Page images
PDF
EPUB

complained of his disciples) eat with “unwashen hands ?"*

One thing further is to be observed here. The word washed (ebaptisthe), in Luke xi. 38, is, letter for letter, in all respects precisely the same, as that used in Mark i. 9, “Jesus" (ebaptisthe) “was baptized of John in Jordan.” In Luke xi. 38, the Holy Ghost affirms the baptism of the person as fully, as absolutely, as unequivocally as he does when he says Jesus was baptized of John in Jordan. Yet the baptism in Luke xi. 38, was no immersion, but a simple ablution of the hands, by pouring, or allowing water to run over them. Nay, the Holy Ghost uses in this case the selfsame word, without the alteration of a single letter, without a syllable of ex. planation, with no circumstance to modify or diminish the full meaning of the word baptize. How then can it be pretended from the meaning of the word alone, that Jesus was immersed of John in Jordan? Why could not the baptism in this case be performed by pouring water on him, as well as in the other ? With this explicit and unequivocal testimony of the Holy Ghost, as to the common meaning of “baptize" in the sacred writings, how can our Baptist brethren pretend, that when our Saviour commands us to be baptized, he commands us to be

* Nor is the common evasion of our Baptist brethren, concerning dipping the hands, possible here. The word ebaptisthe is in the passive voice, and does not admit the word hands to be understood as its object. Nor are we allowed to supply it by synecdoche; for where an author omits so to limit his meaning to a part, we have no authority to alter his meaning by supplying it. The word hands is not in this passage, or near it. The sacred writer refers absolutely to the baptism of the person.

immersed, without being guilty of altering the command of Christ, and adding to the word of God?

To my mind, here is, so far, demonstration-proof which puts it beyond my power to doubt,--that sprinkling and pouring are SCRIPTURAL MODES OF BAPTISM. Whether the mode of immersion has a scriptural recoge nition is a matter that is yet to appear.

It is certain, without going farther, that IMMERSION CANNOT BE ESSEN

TIAL TO BAPTISM.

Let us come now to the use of the word " baptize" with reference to the work of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said, Acts i. 3, “ John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence." I will not stop to show how grossly this would sound to alter it, according to the proposal of our Baptist brethren, so as to read, “ But ye shall be immersed with (or in) the Holy Ghost.”

This baptism was accomplished on the day of Pentecost. Peter said of it, “ This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel ; And it shall come to pass in the last days,—I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh.”— " He (Jesus) hath shed forth this;" so, Acts xi. 15, 16, " And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.” The mode of the baptism here spoken of, is under the figure of pouring and shedding forth. The gift of the Spirit is never spoken of under the figure of immersion, but as a pouring, shedding forth, sprinkling, coming down like rain. Thus, Isaiah xliv. 3, “I will pour out my Spirit upon thy seed.” Ezek. xxxvi. 25, 26, “ Then will I

sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean : new heart also will I give you.” Compare Tit. iii. 5, 6, “By the washing of regeneration, the renewing of the Holy Ghost, which is shed on us abundantly;" Ps. xlii. 6, " He shall come down upon the mown grass as showers that water the earth ;" Isaiah' lii. 15, “ So shall he sprinkle many nations.”

It has been argued that the baptizing was still by immersion, as the Spirit was shed down“ abundantly,and filled the room." The Scripture says," the sound" filled the room.

It is not so gross as to speak of the Holy Spirit filling a room like a material substance, and thus immersing people. Besides, though you might cover people by pouring water on them, provided they were enclosed in a room or vessel, you could not be said to " dip” or “plunge” them in so doing ; but immersion (and it is contended that the baptism of the Holy Ghost shall be called the immersion" of the Holy Ghost), immersion has the act of dipping entering necessarily into its idea, as well as the act of covering. Moreover, all converted persons are baptized with the Holy Ghost. Paul says, 1 Cor. xii. 13, “For by one spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jew or Gentile, bond or free." But who will pretend that all converted persons are "immersed” into the Holy Ghost, according to the manner, in which (it is argued) the apostles were immersed on the day of Pentecost, by pouring the Spirit upon them till it filled the room, and so immersed them?

Here I rest under this topic. The mode of baptism in the baptism of the Holy Ghost, as that mode is indicated by the uniform figure, is pouring, shedding forth, sprinkling, coming down like rain, or like showers, falling upon. I cannot but wonder that those who insist so much upon the words, “ buried with him in baptism,are not able to see in these also an equal authority for proper modes of baptism; even granting (what I do not grant) that their favorite phrase has some reference to a mode of baptism.

Having traced the meaning of the word “baptize” so far in the Scriptures, turn to the early Christian Fathers, whose views of what is essential to baptism were moulded on the meaning of the term common among Christians and Jews. The following examples, with several others, are adduced by Dr. Pond.* “TERTULLIAN speaks of baptism being administered by sprinkling. "Who will accommodate you, a man so little to be trusted (asperginem unam aquæe) with one sprinkling of water ?'

“ORIGEN represents the wood on the altar, over which water was poured at the command of Elijah (1 Kings xviii. 33,) as having been baptized. 16 LACTANTIUS says

that Christ received baptism, 'that he might save the Gentiles by baptism,' that is (purifici roris perfusione) by the distilling of the purifying deu.

“ CYPRIAN, JEROME, and some others of the Fathers, understood the prediction, 'I will sprinkle clean water upon you,' Ezek. xxxvi. 25, as having reference to water baptism.

“ CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, speaking of a backslider, whom John was the means of reclaiming, says, ' He was baptized a second time with tears.'

“ ATHANASIUS reckons up eight several 'baptisms,' and the sixth in his enumeration is that of tears.'

* See pp. 33, 34, of his excellent work on Baptism.

“GREGORY NAZIANZEN says, “I know of a fourth baptism, that by martyrdom and blood; and I know of a fifth, that of tears.' The baptism of tears and blood was a favorite phraseology with the early Christians."

Now in all these baptisms, of the "wood and the altar," of tears," andblood,” the idea of “ dipping," " plunging," “ burying,” or “ immersing,” is excluded. “Wet,” “ washed," "sprinkled,” “ poured upon,” those spoken of here as baptized might be; but whether men may be dipped or immersed in their own tears or blood, admits of a question. If it he said that these representations are figurative, certainly there is no immersion about them, even in figure.

The conclusion is, that the early fathers, as well as the Apostles, understood the word “ baptizein quite another sense than that of immerse. Their idea of baptism was that of a purifying (or consecrating) by sprinkling or pouring, and these are the modes under which is constantly represented the purifying (the baptism) of the Holy Ghost.

I have now done with the argument under the first head, and we are ready for the question, What would the immediate disciples of our Lord understand

from the simple face of the command BAPTIZE? Would they consider immersion as ESSENTIAL? I think the conclusion is inevitable; IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. Sprinkling and pouring they would inevitably consider lawful and proper modes; and so far, it has not appeared that they have any notion of immersing at all: or any authority for it, if direct authority be sought for a specific mode.

I have done with the argument from the meaning of the word, and proceed to the second inquiry.

« PreviousContinue »