MODERN
IMMERSION
DIRECTLY
OPPOSED TO
SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM,
IN REPLY TO
ALEXANDER CARSON, M.A.
JOHN MUNKO,
MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL
1842
Edited By Jeff Paton
THE writer of
these pages flattered himself that he had for ever done with the watery
controversy. But the following incident has made him resume his pen. Returning
home, after preaching at one of his evening stations, he walked a short distance
with one of his hearers whom he had never seen or heard of until that day. He
soon discovered himself to be a very zealous advocate for immersion. We had not
exchanged many words when he began to play off his artillery against me, and
having exhausted his own little ammunition without making any serious
impression, he referred me to Mr. Carson's unanswerable book. I told him that I
had never seen the work, but that if he would get it for me, and I could not
answer it, I would eat it. He replied that probably he would procure it for me,
and he was true to his promise. But instead of giving me the book in a direct
way, he gave it to a family belonging to our church, charging them to read it,
and expressing a confident hope that it would convert them. After remaining in
the family a month or more, at his desire, it came to me. Having carefully
perused it with no small degree of self-denial, I find that I can by no means
digest its doctrine, and that I have in fact answered it already. I can
confidently refer the reader to the two small volumes published by me, some
years ago, for a complete answer to every thing which Mr. Carson has advanced
relating directly to the subject, that deserves the name of argument.
Having, however, given my new acquaintance a kind of pledge, and being persuaded
that the cause of truth demands it, I deem it expedient to make a few remarks on
the mode of administering the ordinance of baptism, which happened to be the
subject on which my friend attacked me. Should the reader derive any additional
light on the disputed subject from what follows, let him give all the praise to
God, and pray for the author.
THE advocates of immersion tell us
that baptism is an ordinance peculiar to the New Testament, and pronounce John
"the first Baptist minister." This, however, is directly opposed to
the testimony of the Apostle, who tells us that the law which was given by Moses
includes divers baptisms, in connection with other emblematical ordinances which
the Lord instituted in his church until the time of reformation.
Under the present
dispensation, there are only two emblematical ordinances, namely, baptism, and
the Lord's Supper. Although the design of these is clearly revealed in the
Scriptures, one of them has been the occasion of endless controversy among the
people of God.
This calls for deep humiliation, patient investigation, and fervent
prayer. While believers are agreed that the Lord's Supper is intended to
commemorate and represent his dying love, they differ exceedingly about the
nature and design of baptism. A numerous class of Christians maintain that
baptism is intended to represent the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ,
and that nothing less than the total submersion of the subjects is Christian
baptism in name or thing.
Some of the zealous advocates of that system do not hesitate to
represent those who cannot subscribe to the doctrine as guilty of "making
the law of God void — of teaching for doctrine the commandments of men,"
&c., &c.
Mr. Carson seems to have excelled all his predecessors in heaping
unmerited abuse on those who differ from him. He has selected the late Mr. Ewing
as his chief victim, and after repeatedly classing him among the greatest
enemies of Christ, and the most determined perverter’s of the word of God, he
exhibits him to the public "blowing the trumpet of Satan in the camp of
Instead of following him through the labyrinth of profane literature
into which he has led his readers, I shall confine myself to the Oracles of God,
being assured that they afford sufficient information on the subject. Of that
information I trust the reader will find an adequate portion under the following
propositions.
I. The Spirit of God has selected and appropriated the term baptizo to designate an ordinance
observed in the church of God, both under the law and the gospel dispensation.
In proof of this proposition, let the reader turn his attention to Heb. 9, and
compare with it the following illustration. In verse 10 we read thus : —
"Only in meats and drinks and divers baptisms (baptizmois)." Our excellent translators
have rendered the original term "washings," but this is a great
mistake although very generally followed by expositors. The law which was given
by Moses did include divers washings; but we shall see in course that these are
all perfectly distinct from the divers baptisms, and intended to represent
different objects.
Had our translators rendered the word purifications, although that is
not a literal translation, they would have given the Apostle's meaning; for he
evidently applies the terms purification and purify to the ordinances to which
the word refers ; and that too, in the same chapter. See verses 13 and 23. Here
it
will be proper to inquire what were those baptisms to which the Apostle alludes,
and how they were administered. Mr. Carson and his fellow-laborers pass over
this part of the subject without asking any questions for conscience-sake. With
the Apostle's description of the divers baptisms before his view, he thus boldly
dismisses the subject :— " We deny that the 'divers baptisms' include the
sprinklings. The phrase alluded to the immersion of the different things that by
the law were to be immersed" Which of the two shall we adopt? Mr. Carson's
bold denial, or the Apostle's explicit affirmation? The advocates of immersion
choose the former; we prefer the latter; and shall proceed to prove beyond a
doubt, that all the baptisms to which the Apostle alludes, were administered by
what in the Scriptures is called sprinkling.
Both the elements and the objects baptized were diverse, but the mode of
applying the elements was substantially the same. Let the reader listen to the
Apostle's own description of the baptisms to which he refers. "For if the
blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean,
sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; how much more shall the blood of
Christ purge your consciences from dead works to serve the living God."
"Whereupon neither the first covenant was dedicated (purified) without
blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to
the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and
hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people. Moreover he sprinkled
likewise with blood, both the tabernacle and all the vessels of ministry. And
almost all things are by the law purged with blood, and without shedding of
blood is no remission." Heb. 9:13, 14, 18, 22.
We begin with that winch took place at the purification of
the first Covenant (the Apostle manifestly alludes in 1 Cor. x. 2, and that in
it we hare a very plain account of the divinely instituted mode of applying the
elements in baptism).
In that chapter the Apostle gives a very brief description of
the privileges which God had bestowed on that generation of the posterity of
Abraham who came out of
Three distinct privileges are here specified, namely, the
pillar of cloud — passing through the sea — and baptism unto Moses. But it
has been taken for granted that it was by passing through the sea that the
people were baptized unto Moses.
This opinion rests exclusively on the meaning of the Greek
preposition en, which very frequently
means “at.” But the fact is that the passing through the sea and the baptism
are two perfectly distinct things. In no proper acceptation of the term that I
can conceive, could the people have been said to have been baptized into Moses
or into the professed faith of the Mosaic covenant, while passing through the
sea on dry land, since no part of that covenant had at that time, been published
to them. Their baptism did not take place until after they had passed through
the sea, and were encamped before Mount Sinai, which is situated " in the
bosom between the two arms of the
These baptisms were, no doubt, intended to represent the
presentation and acceptation of the atoning sacrifice of Christ, in behalf of
his people; Hence the Apostle's exposition of them. It was therefore necessary
that the pattern of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the
heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not
entered into the holy places made with hands which are the antitypes of the
true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us."
Heb. ix. 23 and 24.
With that half of the blood which Moses had put in basons,
for the purpose, he baptized the great congregation; and thus purified or
dedicated them to the service of God : and thus they were all baptized into the
professed faith of that law which was given by the ministry of Moses, But the
Apostle alludes to another class of the divers baptisms included in the law,
which was frequently administered, namely, that of which the ashes of an heifer
constituted a principal ingredient in the element: " For if the blood of
bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean,
sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, &c." Heb. ix. 13. The
institution of this class of baptisms is recorded in Num. xix
The victim was
next to be burnt without the camp, and into the burning the priest had to cast
cedar-wood and hyssop and scarlet. When the victim was thus consumed, the ashes
were to be carefully gathered up and laid without the camp in a clean place, and
kept for the congregation to be a purification for sin, Ver. 2 — 9. The mode
of application is thus plainly announced. "And for an unclean person, they
shall take of the ashes of the burnt heifer of purification for sin, and running
water shall be put thereto in a vessel, and a clean person shall take hyssop,
and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the
vessels, and upon the persons that were there, and upon him that touched a bone,
or one slain, or one dead, or a grave." Ver. 17, 18.
Having thus
examined the divers baptisms alluded to in Heb. 9:10, it may be proper to notice
another which holds a distinguished place in the law which was given by Moses
— that by which the leper and the house which had been leprous were purified.
Such is a brief view of the divers baptisms intended in the law of
Moses. Among them we find a diversity of
persons and things: but there is no diversity of mode. The Apostle warrants
us to add, that in as far as the worshippers were concerned, all these baptisms
were emblems of the work of the Divine Spirit, in purging the conscience by the
application of the blood of Christ, and thus consecrating the subject to the
service of the living God. It is difficult to find language more explicit.
"For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer
sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; how much more
shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself
without spot to God, purge your consciences from dead works to serve the living
God?" Heb. 9:10. May the writer and every reader be purified from all sin
by the precious blood of Christ!
Before
concluding this article, it may be proper to advert to the meats and drinks
which are mentioned in connection with the divers baptisms. It is taken for
granted that the allusion is to the meats and drinks, which, by the law, were in
common use among the people, in contra-distinction to those that were unclean.
But this seems a mistake. The Apostle refers exclusively to the meats and drinks
included in the tabernacle service. Let the reader compare Heb. 9: 6 — 10 with
Num. 15: 4 — 13.
Nothing has
tended more to darken the subject under consideration than blending together
things that differ. I have not met with a commentary or a book on baptism, in
which the distinction between baptism and washing is preserved, although the
difference is carefully exhibited in the Book of God.
In general the
advocates for immersion understand the first clause of this text figuratively,
and the last literally. The following is Mr. Carson's comment. "Heb. 10: 22
is on both sides allowed to have a reference to baptism, and to me it appears
evident that the whole body was covered with the water. Here the heart is said
to be sprinkled in allusion to the application of the blood of the sacrifices; and the body is said to be washed in pure water, referring to the ordinance of
baptism-"
III.
That sprinkling is the only mode of applying the elements in baptism, that
corresponds with the language of inspiration, respecting the thing signified;
namely, the work of the Holy Spirit in applying the blood of Christ to the
subjects of salvation.
There are
certain infinitely important facts included in the Christian faith, which the
Lord would have his people to keep in habitual remembrance. These are —the
death and resurrection of Christ — the gift and the work of the Divine Spirit.
In order to aid them in keeping these in remembrance, suitable means have been
ordained in the
Hence
we infer, and we do so with full assurance of faith, that sprinkling or pouring
is the only mode of applying
the elements in baptism, which
God has appointed, and which can
properly represent the thing signified.
-
1st. The ancient prophets.
"Behold my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled
and be very high: So shall he sprinkle
many nations. Isa. 52: 13, 15. "Then will I sprinkle
clean water upon
you,
and ye shall be clean; from all your filthiness, and from all your idols will I
cleanse you." Ezek. 36: 25-19. "And it shall come to pass afterward
that I will pour
out my spirit upon all flesh." See Joel 2: 28, 29.
-
2nd. John
the Baptist. "I indeed have baptized you with water, but he
shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." Mark 1: 8. "I indeed
baptize you with water, but he that cometh after me is mightier than
I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with
the Holy Ghost. Matt. 3:2.
-
3. Jesus
Christ. John truly baptized with
water but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many davs hence." Acts 1:5.
-
1st. That
baptism is the divinely instituted emblem of the gift and the work of the Holy
Spirit. "I indeed have baptized
with the Holy Ghost." "John truly baptizedwith water; but ye shall be baptized
with the Holy Ghost." "By one spirit are we all baptized into one body."
The only tactic
that is left for those that will have no other baptism than immersion is for
them to exclude all our witnesses. "The pretensions of pouring as the
figurative baptism do not deserve a hearing. They cannot legitimately ever go
before a jury, because true bills are not found. There is no ground of trial"
Carson
, p. 118. Unfortunately for Mr. Carson's system, they have been placed before
the churches of Christ by the spirit of God; and all his blowing and boasting
will never be able to shut them out. Being aware of this, he proceeds to
persuade his readers ; (2.) That although admitted into court they deserve no
credit. "If," says he, "Christians were not infatuated with the
desire of establishing a favorite system, so gross a conception of God could not
so long have escaped detection. This error is as dishonorable to God, as that of
the Anthropomorphites. It degrades the Godhead by representing it as a material
substance." p. 119.
Although the
advocate of a desperate cause may not succeed in his endeavor to exclude the
witnesses, if he can persuade the jury that they are infatuated, this will
answer his purpose equally well, since no credit can be given to their
testimony. Now this is just what our pleader has attempted to do. "If
Christians were not INFATUATED." We have already stated our argument in
terms sufficiently plain; but Mr. Carson, to serve his own purpose, grossly
misrepresents it. "Our opponents," says he, "understand the
baptism of the spirit to be a literal baptism, and the pouring out of the spirit
to be a literal pouring out of him that is immaterial" (p. 119.) Not so
fast, Sir, your opponents maintain no such absurdity, and that you very well
know. We maintain that baptismos is
the name of an ordinance which was uniformly administered by sprinkling the
elements on the subject; and that the design of that ordinance was to be an
emblematical representation of the gift and the work of the Holy Spirit. But
when we advance this argument, the idea of representing the Godhead as a
material substance is as remote from our thoughts as it was from the minds of
prophets and apostles, who have placed it so plainly and frequently before our
eyes. But (3.) Aware that the testimony of our witnesses cannot fail to command
belief by all who understand it, Mr. Carson proceeds to overwhelm it with
torrents of pure sophistry and bold assertion. Assuming that he has persuaded
his readers that his opponents are infatuated, that they represent the Godhead
as a material substance, he pours out a number of allusions, sacred and profane,
not one of which has the least reference to the question at issue. He makes one
discovery however that merits a passing remark. "On the day of Pentecost
(he informs us) there was a real baptism in the emblems of the Spirit. The
disciples were immersed into the Holy Spirit; but they were literally covered
with wind and fire. The place where they met was filled with a rushing mighty
mind and cloven tongues as of fire sat over them." "Immersion denotes
that the thing immersed is put into the immersing substance." (p. 121.
122.) We are here presented with some curious discoveries. "Immersion means
that the thing immersed is put into the immersing substance."
The disciples were immersed into the Holy Spirit! This sounds rather harsh, not
to mention irrational and unbiblical! Peter told the spectators that the exalted
Redeemer had shed
forth the Holy Spirit on the disciples on that memorable day. (Acts,
2:33.) But it seems Mr. Carson sees the matter through his own invented medium.
He tells us that the disciples were “immersed” into the Holy Spirit; and
that immersion means that the thing immersed is put into the immersing
substance. If these things be as affirmed by Mr. Carson, it follows of course
that instead of the Holy Ghost being shed
forth on the disciples, the latter, by some process which we cannot
understand, must have been put into the Holy Spirit!
Nor is this
all. He informs us that "on the day of Pentecost there was a literal
baptism in the emblems of the Spirit." Of that literal baptism the
following is the definition. "They (the disciples) were literally covered
with wind and fire." Covered with wind and fire! ! Pray, Mr. C. read the
text, either in English or, if you prefer it, in Greek, and you will perhaps
find that there was neither wind nor fire in the case. I will take the liberty
of placing it before your eyes. - "And there came suddenly from heaven a
sound as of a rushing mighty wind and it (the sound) — filled all the house
where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them tongues as of fire
distributed (among them), and (one) settled upon each of
them." Acts, 2:1. 2. 3. 4. The words "wind and fire" are indeed
found in the text, but it is not said that either was present. There was a sound
heard as of & mighty wind, and there was the appearance of tongues not of
fire but "like as of fire."
But should we
grant that the disciples "were literally covered with wind and fire,"
that would not much improve the matter. Mr. Carson tells us truly that immersion
means (not the coming of the immersing substance on the thing but) "that
the thing immersed is put into the immersing substance." Should it be
granted then that the disciples were immersed in the sound which filled the
house, like patients in an electric bath (Mr. Booth's fine simile, which Mr.
Carson highly extols) the question is, did the sound and the tongues come upon
them? or did some qualified agent put them into
the immersing substance? The truth is that between the plunging scheme and the scriptural mode
of baptism, there is an irreconcilable difference.
In the former case the subject is plunged into the element, in the latter, the
element is gently applied to the subject. It will be impossible to find any
thing like the former in the sacred Scriptures, whereas nothing is more common
than the latter; and it invariably refers to the thing signified by baptism;
namely, the sprinkling
of the blood of Jesus Christ, by the Holy Spirit.
The following
is a record of the fulfillment of these promises, which, to correspond with the
dipping mode must be read thus: "This is that which was spoken by the
prophet Joel; In these last days, saith God, I will plunge all flesh into my
Spirit. While Peter spake these words, all they that heard the word were
immersed into the Holy Ghost. As I began to speak they were dipped into the Holy
Ghost. John indeed dipped into water ; but ye shall be dipped into the Holy
Ghost."
These passages will sufficiently illustrate the change which our
translation must undergo in order to accommodate it to the immersion system.
It is well known that, in their translations of the Scriptures into the Eastern
languages, (Bible translations into other languages by Baptist publishing
houses) such a change has been made by the advocates of the system. Much evil
has already resulted from their labor, and no one can tell to what extent it may
proceed. The reader may now see the conflicting elements which Mr. C. has blown
against our argument, and pass his opinion.
IV. The
divinely instituted mode of applying the elements by sprinkling,
will be found in perfect harmony with every part of the Oracles of God.
Mr. Carson
observes : — "The word by which the ordinance is designated, is perfectly
sufficient for me without a particle of evidence from any other quarter."
p. 1 72. He has, however, occupied thirty-two of his pages in an attempt to
supply other evidence, and in vindication of his scheme, he adduces the
following texts, which demand a few remarks.
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism unto death, that like as Christ was
raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk
in newness of life.” Upon this and the parallel text in Col. 2:11, 12, the
advocates of immersion lay great weight, for no other reason that I can
perceive, than that baptism is mentioned in connection with the death, burial
and resurrection of Christ, and the interest which believers have in these
events. But my persuasion is that the
reference here is not to water baptism, but to the baptism of the Holy Spirit; and
perhaps the following remarks will produce the same conviction in the mind of
the attentive reader. In ver. 3, the Apostle states a fact, and in ver. 4, he
draws an inference- from that fact, upon which in the progress of his discourse,
he grounds very powerful arguments to enforce on believers holiness of conduct.
It will therefore be well to examine :
-
1st. The interesting fact
stated, "So many of us as were baptized into
Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death." We have
here the Apostle's entire proposition, upon which he grounds the subsequent
reasoning.
To be baptized into Jesus Christ is, in other words, to be baptized into the
faith of the Gospel: just as to be baptized into Moses was to be baptized into
the doctrine he taught. (See 1 Cor. 10: 2.)
The sum of the
gospel is thus stated by the Apostle. "Christ died for our sins according
to the Scriptures; and was buried and rose again the third day according to the
Scriptures," 1. Cor. 15: 3, 4. Such being the fact stated, the question is,
by whom are sinners thus baptized into Jesus Christ? It certainly is not by
human hands. For although men can baptize people with water into the
professed faith of the gospel, to baptize them into Jesus Christ is the work of
the Holy Spirit. That this is the baptism intended is manifest from the
parallel text, in which we have the same fact stated, and similar inferences and
arguments deduced. It reads thus : — "In whom also ye are circumcised
with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of
the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: buried with him in baptism, wherein ye
are risen with him through the faith which is of the operation of God who hath
raised him from the dead. And you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision
of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all
trespasses." Col. 2: 11, 13. In this text we are clearly taught that to be
baptized into
Jesus Christ, is, in other words,
to be circumcised with the circumcision not made with hands — through the faith which
is of the operation of God, who hath raised him (Christ,) from the dead: to he
quickened together with him, and to have forgiveness of all trespasses. Such is
the Apostle's own illustration of the doctrine of the proposition. "As many
of you as were baptized unto Jesus Christ were baptized into his death." It
will now be proper to attend to his account of the way in which sinners are thus
baptized into Jesus Christ — or circumcised with the circumcision not made
with hands. " Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but
according to his mercy he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renewing
of the Holy Ghost; which he shed upon us
abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Savior; that being justified by his
grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." Tit.
3: 5, 6, 7. The blood of Christ is the laver, the Divine Spirit, (shed on the
subjects abundantly) the agent by which sinners are baptized into Jesus Christ.
The circumcision made without hands is " that of the heart, in the spirit
and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God."
- 2nd. The inference and the arguments which the Apostle deduced from the fact stated in his proposition. "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed that henceforth we should not serve sin." Here, to be sure, we have the word likeness, not applied to baptism but to planting. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection, Ver. 5. The reader will observe, that the likeness is not to the burial, but to the death of Christ. But as Mr. Carson makes a great and a long blast about it, it will be proper to give the more earnest heed to the Apostle's own illustration. Mr. Carson found a wonderful likeness to his scheme of immersion, in the baptism of Moses while passing through the sea on dry land; and, if possible, he discovered a still more marvelous likeness between immersion into water and the sound which filled the house when the disciples were met, taken in connection with the lambent flames, as o/fire, which sat on each of them; and although he can see no likeness to the death of Christ in the text before us, which speaks expressly of being planted in the likeness of this death; a likeness between burying his disciples in water, and the burial of Christ. Now, if we are not much mistaken, there is no reference in the passage to any mode of baptism whatever. The Apostle himself makes the figures he uses perfectly plain. The likeness to the death of Christ which the Apostle intended, he thus describes: "Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Christ, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." A great part of the chapter is occupied in illustrating and enforcing the doctrine in the text. "Likewise reckon ye yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God, through Jesus Christ our Lord," (Ver. 11.) Again, as the planting of believers in the likeness of Christ's death, is to have the old man crucified with the affections and lusts — the likeness to Christ's resurrection, the sacred writer informs us, consists, not in emerging from under the water, but in walking in newness of life. We can hardly conceive a plainer explanation of a figure than that given by the Apostle, (Ver. 4.) Therefore, we are buried with him by baptism unto death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
We trust the attentive reader will now be convinced that the baptism treated of
in this text is the baptism or the work of the spirit of Christ. We have now to
show that between the manner of Christ's burial and resurrection, as recorded in
Scripture, and Mr. Carson's scheme of immersion into water, there is, after all
his labor, not one single point of resemblance or, if you will, likeness. The
following is the testimony of the inspired writer. — "When Joseph had
taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it on his own new
tomb, which he had hewn out of a rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door
of the sepulcher, and departed." Matt, 27: 59, 60. Joseph
did not dig a pit in the rock wherein to sink the dead body of Christ, he merely
carried it in by the door and laid it down ; nor did he cover it at all; as he
and the other disciples intended to have it embalmed. The advocates of immersion
profess to reenact the scene in a figure, by their mode of baptism,
but we shall look in vain for any one
point of resemblance between the Savior's burial and their submersion in water. —
A living person is brought by them to some place where there is sufficient depth
of water, he walks into the water a convenient distance on his own feet, or
perchance he may only step into a cistern in the baptistery, he is then plunged
into the fluid, lifted up, and led out to the dry ground. Where
is the
likeness between the burial of Christ and such an exhibition?
When closely inspected, it totally vanishes.
The truth is, as has been already made
manifest, that baptism is not intended to represent the
death, burial, or resurrection of
Christ, but to represent the work of the Holy Spirit, or what the Scripture
calls sprinkling of the blood of Christ upon the conscience, and purging it from
dead works to serve the living and true God. (Compare
Heb. 9:13, 14. and 10: 22. 12: 24. with 1 Peter, 1, 2.) This
cannot be represented by plunging a covered body in any pool or cistern which
the wisdom of man may select.
But in defense
of immersion, its advocates confidently appeal to the account we have of the
places in which John the Baptist fulfilled his ministry, and the phraseology
used in recording the administration of baptism. The texts to which we are
directed, and the entire argument, will be found in the following quotation.
"John baptized them in Jordan, Matt. 3: 6. And when Jesus was baptized he
went up straightway out of the water, Matt. 3:16. John was baptizing in Enon
near to
1st. Much water
is as unnecessary for dipping as for sprinkling, and far more unsuitable. In
proof of this fact, I can confidently appeal to Mr. Carson's own practice and
experience. When dipping his disciples, does he find it necessary to take them
to the Eiffey, or to any of the other large rivers or sacred lakes of
But,
2nd. The
Baptist had a very good reason for selecting a place where there was much water.
The advocates of immersion reason as if John's ministry consisted chiefly in
baptizing, and that this was the only thing that rendered much water necessary.
But we know that the contrary is the fact. Baptizing was by far the least
important part of John's ministry. His grand work consisted in preaching and
enforcing the doctrine of repentance, warning his hearers of their danger,
exposing their refuges of lies, and directing them to the Lamb of God. When we
think of the vast multitudes that attended John's ministry, and remember the
distance from which many of them came, — " from Jerusalem, and all Judea,
and all the region round about Jordan," and connect with this the position
and the nature of that country, we
must be convinced that the selection of a place in which the people could be
supplied with water was absolutely necessary. A modern immerser may go
to a pool or river, accompanied by a crowd, and dip an individual or two without
feeling the need of water for any other purpose. The scene is soon over, and all
parties can return home. But the case with John's hearers was very different. As
many of them came from a distance, it is probable that, like our Lord's hearers,
they may have continued with him for days. (See Mark, 8:1, 2.) They could bring
some victuals with them as some of Jesus' followers did, but in the wilderness
of
It remains to examine the argument grounded on the following prepositions, en,
ek, apo, eis, which are thus rendered in our excellent translation. John
baptized in
Who will
venture to call in question the doctrine of immersion, after reading the above
quotation? He must be dreadfully hardened indeed: especially if he be a scholar,
he must have less conscience than Satan himself — for Mr. C. tells us that
" had he no more conscience than Satan himself, as a scholar, he could not
attempt to expel immersion from this account." The writer, however, without
advancing any pretensions to Mr. C's learned timidity, will even venture to
expel the phantom, but first, it will be proper to examine the materials by
which he has given it its formidable appearance. He informs us, in the first
place, that the Eunuch never speaks of being baptized till he came to water, and
that this implies immersion. It might be asked, how
came you to know that the Eunuch never spoke of being baptized until he came to
water, seeing you did not happen to be among his retinue, and since no such
thing is mentioned in the history? The
assertion is Apocryphal: but had it been otherwise, it could prove nothing for
or against immersion. Again, you tell us that "had a handful of water been
sufficient this might have been found in any place," and that "there
is no spot of the earth in which a human being can be found, that without any
inconvenience will not afford a handful of water," (p. 147.) This is really worse than Apocryphal, for we are assured by a
cloud of witnesses that there are extensive deserts in which a single drop of
water is not to be found. If
Mr. C's tender conscience cannot receive their testimony, by taking a trip
through the deserts of
Such is a fair
example of the sophistry
by which Mr. C. imposes on the credulity of his "plain" readers. He
goes on to prove that the parties concerned not only went down to the water,
which nobody ever denied, but that "they went both
into the water, and that no reason can be given for the going down but
immersion." But we know a very cogent reason. They went both
down to the water because they needed
water, and the water would not come up to them; and since all waters run in
valleys or low places, in order to reach them for any purpose, we must either go
down to them, or they must be brought
up to us. I feel almost ashamed to have dwelt so long on such sophistry.
But the reader will bear with me in exposing another of the immersionists'
quibbles, which is thus stated and largely expounded by Mr. Carson. "Matt.
3: 6. Mark 1: 5, cannot admit pouring as the sense of baptizo. It cannot be rendered they were poured in
Mr. Carson, and
his fellow-laborers do indeed, pour their disciples upon the water, instead of
sprinkling the water upon them, which we have seen is the only scriptural mode
of applying the element. Mr. C. would persuade his readers that we maintain that the
Greek word baptizo
means to pour; but he knows we do no such thing.
We know, assuredly, that the
word is selected by the Holy Spirit to designate an ordinance which is intended
to represent the gift and the work of the Spirit, and which from the beginning
has been invariably administered by sprinkling the elements on the subject. From
the mere name we could never have learned the mode of application; but we can assign a probable reason for its
selection.
Dipping is included in
every scriptural baptism. The priest had to dip his finger into the blood of the sacrifice,
in order to sprinkle it on the altar: Moses had to dip the scarlet wool and
hyssop into the blood which he had put into the basons in order to sprinkle it
upon the persons and things to be purified. The priest had to dip the living
bird, the cedar wood, &c. in the blood of the bird that had been slain, in
order to sprinkle it on the leper. The clean person had to dip the hyssop in the
prepared ashes of the heifer, in order to sprinkle it on the unclean persons and
things that required purifying. In like manner the Christian minister has to dip
his hand in the clean water, in order to sprinkle it on the person baptized.
There is no scriptural baptism without dipping, but dipping is not baptism,
although it is included in the administration of that ordinance.
Baptism
consists in the application of the
elements to the subjects; not in dipping the subjects into the elements,
as Mr. C. and his brethren maintain. A person cannot be baptized without the
immersion of the instrument that applies the element, but persons may be
immersed a thousand times twice told, and not be scripturally baptized. It may
not be out of place to remark that the words selected to be the names of sacred
ordinances were never intended to teach us the modes of observing these
institutions. In proof of this I might refer the reader to all the ordinances
instituted by the ministry of Moses; but we shall take, for example, the only
other emblematical ordinance instituted by Christ.
The design of
the ordinance is to commemorate and show forth his death till he come again. It
is well known that the Greek word rendered “supper” is the name given to the
principal meal among the Jews — hence it is applied to a feast : "A
certain man made a great supper and bade many,'' Luke 14:16, 17. Apply Mr. C.'s
logic on the word for “supper” and you must conclude that nothing less than
a full meal of bread and wine can be called observing the ordinance either in
name or thing; and the church in Corinth seems to have been the only church
where it has been scripturally observed since its original institution, See 1
Cor. 11: 21. Again: Breaking of bread is another of the names applied in
scripture to the ordinance. See Acts 20: 7. 11. The disciples came together to
break bread. "When he therefore was come up again and had broken
bread." From the name here and elsewhere given to the ordinance we learn
that breaking of bread is included in the observance of it, just as dipping is
included in administering baptism; but as baptism does not consist in the act of
dipping, but in the application of the elements, the observance of the ordinance
in question does not consist in breaking the bread, but in partaking of it when
it has been broken.
It may not be
improper to remark that notwithstanding the mighty confidence with which Mr. C.
rests on the strict definition of the word. He has not been able to bring one text from the Bible, which
testifies, that either John or any of the Apostles baptized disciples “into”
water. But the preposition of
eis does frequently occur in
connection with baptism; and in order to show that the name of the ordinance,
though found in connection with eis,
could never have been intended to teach us the mode, I shall present the reader
with a few examples, with Mr. C's. own translation of the terms. Mat. 28:19.
"Dipping them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost," &c. Observe, reader, dipping them not
into water, but into the name.
The name is made the element.
We understand
what is meant by being baptized into the professed faith of the glorious
Trinity, but it will require all Mr. Carson's critical skill to inform
us how a person can be plunged into a name; for, be it observed, that if dipping be the mode the
name must be the clement.
Acts 8:16. "Only they were dipped into the name of the Lord Jesus. 1 Cor.
1: 14, 15. I thank God that I dipped none of you but Crispus and Gaius, lest any
should say that I had dipped into my own name" In the above texts, there is
no mention made of water, the preposition eis “into,” for which Mr. Carson contends, makes the name the
element into which the primitive disciples were immersed. In the following
examples, the elements will be found diverse. Rom. 6: 3. 4. "Know ye not
that so many of us as were dipped into
Jesus Christ mere dipped into
his death? Therefore we are buried with him by dipping into death." Mr.
C's. “approved” translation of this text presents us with two kinds of
elements into which the believers had been immersed, in connection with the
issue of the process. They had been first dipped into Jesus Christ and next
dipped into his death, and the issue of the processes was their own death.
"Therefore we are buried with him by dipping into death" 1 Cor. 10: 2.
"And were all dipped into Moses" It has puzzled the advocates of
immersion to inform us, into what kind of element the great congregation were
dipped, while passing through the sea on dry land; we trust they will now see that by translating the
text in their own approved way, the element will be made manifest to all. Yes, Moses was the
element into which they
were all immersed; but the misfortune is, that while this removes one
difficulty, it creates another, which even Mr. C. will find rather formidable;
viz. by what process the great congregation was supposedly “dipped” into
Moses.
I beg the
reader to remember that it is not for the purpose of making any unnecessary
exposure that these examples are presented to him; but as has been already
stated, to show that it is not by the name of the ordinance that we are to learn
the mode of applying the elements. The original administrators of Christian
baptism had no need to be taught how to apply the element, for they had been
familiar with the mode from their infancy, as we know of no ordinance which was
more frequently observed by the Jews from the period in which it had been
instituted by the ministry of Moses. The only difference was that the elements
were changed, and they had seen that change exemplified under the eye of their
Lord and Master.
Had
we one solitary example of baptizing (eis)
“into” water, that might have given some countenance to the dipping
scheme: but no such thing can be found in the whole history of redemption. What then is the plain matter of fact baptismos is an
ordinance which was invariably administered by sprinkling the elements on
the subjects, we are
fully warranted to draw the following conclusion from the facts stated.
Philip and the
Eunuch went down to the water because the water would not come up to them, and
Philip baptized the Eunuch in the ancient divinely-ordained form, into the
professed faith of the name, or in other language, the revealed character of the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And now, Sir, if you should put the text on
all the critical racks that you can invent, you will never be able to make it
utter one single syllable in behalf of immersion into water.
We have thus endeavored to demonstrate from the word of God alone, that:
I. The
Spirit of God has selected the term baptizo
to be observed in the church under the
former and present
dispensation of his everlasting covenant.
II.
That the baptisms, and
washings included in the law were perfectly distinct, and intended to represent
two different objects.
III.
That sprinkling is the
only mode of applying the elements in baptism that corresponds with the language
of Scripture, respecting the thing signified by baptism: namely, the gift and
work of the Divine Spirit in applying the blood of Christ to the subjects of
salvation.
IV.
That the divinely
instituted mode of applying the elements will be found in perfect harmony with
every part of the Oracles of God.
It now remains to lay before the reader my chief reasons for recommending the
subject to your serious, candid, and prayerful examination. These are:
I. A growing conviction that the dipping
scheme is directly opposed to the nature and the design of scriptural
baptism. The ground of this conviction will be seen in the preceding pages.
The simple Christian who has just learned the way of salvation, and
has obtained joy and peace in believing, is one of the chief objects of the
proselytizing zeal of the advocates of immersion. They find easy access to such
characters, and having gained their confidence and affection, they begin by
insinuating that they are living in the neglect of a Divine ordinance and
disobeying one of Christ's plain commands, &c. By these means, the minds of
-the unsuspecting victims are moved from that which formerly filled them with
joy and peace in believing. Their comfort is destroyed, and they are now told
that all this arises from their neglecting to obey the command of Christ. While
some escape the net thus artfully spread for them, we need not wonder that many
are drawn to the water. The painful experience of numbers will bear witness to
the facts to which we refer.
III. Moreover, much injury is sometimes done to benevolent
institutions. Take for example, Bible Societies. The British and Foreign Bible
Society, and its numerous auxiliaries at home and abroad, constitute the most
wonderful and excellent institution which has originated in the present age, but
its harmony and benevolent operations have been seriously affected by the
conduct of the zealous advocates of immersion. In their translations of the
Scriptures into the languages of the East they had given such renderings as
suited their system. The original word baptizo
in all its forms they had made to signify dipping and dipping exclusively.
To that false rendering, they directed their attention towards the native
converts belonging to other denominations in order to proselyte them to their
system, nor could any thing induce them to reform their error. When this became
known to the conductors of the Bible Society, they were under the painful
necessity of withholding the liberal grants which for many years they had been
accustomed to make for promoting those translations. If the reader will turn to
the few examples we have given of the change necessary in the translation of the Scriptures, to make them suit the
system of the immersionists, he must see that the Committee of the Bible Society
are more than justified regarding their decision.
IV. After a careful examination of the origin and progress of the
dipping system, I have not discovered in it a single redeeming quality.
I gladly admit that many pious men and women have conscientiously embraced it,
and that some of them have been eminently useful: but I challenge all its
advocates to point out an instance of man or woman, who has become a better
member of the church of God, or a better member of society, or better in any one
point of view, by becoming an immersionist. We have known not a few, who had
once appeared humble and pious, and who seemed to esteem themselves less than
the least of all saints, changed by adopting the dipping scheme into the most striking resemblance of the ancient
Pharisee that ever we beheld on earth, and we presume instances of this kind
are far from being singular. We are aware that the advocates of the system will
tell us, that we are bound to obey the command of Christ, whatever may be the
consequences. True; indeed we are. But we know assuredly that obedience to the
commands of Christ never did, and, we venture to affirm, never will produce such
consequences among the truly pious. They are precisely the same kind of fruit
that was produced in the churches of