPOSED TO RELATE TO IMMERSION
1. In the early ages of the church, washing preceded baptism. This washing was sometimes partial and sometimes it extended over the whole person. At first it was practiced for the sake of cleanliness. The subject, occasionally at least, was washed in a state of entire nudity. Immersers and even others, sometimes mistake this washing for baptism. But where it existed, it always preceded and was really distinct from the ordinance of baptism. It had not necessarily, in fact, any more connection with that sacrament than a washing to remove bodily defilement at the present day, would have with baptism. The writers who mention this washing sustain this position. Some of them do this very clearly, and others less so. This practice may have originated in persons supposing that a literal washing for cleansing*was intended by such language as the following:
(a) An
over-dress is a dress which many modern Immersers pat
on over their other clothes when they are put under the water as a
substitute for baptism.
"Ye are washed;"—"our bodies washed;"—Christ—
cleansed the church "with the washing of water;"—the washing of
regeneration;" and the like. But the washings here
mentioned were ceremonial or spiritual. If they were spiritual, then they could
not be performed with water; for spiritual cleansing or the removing of the
guilt or pollution of sin from the soul cannot be effected by applying water to
the body. If they were ceremonial, then they were or might have been
performed by sprinkling, as ceremonial washings usually, if not universally
were. But the practice of washing before
baptism, whatever
might have been its origin, cannot sustain the notion that immersion
is the only mode of administering that ordinance.
This washing which was sometimes partial and sometimes extended over the whole body, preceded the ordinance of baptism. Though it constituted no part of that sacrament, yet it soon became invested with a kind of superstitious regard. In the third century, it was viewed as a general prerequisite to baptism; so much so that many persons maintained, that before the ordinance was administered either to infants or adults, the person to be baptized ought to be first washed. But still this washing was in reality no part of the ordinance of baptism. It is very possible however, indeed it may be probable, that some persons becoming more ignorant, bigoted and superstitious than others, occasionally substituted this washing in the room of baptism. But this substitution, if it did at any time take place, could not change this washing into baptism. However, in after ages, immersion, among ignorant and superstitious men, may have received some countenance from these superstitious washings. But if they had, at their first origin in the third century, been substituted for baptism; they could not, even in that case, prove that immersion was then the only mode of baptism; for these washings were not baptism and were often partial.
2. Ancient
monumental pictures and engravings
do not teach that immersion
is the only or even a mode of baptism.
More than fifty of these have been preserved. These have come
down to the present day. The motto on some of them is in Greek; that on others
is in Latin. They
mark the mode of baptism
from about the year A. D. 300, till A.
D. 1100. They were made by different artists in
different ages and countries. To ascertain the meaning of these pictures and
engravings, a person has only to open his eyes. They speak a language which all
can understand. In these the person who baptizes is,
in no instance, represented as being in the water when he administers the
ordinance. Nor do we find the least intimation
in the word of God, that John or any other person, stood in the water while he
administered baptism.
In this then, as well as in other points, these monuments of antiquity
agree with Divine revelation. In
all these, the water is represented as being applied to the person, not the
person to the water. The person baptized is sometimes represented
as standing nearly or quite up to the waist in water, and sometimes as standing
in a bath; but he is much more frequently represented as standing during his baptism,
on the ground or on the floor. In
not one instance however is he represented as being put under the water for baptism.
It is moreover manifest from these monuments that standing in the water
formed no part of the ordinance of baptism
; because if this was a part of it; then the ordinance could not have
been, as it often was according to these representations, administered while the
person baptized was standing on the ground or on the floor. Since some of those
whose baptism is
represented in these monuments of antiquity, were baptized while entirely out of
the water, as the representations themselves clearly show; being in the water,
could not in their case have been an essential part or indeed any part of their baptism.
As these
representations do not show, or intimate that a single person, during the ages
in which they were made, was immersed for baptism;
so they do not, cannot teach that immersion
is the only mode of administering that ordinance. These plain speakers
then, whose language defies criticism, do not give testimony in favor of immersion.
3. The
marble font in the cathedral at
4. The
exclusive claims of Immersers, do not prove theirs to be the only mode of baptism.
Unsupported claims are frequently made. These are sometimes
exclusive. Indeed, it may almost be laid down as a general rule, that the
farther persons wander from the word of God as the only rule in all religious
duties; the more exclusive and dogmatic they become. But in Popery and, High
Church Episcopacy, it is clearly exhibited. These do not even pretend to take
the scriptures as their only rule of faith and practice in all religious duties;
and yet, each is so exclusive as to hold very strenuously, that no society of
Christians can constitute a branch of the church of Christ, unless Diocesan
Episcopacy forms one of its essential ingredients; though this is not so much as
once named in the word of God. Immersers are so
exclusive that, in the estimation of many of them; no class of Christians
constitutes a church or a branch of the
5. To call immersion a cross does not prove it to be the only mode of baptism. When Christ requires a person to perform a duty which, for some cause, may, at the time, be disagreeable to him; the performance of it under such circumstances, may be called a cross. To make a particular action a cross, it must be a duty positively required in God's word; and it must, from some cause or causes, be disagreeable to the person at the time it is to be performed. But what is not positively commanded in the scriptures cannot be made a Christian’s cross. What God does not command, may be a cross which Satan, the world or men, may require us to bear; but this last cross is essentially different from that which Christ directs his people to “take up" and " bear." To “bear" the cross which he commands us to take up, is essential to Christianity. Without doing this, no person can be a true child of God. Our Saviour himself has determined this point. He says, “whosoever doth not bear his cross cannot be my disciple." Whatever cross Christ requires us to "take up" and “bear," ought to be borne cheerfully in obedience to his command. Satan, the world or men may direct us to do what is not required in God's word. Obedience to their mandate may not be pleasant to us. They may call what they require, a cross in order to induce us to obey. But we ought to know, that such a cross is only a creature's invention; not a cross which Christ requires us to bear. To take up a cross of the creature's invention, is not to serve, hut to disobey, the Redeemer of sinners. To call that a cross which God in his word does not require, cannot make it such. But in the scriptures, men are not required to be immersed; therefore immersion cannot be that cross which every "disciple" must "bear." Besides, to be put entirely under water is, or is not, a cross according to the temperature of the weather. Whether an act is, or is not, a cross of Christ, does not, however, depend upon the temperature of the weather, or on the change of the seasons. As therefore immersion is not required in the word of God; and as it is, or is not, a cross according to the temperature of the weather, so it cannot be a cross which Christ commands his disciples to bear. To call it a cross, when God does not, may deceive men, but cannot deceive Omniscience. It is manifest from these remarks, that to call immersion a cross, cannot prove it to be the only mode of baptism.
6. Immersion cannot be a sign of what is signified in baptism. Christian baptism signifies the work of the Holy Spirit on the soul. When the operations of the Spirit are mentioned, whatever may be their degree of kind, the person is, in no passage of scripture, said to be immersed in the Holy Ghost, or to be put under or even into the Spirit. If these operations of the Spirit, or even any part of them, were represented as being by immersion, then external immersion might be a sign of them. But as no part of the Spirit's operations, is said to be by immersion, or by putting the person into or under the Holy Ghost; so literal immersion cannot represent any portion of them. Literal immersion might represent spiritual immersion. But, as the work of the Spirit is not, either wholly or in part, said in scripture to be by immersion; so immersion under water, cannot be a sign of the whole or of any part of the Spirit's operations. The Spirit, in his operations, is often said to be “poured out" upon men; and persons are represented as being "filled with the Holy Ghost," when his converting, sanctifying or supernatural influences are enjoyed in an unusual degree. When the Spirit is "poured out" upon persons, or they are “filled with" his influences, the Spirit is in or upon them; but they are certainly not put under or immersed all over in the Spirit. When the Spirit enters into and fills a man, that man then is not put entirely into or under the Spirit. That which falls upon a person may be a sign of the outpouring of the Spirit on him. But to put him under water cannot possibly be a sign of what falls on him ; because to fall upon, be poured out upon, or be filled with, does not, in the least degree, resemble immersion. As the influences of the Spirit, which are “poured out"—"shed"—"fall upon" or "fill the soul," are symbolized by baptism; so immersion in which water is not poured out or shed, and does not fall upon the person immersed, cannot be a sign of these operations of the Holy Ghost.
It may also be remarked here, that immersion cannot symbolize the death of Christ. He suffered on the cross; and there is no possible resemblance between the death of a person while suspended on the cross, several feet above the earth, and being put entirely under water in immersion. Nor can it be a sign of, or symbolize his burial. He was laid in a "tomb" "hewn out of a rock," not in water. Immersion cannot be a sign or token by which his burial is represented; for there is no resemblance between the two actions. In his resurrection, his human soul and body were re-united. This is what is always included in the language when the resurrection of a dead body is mentioned. Without this re-union of soul and body, no resurrection can take place. With it, there is a resurrection from the dead. This is in fact what constitutes a resurrection of the dead. That exercise of Divine power by which the human body and soul of Christ were re-united on the third day after his death, had nothing in it which, in any particular, resembles the going or the putting of a living person entirely under water. Nor did the resurrection of Christ from the dead