—
Lwtiri*'* <3C {fjUAs>: u*" L
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS
•*k
BY I). J. MYRIOK,
OF THE
NORTH GEORGIA CONFERENCE.
I
MACON, GEORGIA:
J. W. BURKE & CO., PUBLISHERS.
1872.
Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1868, by
D. J. MYRICK,
In the District Court of the U. S. for the Middle District of Tennessee.
PREFACE.
The following pages contain, in a succinct form,
the substance of the arguments which we have used
against the exclusive dogma of immersion, and in
favor of sprinkling and pouring, in baptism, on vari¬
ous occasions during the past ten years. We have
been urged time and again to publish them, by those
who have heard them delivered, and have at last con¬
sented to do so. We have written this book for the
masses, and have tried to adapt both the language
and the style of the argument to the comprehension
of the most ordinary mind. Hence, where we found
it necessary to quote the Greek text, we have put it
in English letters, and have carefully defined every
Greek word used, so that the most uneducated need
not misunderstand us.
We have also tried to be consistent with ourself,
in the arguments which we here present to the pub¬
lic, which, we regret to say, has not always been
the case with pedobaptist authors on the mode of
baptism.
IV
PREFACE.
We occupy but one side of this question. We
have conceded nothing to immersionists, because, in
justice, we have nothing to concede. On the con¬
trary, we think them radically wrong in their views,
both as to the mode and design of baptism. The
views here advanced are the fruits of many years'
close study and investigation. We think them en¬
tirely scriptural, and as such offer them to those who
may need light on this subject, hoping thereby to ac¬
complish some good.
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
CHAPTER I.
John's baptism, with reference to its design
and mode.
Before entering directly upon a discussion of the
mode of Christian baptism, we think it highly proper,
first, to consider calmly the design or intention of
John's ministry and baptism; also the design of our
Lord's personal baptism.
First. What was the design of John's ministry
and baptism ? What was he sent to accomplish by
preaching to and baptizing the Jewish people ?
These questions may be satisfactorily answered by
an appeal to the prophecies of the Old and the records
of the New Testament concerning this extraordinary
prophet and embassador of the Most High.
Isaiah first introduces him to our notice as " The
voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare
ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert
a highway for our God. Every valley shall be ex¬
alted, and every mountain shall be made low; and
the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough
6
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
places (a) plain ; and the glory of the Lord shall be
revealed, and all flesh shall see it together." Isa. xl.
3-5.
Malachi says : " Behold, I will send my messenger,
and he shall prepare the way before me; and the
Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his tem¬
ple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye
delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of
hosts." Mai. iii. 1.
John says: "I knew him not; but that he should
be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come bap¬
tizing with water." John i. 31.
Mark says: "John did baptize in the wilderness,
and preach the baptism of repentance for the remis¬
sion of sins."
Luke says: "John came into all the country about
Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the
remission of sins."
Matthew quotes Isaiah. See Matt. iii. 3.
"I indeed," said John, " baptize you with water
unto repentance ; but he that cometh after me is
mightier than I: he shall baptize you with the Holy
Ghost, and with fire." Matt. iii. 11.
These passages of Scripture clearly show that the
design of John's ministry and baptism was to "pre¬
pare the way of the Lord," and " manifest him to
Israel." " Therefore," said he, " am I come bap¬
tizing with water." In order to this, he preached
repentance. "Iiepent," said he, "for the kingdom
of heaven is at hand." And when the people "con¬
fessed their sins," and promised to "repent" and re-
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
7
form their lives, he pledged them to this solemn task
by administering to them "the baptism of repentance
for (eis—with reference, to) the remission of their sins."
When the way of the Lord had thus been prepared,
he "came suddenly as the messenger of the covenant,"
to confer its blessings upon his people, by "sitting
upon them as a refiner's fire and as fuller's soap, and
by purifying and purging them as silver and gold,"
by " the baptism of the Holy Ghost," " that they
might offer unto the Lord an offering in righteous¬
ness."
Before we proceed farther, in order that the reader
may fully understand this subject, it is important
that we call attention to the fact that there are three
distinct dispensations of grace revealed in the word of
God:
First. The Patriarchal dispensation, in its several
degrees of development, extending from the fall of
man to the giving of the Law upon Mount Sinai.
Second. The Jewish dispensation, which extended
from the giving of the Law to the crucifixion of
Christ.
Third. The Christian dispensation, which began
at the resurrection of the Saviour, and will continue
to the end of time.
But all these were gospel dispensations; hence we
should always say, the Patriarchal, the Jewish, and
the Christian dispensation of the gospel; because,
since the fall of man, there has never been any other
name than that of Jesus given under heaven among
men, whereby any sinner could be saved.
8
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
Hence "Abel was justified by faith" in the prom¬
ised Messiah, "the seed of the woman who should
bruise the serpent's head."
Jacob looked forward to the "Shiloh to come," and
died in the faith of the Redeemer of the world.
Job, amid the most astonishing afflictions, exult-
ingly declared, "I know that my Redeemer liveth,
and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the
earth," etc.
Moses tells of "the prophet which the Lord would
raise up to Israel, like unto himself," and "he es¬
teemed the reproach of Christ greater riches than
the treasures of Egypt, for he had respect unto the
recompense of the reward."
"Abraham rejoiced to see my day: he saw it, and
was glad," said the Saviour.
"And the Scripture foreseeing that God would jus¬
tify the heathen through faith preached before the
gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thy seed shall all
the nations of the earth be blessed."
"And thy seed is Christ," says St. Paul.
These Scriptures clearly teach that every dispensa¬
tion of grace given to man since the world began, was
a gospel dispensation.
Now the question is, Under which of the three
gospel dispensations did John live and exercise his
ministry ?
Our Baptist brethren assert with great confidence,
publicly and privately, in the pulpit and through the
press, that John the Baptizer (for so the Greek Bap-
tistes means) lived under the Christian dispensation
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
9
of the gospel; that he was a regular gospel minister—
yea, a Baptist minister of "the first water;" that he
administered Christian baptism to "Jerusalem and
all Judea, and all the region round about the Jor¬
dan," and finally, that he administered Christian bap¬
tism to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Now we join issue with them upon each and all of
these assertions, and believe we can demonstrate their
fallacy to every unprejudiced mind.
Our position is, That John the Baptizer lived,
preached, baptized, and died under the Jewish, and
not the Christian, dispensation of the gospel; and
hence did not. administer the Christian baptism, which
was not instituted until after the resurrection of Christ
from the dead.
In support of this position, we make the six follow¬
ing arguments, based upon the Scriptures :
1. That John did not live under the Christian dis¬
pensation of the gospel, we argue first from the lan¬
guage of Christ, where he says, "Verily I say unto
you, of them that are born of women there hath not
risen a greater than John the Baptizer, notwith¬
standing he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is
greater than John." Now, that the phrase "kingdom
of heaven," here used, means the Christian dispensa¬
tion of the gospel, is universally admitted.
If, then, no greater prophet than John had ever
preceded him—if he was as great as Abraham, or
Moses, or Elias: yea, greater, he being " much more
than a prophet"—how could it be truthfully said that
" the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than
10
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
John/' if he himself was in this kingdom ? This
would be absurd. The Saviour evidently intended to
teach those whom he addressed on this occasion to
look forward to a brighter day soon to dawn, than the
wisest man, living or dead, had ever seen or enjoyed;
and as great as the Baptizer truly was, both really
and relatively, yet he was about to introduce a new
dispensation of grace, that would so far exceed in
glory and power any previous dispensation, that the
least of those enjoying its blessings and privileges
would not only be as great, but "greater than John."
What else than this could the Saviour have meant ?
We claim that this text alone proves conclusively that
John the Baptizer did not live under the Christian
dispensation of the gospel.
2. Our second argument is drawn from John's own
language, and that of Christ and the apostles, with
reference to the time when the kingdom of heaven
should come and be set up. They all proclaimed with
one accord, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand."
Eggizo i* the Greek word here rendered "is at hand,"
and means "to draw near, to impend, is near to come,
to approach." This proves that " the kingdom of
heaven" had not then come, but was approaching,
drawing near, ivas near at hand, and tuould soon
come.
" In those days came John the Baptizer, proclaim¬
ing in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, Repent,
for the kingdom of heaven is at hand "—i. e., is near
to come.
"From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say,
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
11
Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand"—will
soon come.
" And when he had called unto him his twelve dis¬
ciples, he sent them forth, saying, As you go, preach
and say, The kingdom of heaven is at hand"—is ap¬
proaching.
Th ese texts prove conclusively that the kingdom of
heaven had not then come, hut was approaching, and,
at no great distance of time, would come, and be set up.
The language also proves that not only John's min¬
istry, but also that of our Lord and his apostles, at
that time, was entirely preparatory to the coming
and setting up of the kingdom of heaven. And right
here we wish to call attention to the important fact,
as sustaining our view, that, from the crucifixion to
the final Amen in the Revelation of Jesus Christ, this
language is never repeated. No apostle or evangelist,
after this event, ever said, "The kingdom of heaven
is at hand," because it would not have been true; for
then it had come, and was established.
3. The third argument which we make to prove
that John did not exercise his ministry under the
Christian dispensation of the gospel rests upon the
fact that he did not baptize his subjects in the name
of the Holy Trinity. This the law of the new dispen¬
sation requires to be done in all cases. " Go teach all
nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father^
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," is the com¬
mand of heaven's eternal King. Hence, it is conceded
by all parties, that for any baptism to be valid under
the Christian dispensation, no matter by whom admin-
12
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
istered, it must be done in the name of the Father,
&on, and Holy Ghost, or else it is null and void.
Our first proof on this point is found in Acts xix.
1-7: " Paul having passed through the upper coasts
came to Ephesus ; and finding certain disciples, he
said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost
since ye believed ? And they said unto him, We
have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy
Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then
were ye baptized ? And they said, Unto John's bap¬
tism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the
baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that
they should believe on him which should come after
him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard
this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord
Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon
them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake
with tongues, and prophet ied. And all the men were
about twelve." Now we learn from these verses the
following facts : First. That these twelve men at
Ephesus had been " baptized with John's baptism."
" Paul said unto them, Unto what then were ye bap¬
tized? And they said, Unto John's baptism." The
second fact is, that they had not heard whether there
was a Holy Ghost or not. " Paul said unto them,
Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed ?
And they said unto him, We have not so much as
heard whether there be any Holy Ghost." The third
fact is, that Paul required them to be rebaptized, and
when it was done, he laid his hands upon them, and
they received ,the Holy Ghost.
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
13
" When they heard this," i. e., that the baptism
which they had previously received was only " the
baptism of repentance," "they were baptized in the
name of the Lord Jesus." Now if John baptized his
subjects in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost—and he did this, if he administered Christian
baptism — would not these twelve Ephesians have
heard that there was a Holy Ghost to be received
when they were baptized ? Paul, finding that they
had only received John's baptism, explained to them
its design. " Then said Paul. John verily baptized
with the baptism of repentance," etc., "and when
they heard this, they were baptized in the name of
the Lord Jesus."
Had they ever been baptized in the name of the
Lord Jesus before ? If so, they were baptized in his
name the second time. Does any one believe this ?
But again: we argue that John could not baptize
the people in his day in the name of the Holy Trinity,
for the Apostle John tells us that " the Holy Ghost
was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glo¬
rified." The Saviour was not "glorified" till after
his resurrection from the dead, and "the Holy Ghost
was not given" till the day of Pentecost. Now, did
John baptize in the name of the Holy Ghost years
before he was given ?
The Saviour, after his resurrection, and just ten
days before the Pentecost, gave his apostles the com¬
mission to go and disciple all nations, and baptize
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost; but, at the same time, said to
14
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
them, "Tarry ye in Jerusalem till ye be endued with
power from on high."
They obeyed this command of the Master, and on
the day of Pentecost the "power from on high" came,
in the baptism of the Holy Ghost and in 1he tongues
of fire which they there received; and, for the first
time, they, on that day, baptized in the name of the
Holy Trinity, under the new dispensation, which was
then inaugurated by the gift of the Holy Ghost.
The fourth argument by which we prove that John
did not exercise his ministry under the Christian dis¬
pensation of the gospel, rests upon the fact that those
whom he baptized, who afterward connected them¬
selves with the Christian Church, were rebaptized by
the apostles and evangelists.
In this connection we refer the reader once more to
the rebaptism of twelve of John's disciples at Eplie-
sus. "Paul said unto them, Unto what then were
ye baptized ? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the bap¬
tism of repentance"—hence not the Christian bap¬
tism.
" When they heard this, they were baptized in the
name of the Lord Jesus," i. e., in the name of the
Holy Trinity.
" Then Paul laid his hands upon them, and they
received the Holy Ghost, and spake with tongues, and
prophesied."
Dr. P. H. Mell admits the rebaptism of these per¬
sons. He says, "I believe the ordinance was repeated;
and the fact that they had 'not so much as heard
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
15
whether there be any Holy Ghost,' shows that they
had been immersed by an incompetent administra¬
tor. Because of defect in the administrator, there¬
fore the ordinance was vitiated."—Mell on Bap., pp.
68, 69.
But we ask, Did any one besides himself ever ad¬
minister John's baptism? If so, when, where, and
by what authority ? Will Dr. M. be so good as to
inform us? Certainly there is not the slightest hint
in the New Testament that any one but John ever
did administer what is here called "John's baptism."
There is no allusion made in this place, nor, indeed,
anywhere else, to any "defect" or "incompetency" in
the "administrator" of the ordinance, as the reason
why it was "vitiated," and "therefore necessary to
repeat it."
Paul evidently understood them to say they Avere
baptized by John; for, when he asked them "unto
what they were baptized," they said, "Unto John's
baptism." "Then said Paul, John verily baptized
with the baptism of repentance," etc; "and when
they heard this, they Avere" rebaptized. Noav, was
John an "incompetent administrator" of his OAvn bap¬
tism ?
The truth is, the "defect" in this case Avas not in
the " administrator," but in the baptism itself, Avhich
Avas "the baptism of repentance," and not the Chris¬
tian baptism ; " therefore it Avas repeated."
Dr. N. M. CraAvford, late President of Mercer Uni¬
versity, also admits the rebaptism of the twelve at
Ephesus. In his book on "John's and Christ's Bap-
16 BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
tism," he says, " Their ignorance vitiated their bap¬
tism." He finds not the "defect" in the "adminis¬
trator," as Dr. Mell does, hut in the " ignorance" of
the subjects themselves. It would have been well for
Dr. Crawford to have informed the public as to how
much sense a man must have when baptized, in order
to prevent the ordinance from being " vitiated by his
ignorance."
But Luke, as we have seen in Acts xix., gives quite
another reason for this rebaptism than those given by
these Doctors of Divinity ; that is, that those twelve
men had only received "John's baptism," which was
not intended to be the Christian baptism, but was
"the baptism of repentance," with reference to the
remission of their sins, which they were instructed to
look for from the Messiah who was shortly to come,
"as a refiner's fire and as fuller's soap, to purge them
from sin as gold is purged from its dross, by baptizing
them with the Holy Ghost and with fire." And now
that he had come and set up his kingdom, it was
necessary that they should receive baptism in his
name, and thus take the oath of allegiance to heaven's
King.
Now, which of the three reasons for this rebaptism,
above given, will the reader accept ? Will he accept
the one given by " Luke, the beloved physician," or
those given by these Baptist Doctors of Divinity P
But we advance one step farther in this argument,
and affirm that the apostles never admitted any whom
John baptized to membership in the Church, under
the new dispensation, without rebaptizing them.
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
17
It will not be denied by any believer in the inspira¬
tion of the Scriptures, that John baptized vast multi¬
tudes of the Jewish nation.
Matthew says: " Then went out to him Jerusalem,
and all Judea, and all the region round about the
Jordan, and were baptized of him."
Mark says : " There went out to him all the land
of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all bap¬
tized of him."
Luke says: "John baptized all the people."
Now, if, as our opponents assert, John preached
and baptized under the Christian dispensation, and
administered the Christian baptism "to all the peo¬
ple" in "Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region
round about the Jordan," then, of course, he received
them all into the Christian Church when he baptized
them. And if this be so, then Christ and his apostles
would have recognized them, both as Christians and
as members of the Church, under the new dispensa¬
tion. But did they do this ? Nothing is more certain
than that they did not. For, on the day of Pente¬
cost, when the Jewish nation was assembled, from
" Dan to Beersheba," we are informed in Acts i. 15,
that " the number of the disciples together were about
a hundred and twenty," and these were the immediate
disciples of our Lord Jesus Christ. This was the
little band upon which the Holy Ghost was poured
out on that memorable occasion, and to which "three
thousand" others were added by repentance and bap¬
tism.
Now, where were the hundreds of thousands whom
18
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
John had baptized? The answer is, the most of them
were at this very time in Jerusalem, attending the
feast of Pentecost. Why, then, were they not num¬
bered with the disciples of Christ, and recognized as
members of his Church ? The only answer that can
reasonably be given is, that they had never received
the Christian baptism. Those who hold that John
administered Christian baptism to the Jews, can never
explain this difficulty. But, with our view of the
design of John's baptism, the solution is easy and sat¬
isfactory. John did not administer to them Christian
baptism, and take them into the Christian Church ;
therefore they were not recognized as Christians and
members of the Church by Christ and the apostles.
Hence Peter said to them, on the day of Pentecost,
" Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the
name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye
shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Then they
that gladly received his word were baptized, and the
same day were added unto them (the one hundred
and twenty) about three thousand souls." Acts ii.
41.
Now all the facts go to show that the persons ex¬
horted by Peter to repent and be baptized had, the
most of them, been previously baptized by John with
the baptism of repentance, for Matthew, Mark, and
Luke all plainly tell us so.
And yet, " they that gladly received his word were
baptized," which proves beyond all question that
John's baptism was not identical in its design with
the Christian baptism, which was instituted for a dif-
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
19
ferent purpose ; and having served that purpose, was
discontinued.
Our fifth argument, by which we prove that John
did not preach and baptize under the Christian dis¬
pensation, is drawn from Col. ii. 14, and Eph. ii. 15,
and from the acts and sayings of our Lord and his
apostles.
The apostle settles the question, in his Colossian
Epistle, as to the time when the Jewish dispensation
ended, and the Christian dispensation began. The
Jewish dispensation did not end till the crucifixion of
Christ. Then, the apostle says that " He, blotting
out the handwriting of ordinances that was against
us, which was contrary to us, took it out of the way,
nailing it to his cross."
In the Ephesian Epistle he says: "Christ abolished
in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments
contained in ordinances, that he might reconcile both
Jews and Gentiles unto God by the cross, having slain
the enmity thereby."
It will not he denied that Christ and his disciples
recognized the binding force of the Mosaic ritual, and
strictly observed all the ceremonial rites and usages
enjoined by the law, up to the very time of his cruci¬
fixion.
And he had frequently declared that " not one jot or
tittle of the law should pass away till all be fulfilled."
"I came not to destroy the law and the prophets,"
said he, " but to fulfill." And one of the last acts of
his life was to eat the Jewish passover with his disci¬
ples, the very night of his betrayal. Therefore it is
20
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
an established fact that the Jewish ritual—" the law
of commandments contained in ordinances"—was in
full force until Christ "took it out of the way by nail¬
ing it to his cross." How, then, can it be asserted
that the Christian dispensation began with John's
ministry and baptism, when it is certain that the
Jewish dispensation did not end till Christ abolished
it on the cross ? No one will pretend that the two
dispensations could exist at the same time, the laws
of both heing in force, and equally binding. The
conception of such a thing involves a most glaring
absurdity. Therefore our opponents are mistaken in
supposing that the Christian dispensation began with
John's baptism.
The sixth and last argument which we make to
prove that John did not administer Christian bap¬
tism, rests upon the fact that it is everywhere called
"John's baptism," and "the baptism of repentance for
the remission of sins."
1. Now why call it "John's baptism," if it was
Christian baptism? If John administered Christian
baptism, so did the apostles. Why not, then, call it
Paul's baptism, or Peter's baptism, as well as "John's
baptism," if they all administered the very same bap¬
tism ? If John administered Christian baptism, then
it was no more his baptism than it was Paul's, leter's,
or any other apostle's, as they all administered the
same baptism. But Christian baptism is Christ's bap¬
tism, from whom it derives its name. Therefore to
call it "John's baptism" would be absurd; and hence
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
21
it would be equally absurd to call John's baptism
Christian baptism.
2. But John's baptism was "the baptism of repent¬
ance for" (eis—in order to, or with reference to) "the
remission of sins" Is Christian baptism "the bap¬
tism of repentance for, or in order to, the remission
of sins ?" Do our Baptist brethren so regard it P Do
they baptize with the baptism of repentance for the
remission of sins ?
It is very evident that John did not baptize the
Jews because their sins were forgiven them, but be¬
cause they were not forgiven. Do our Baptist breth¬
ren baptize their applicants for membership because
they are not forgiven, but in order that they may be
forgiven? Would this be what they call "believer's
baptism ?" The Baptists do not baptize with " the
baptism of repentance for the remission of sins"—
themselves being the judges. But John did. There¬
fore John baptized for one purpose, and they for
another and very different purpose. He baptized in
order to the remission of sins, while they baptize only
such as they believe have already been forgiven. The
conclusion, therefore, to which we are unavoidably
driven is, that if John administered Christian bap¬
tism, then our Baptist brethren do not; but if they
administer Christian baptism, then John did not.
But Dr. Mell says he has "shown that John's was
Christian baptism." If this be so, then he has proven
beyond all doubt that the baptism which he and his
brethren administer is not Christian baptism; because
22
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
we have seen that John baptized for one purpose, and
they for another and different purpose.
But our Baptist brethren insist that John must
have preached and baptized under the Christian dis¬
pensation, because Mark prefaces or introduces his
gospel with these words: "The beginning of the
gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is writ¬
ten in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger
before my face, which shall prepare thy way before
thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness,
Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths
straight." The evangelist, by the expression, " the
beginning of the gospel," or good news, certainly
means nothing more than the necessary preparation
for the introduction and setting up of the coming
kingdom, as the quotation which he immediately
makes from the prophet shows: "Prepare ye the
way of the Lord" etc. John did not say, "The king¬
dom of heaven is come;" but eggizo—it is "coming "
"approachingrepent and get ready for it. Surely
Mark does not contradict John, who only came to
"prepare the way of the Lord," but did not live to see
the kingdom of heaven set up—which did not take
place till after the death of the Saviour, for it was
founded upon his death and resurrection.
Our opponents also quote the words of Christ, as
recorded by Matthew, to prove that the Christian dis¬
pensation began with the ministry of John. "From
the days of John the Baptizer until now, the kingdom
of heaven sulfereth violence, and the violent take it
by force." The meaning of this passage seems to be
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
23
this: The kingdom of heaven is assaulted with vio¬
lence in the persons of its agents, and the violent op-
posers of this kingdom take and abuse them by force.
John, at the very time these words were spoken, was
in prison, and soon thereafter was beheaded. The
Saviour and his apostles were also constantly exposed
to the "violence" of the Scribes and Pharisees, who
were inveterate enemies to all who were engaged in
preparing the way for the coming kingdom of heaven.
Again: it is said, " The law and the prophets
prophesied until John." Then John prophesied, say¬
ing, " The kingdom of heaven is at hand " Prepare
ye the way of the Lord, make bis paths straight."
These passages of Scripture do not teach that the
Christian dispensation began with the ministry of
John, but that he came to prepare the way of the
Lord, and that, in so doing, he suffered violence at
the hands of the enemies of the kingdom of heaven.
Now, if the preceding arguments, founded upon
incontrovertible facts, do not prove that John did not
live, preach, and baptize under the Christian dispen¬
sation of the gospel, then the New Testament is a
sealed book, an enigma, not to be interpreted accor¬
ding to the ordinary laws governing human language.
Let him that readeth understand.
CHAPTER II.
the mode of john's baptism.
We dow proceed to show that John administered
his baptism to the Jewish nation by sprinkling.
Waiving, for the present, all other arguments that
might be made against the supposition that John
immersed the people baptized by him, we will confine
ourself to two points: First as to the length of time
John's ministry lasted; and secondly, as to the num¬
bers he baptized.
We expect to show from the facts deduced from
these two points that it would have been a physical
impossibility for him to have immersed the vast mul¬
titudes which the evangelists say were baptized by
him.
First. How long, then, did John's ministry last ?
We answer: there is no evidence that it continued
longer than about eight months; while we have Scrip¬
ture evidence to prove that he baptized the great body
of the Jewish nation during the first six months of his
ministry.
It is admitted that John was just thirty years of
age when he began his ministry. Dr. Howard Mal-
com, in his Bible Dictionary, published in 1850,
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
25
says: "John remained obscure till the age of thirty
when he began to preach, and baptized thousands
who confessed their sins."
Dr. Adam Clarke, in his Commentary on Matt,
iii. 11, says: " Jesus Christ began his ministry when
he was thirty years of age, (Luke iii. 23,) which was
the age appointed by the law (Num. iv. 3,) John the
Baptist was born about six months before Christ, and
as he began his public ministry when thirty years of
age, then* this coming after refers to six months after
the commencement of John's public preaching, at
which time Christ entered upon his.
Mr. Alexander Campbell says: "Christ's harbinger
anticipated him by a few months."—Camp, on Bap.,
p. 209. Luke says, (iii. 21-23,) "Now when all the
people toere baptized, it came to pass that Jesus also
being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,
and the Holy Ghost decended upon him," etc., " and
Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age."
From this testimony we derive the following facts:
First, that John was just six months older than
Christ; secondly, that he began his public ministry
at thirty years of age ; thirdly, that Jesus was just
thirty years old when he come to Jordan, to John, to
be baptized by him ; and fourthly, that John bap¬
tized Jesus after he is said to have " baptized all the
people." Therefore, John baptized "all the people"
in six months; that is, "Jerusalem, and all Judea,
and all the regions round about the Jordan."
Matthew says: " Then went out to him Jerusalem,
2
26
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
and all Judea, and all the region round about the Jor¬
dan, and were baptized of him."
Mark says: " There went out to him all the land of
Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized
of him."
Luke says: "Now when all the people were bap¬
tized, it came to pass that Jesus also being baptized,"
etc.
Now, according to the testimony of these inspired
witnesses, John baptized "all the people" from Gali¬
lee on the north, to the Dead Sea in the south, of the
land of Canaan, on both sides of the Jordan, which
we gather from the expression "all the region round
about the Jordan."
But how many did he baptize? How many are
meant by the word "all" in the phrase "all the
people ?" Webster says "all" means "every one, or
the whole number of particulars; the whole, the entire
thing, the aggregate amount." We admit that " all"
is sometimes used in a more general sense to express
the larger portion or bulk of any thing, and is not,
when so used, intended to include every individual.
But it does, and must of necessity, mean the greater
pari of any thing, more than half.
The late Dr. Howell, of Nashville, says: "There
were probably more than a million of inhabitants in
the city of Jerusalem."—Howell on Bap.,-p. 167.
Now, if this was so—and we have no reason to doubt
it—then how many millions more must there have
been in "all Judea, and in all the region round about
the Jordan ?"
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
27
Jerusalem was an inland city, supported almost
entirely by the surrounding country, and hence it is
not to be supposed that more than one-fifth or one-
sixth of the Jewish population lived in the city;
therefore, there could not have been less than six or
seven millions of inhabitants in the city and in the
region round about the Jordan from the north of
Galilee to the Dead Sea. Josephus, in his " Wars of
the Jews," Book II., chap, xiv., says: "And truly,
while Cestus Gallus was president of the province of
Syria, nobody durst do so much as send an embassage
to him against Florus ; but when he was come to
Jerusalem, upon the approach of the feast of unleven-
ed bread, the people came about him not fewer in
number than th&ee millions: these besought him to
commiserate the calamities of their nation, and cried
out upon Florus as the bane of their country."
" Here were ' three millions' of persons, citizens of
Judea. These were males, of course. If we sup-
suppose that there were as many females, it will make
six millions of people. "
John was commissioned to preach and baptize all
this people ; and the evangelists say he did both ; for
" they all went out to him, and were all baptized by
him."
Now, every attentive reader of the New Testament
knows that John was cast into prison very soon after
our Lord entered upon his ministry. We will there¬
fore concede that John's public ministry lasted about
eight months—six before he baptized Christ, and two
after that event. As our opponents assert that John
28
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
immersed all that he baptized, we proceed to show, in
the light of the above facts, that they are mistaken.
In eight months there are two hundred and forty
days ; and allowing twelve hours to the day, we have
two thousand eight hundred and eighty hours, and
one hundred and seventy-two thousand eight hundred
minutes, which was the time at his command for
preaching, baptizing, etc. Now, though we have
seen that there were at least six millions of adult in¬
habitants composing the Jewish nation, we will take
but one million of them as the basis of the following
calculation, and see whether John could have immers¬
ed that number in the time at his command. In
round numbers this would give him four thousand one
hundred and sixty-six for each day, three hundred and
forty-seven for every hour, and six for every minute
of the whole time allowed him.
Now, can any sane person believe that John could
have immersed even one-fourth of this number, which
would have been one and a half for every minute of
the twelve hours of each of the two hundred and for¬
ty days comprising the eight months of his ministry ?
And yet this number would have embraced but about
one twenty-fourth of the Jewish population; while
John is said to have baptized them all.
But at least half this time must be deducted, and
appropriated to other purposes than that of baptizing
such as preaching, hearing "confessions," (Mark i.
5,) traveling from place to place, gathering and eating
the "locusts and wild honey" which constituted his
daily food. This would double the impossibility of
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
29
his being able to immerse one-fourth of a million in
eight months. If we accept the statement of the
evangelists as to the numbers John baptized, we can
no more believe that he immersed them than that he
could have made a world. We are therefore irresisti¬
bly forced to the conclusion that John neither immer¬
sed "all Jerusalem, and Judea, and all the region
round about," in the Jordan, or anywhere else ; while
we must accept the statement of the evangelists that
in some other way he did " baptize them all;" and
"all" cannot mean less than half of the Jewish pop¬
ulation : hence, he did baptize, in some way, several
millions of the Jews. How, then, did John baptize
the vast multitudes that waited upon his ministry?
In answering this question we call attention to the
following facts:
First. That John was a Jewish priest, the only son
and successor in this office of his father, Zacharias.
Second. That he administered baptism to the Jews
only.
Third. That the law prescribed the mode in which
it was his duty to administer Jewish baptisms.
Fourth. That only in this mode could he have pos¬
sibly baptized the Jewish nation in so short a time.
This was done by sprinkling the people with water
perhaps by means of a bunch of hyssop.
Moses, in Deut. v. 2, 3, said to the Israelites, "The
Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb,"
etc.; and St. Paul tells us, in Heb. ix. 18-20, how
the people were all taken into covenant—"When
Moses had spoken every precept to all the people ac-
30
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
cording to the haw, he took the blood of calves and of
goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and
sprinkled both the book and all the people, saying,
This is the blood of the covenant which God hath en¬
joined unto you. Moreover, he sprinkled likewise the
tabernacle, and all the vessels of ministry."
Moses administered this baptism of blood and wa¬
ter to the Israelitish nation, at the dedication of the
tabernacle in the wilderness, when he took them into
the covenant which God made with them upon Sinai.
"We learn from Num. i. 46, that there were present on
that occasion six hundred and three thousand five
hundred and fifty men, " from twenty years old and
upward, able to go forth to war," besides the Levites,
who were set apart to the ministry. Then there were
all the women, and the children under twenty years of
age ; the whole amounting to about three millions of
persons, all told, who came out of Egypt. All these
entered into covenant with the Lord their God at
that time of baptism. "And Moses sprinkled both
the book and all the people." And so far as we are
informed, he did all this the same day. "Ye stand
this day all of you before the Lord your God ; your
captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers,
with all the men of Israel, your little ones, your
wives, and thy stranger that is in thy camp : that
thou shouldest enter into a covenant with the Lord
thy God." Deut. xxix. 9-15.
Now, only admit that John acted under the Mosaic
law, and followed the Jewish ritual, which we have
seen was in full force till "Christ took it out of the
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
31
way, nailing it to his cross," and that in accordance
with this law and ritual he sprinkled the repenting
Jews with water by means of a bunch of hyssop, as
Moses did in the wilderness when he took their fath¬
ers into covenant with the Lord their God, and all
difficulty as to his baptizing the great body of the
Jewish nation in a few months vanishes at once. In
this way alone could he have baptized the Jewish na¬
tion in so short a time; and hence in this way it was
certainly done.
In full view of the foregoing facts. Dr. Mell has
the courage to say, "It is not evident that John bap¬
tized very many. The fact is, we have no evidence
that John and Christ's disciples altogether baptized
as many as one thousand persons." And again, he
says, "It is wonderful that one simple remark made
by the Evangelist John should not have relieved our
opponents from their extravagant vagaries—'The dis¬
ciples of Jesus made and baptized more disciples
than John.' John iv. 1."—Mell on Bap., pp. 78, 79.
Header, this pretended quotation from John is not
Scripture. The evangelist does not say, "The deci-
ples of Jesus made and baptized more disciples than
John." The text is as follows: "When the Lord
knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made
and baptized more disciples than John, (though Jesus*
himself baptized not, but his disciples,) he left Ju-
dea, and departed again into Galilee." John here re¬
cords a rumor which was in circulation concerning the
works of Christ: "The Pharisees had heard that
Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John;"
32
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
which the evangelist tells us was not true. It was a
false report; for "Jesus himself baptized not, but
his disciples/' The Pharisees had not heard that the
disciples of Jesus baptized at all, but that "Jesus
made and baptized more disciples tham John," which
was so far from being true, that he had not baptized
a single one. John does not say how many Christ's
disciples baptized. Now, let us look at Dr. Mell's
statements in the light of the New Testament. Mark
says, "There went out to John all Judea, and they of
Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him." Dr. Mell
says, "It is not evident that John baptized very
many. The fact is, we have no evidence that John
and Christ's disciples altogether baptized as many as
one thousand persons."—Pp. 78, 79. Now, if the
disciples of Jesus made and baptized more disciples
than John—as the Doctor would have us believe—
and we have no evidence that John and Christ's disci¬
ples altogether baptized as many as one thousand per¬
sons—then it follows that John baptized less than
five hundred! And when the evangelists tell us that
John baptized "all Judea and Jerusalem, and all the
region round about the Jordan," containing six or
seven millions of inhabitants, we are not to suppose
them to mean that he baptized as many as jive hun¬
dred! Dr. Mell found it much easier to make a text
to prove this point, and thus raise a cloud of theolog¬
ical dust to blind the eyes of his reader to the truth,
than to set aside the Scripture evidence that John
baptized the great body of the Jewish nation in a few
months, and hence that he must have done it by
sprinkling, and not by immersion.
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
33
Before we dismiss this branch of the subject, we
proceed to notice some objections urged by our oppo¬
nents against the view we have taken of the mode of
John's baptism, and in favor of immersion, from the
places where he is said to have administered the ordi¬
nance.
Dr. Mell says, "John baptized not in a house, or a
spring, or rill, but at the river Jordan. Why, if it
was not for the same reason that he selected on another
occasion Enon near Salem, 1 because there was much
water there ?' Do we ever hear in these days of our
brethren who oppose us going to a river or a place
where there is much water, in order that they may
pour or sprinkle a little of the element upon their sub¬
jects?"—Mell on Bap., p. 47. Perhaps not. But
what does this prove? Does it prove that John un¬
doubtedly immersed the Jewish nation, simply be¬
cause he saw proper to preach and baptize in the neigh¬
borhood of "much water? " Was there no sufficient
reason for this, apart from immersion ? We proceed
to show that there was.
But we first invite attention to the fact that John
did his first preaching and baptizing east of the
Jordan, "And Jesus went away beyond Jordan into
the place where John at first baptized ; and there he
abode." John x. 40. Certainly the Saviour did not
take up his "abode" in the water; and yet "he went
into the place ivhere John at first baptized, and there
he abode." John also preached and baptized in "the
wilderness of Judea." "John did baptize in the wil¬
derness t and preach the baptism of repentance for the
34
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
remission of sins." Mark i. 4. These places were
neither Jordan nor Enon. There is nothing said
about "much water." Now, it seems that John at
least found sufficient water in these places to baptize
his first subjects ; and if so, was there not sufficient
to have baptized the rest ? Who will take it upon
himself to say there was not ? If there was, then
John must have had other reasons, aside from baptiz¬
ing, for going to Enon and to Jordan. If he could
baptize beyond Jordan, and in the wilderness, without
much water, then it was not necessary, so far as the
mere matter of baptizing was concerned, that he
should go to Enon or to Jordan. Why, then, did he
leave his first baptizing-stations, and go to Jordan,
etc.? It must have been in order to accommodate
the vast multitudes, who began to flock to his
ministry from "Jerusalem, and all Judea, and from
all the region round about the Jordan," with water
for other purposes than that of baptizing. Wher¬
ever John preached, there he baptized. He was a
"field-preacher." He held "camp-meetings " in "the
wilderness," and at "Jordan," and in "Enon;" and
he baptized at these various places because he was
preaching there. Whatever may have been the mode
of John's baptism, "much water" was indispensable
to the comfort of the multiplied thousands, who
soon began to flock to his ministry, that they might
attend to his instructions withoutdistraction. Hence
he went to the Jordan.
Following Dr. Mell's example in the above quota¬
tions, we ask our opponents the following questions :
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
35
Why did John open and continue his ministry in the
wilderness, and along the Jordan? Why did he not go
up to Jerusalem, and preach to that great city as Jo¬
nah did to the Ninevites, and save them the immense
trouble of going away down to Jordan ? Was it he-
cause there was not sufficient water in Jerusalem to
baptize its inhabitants? This our opponents will not
admit; for they have discovered water enough in Jeru¬
salem, in ''fountains" and "pools," for the apostles on
the day of Pentecost in a few hours to immerse, as
they believe, " three thousand souls."
The intelligent reader must see that there were
other reasons than that of much water with which
to baptize, which confined John's ministry to the wil¬
derness of Judea and the Jordan. The evangelists
tell us he did it to fulfill prophecy. "The voice of
one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of
the Lord; as it is written in the prophets, Behold,
I send my messenger before thy face, who shall pre¬
pare thy way before thee." Hence "John did bap¬
tize in the wilderness," instead of the city, "and
preach the baptism of repentance for the remission
of sins." Therefore his baptizing at Jordan and Enon
no more proves that he immersed the people than
the choosing of a Methodist camp-ground near "much
water" would prove that they had done so with
reference to immersing their converts, and not for
other necessary purposes. Surely the " much-water"
argument is worthless, being as weak as the element
of which it is composed.
CHAPTER III.
Christ's baptism, in its design and mode.
We now proceed to consider the personal bap¬
tism of our Lord Jesus Christ by John at the Jordan,
both as to its design and the mode in which it was
performed. This subject has been regarded, in every
age of the Church, as one of no ordinary importance.
We think that many good people hold very errone¬
ous views as to the real design and mode of Christ's
baptism; therefore, we design showing, in this chap¬
ter, in what these errors consist; and then remove
them, if possible, by showing what the Bible clearly
teaches on this subject.
1. Our first position is, that whatever may have
been the design or mode of our Lord's personal bap¬
tism, it is certain he did not receive the baptism
which John administered to the Jews. This, as we
have already seen, was u the baptism of repentance
for the remission of sins." Nothing could be more
absurd, not to say blasphemous, than to suppose
that he who " was holy, harmless, undefiled, and sep-
erate from sinners," did, or even could, receive "the
baptism of repentance for the remission of sins."
We affirm that the Saviour was in no sense a proper
subject for any such a baptism, because he could not
repent, and had no sins to be forgiven.
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
37
John's baptism was applicable alone to sinners, and
no one received it who did not pledge himself to re¬
pent, and look to the coming Messiah "for the remis¬
sion of his sins."
There is, therefore, no view that can be taken of
this baptism, in which it could, in any sense, he appli¬
cable to our Lord Jesus Christ. And to assert, as
immersionists do, that John's was the Christian bap¬
tism, and that he administered this baptism to the
Saviour is, in our view, to be guilty of a most stupen¬
dous absurdity, not to say of downright blasphemy;
because the assertion implies that our Lord Jesus
Christ was a sinner, and needed to repent and have
his sins forgiven; and that he pledged himself to re¬
pent, when he was baptized, and look to the Messiah
for the remission of his sins, as John had required the
Jews to do.
This, as we have clearly shown, was the design of
John's baptism. Who, then, can doubt that John
baptized the Jews for one purpose, and our Lord for
another and a very different purpose ? Hence, he did
not administer to him the same baptism he did to the
Jewish nation. Design, not mode, constitutes the
difference between one baptism and another. The
difference between the Christian and all other preced¬
ing baptisms consists principally in the design with
which it is administered. John's baptism was design¬
ed to " prepare the way of the Lord." This is not
the design of the Christian baptism; therefore, Jesus
did not receive "John's baptism."
2. We affirm, in the second place, that John did
38
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
not administer to the Saviour the Christian baptism.
But it may be asked, What does it take to consti¬
tute Christian baptism ? We answer :
First. It is admitted by all parties that for any
baptism to he valid Christian baptism, it must be per¬
formed in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost. Did John baptize the Lord
Jesus Christ in the name of the Father, and in the
name of himself, and in the name of the Holy
Ghost ? No one believes that this was done. Then
he did not administer to him the Christian baptism.
Second. Christian baptism imposes upon all its
subjects obligations which, it seems to us, Christ
could not assume. To be baptized in the name of
another imposes the obligation to obey, in all things,
the party in whose name the ordinance is adminis¬
tered. So Paul teaches, 1 Cor. i. 12-15. Therefore,
if the Saviour received Christian baptism, he was
hound thereby to obey the Father, and himself, and
the Holy Ghost, in all things, which it would be ab¬
surd to suppose. Hence, he did not receive Chris¬
tian baptism at the hands of John.
3. But we affirm, in the third place, that the Sa¬
viour did not receive Christian baptism, because it is
admitted on all hands to be the initiatory ordinance
into the Christian Church. No one can legally come
into this Church except by being baptized into it.
When any one receives Christian baptism, he is taken
from outside of the Church and placed inside of it:
and no Church pretends to hold, except the Quakers,
that there is any other legitimate way of entering
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
39
into the visible Church of Christ than that of being
baptized into it. It is agreed, then, that none but
baptized persons belong to the Church of Christ on
earth.
Now, was the Lord Jesus Christ out of the Church
until he was baptized into it by John ? How came
it to be the Church of Christ, if he himself was not
in it ? Our Baptist brethren tell us that the Chris¬
tian Church began with the ministry and baptism of
John ; and that we have seen that John baptized " all
the people" in Jerusalem, and all Judea, and in all
the region round about the Jordan, before he baptized
our Lord; therefore, the Christian Church was in ex¬
istence six months before the Saviour had anv visible
and legal connection with it; and, therefore, if our op¬
ponents be right, almost the whole Jewish nation join¬
ed the Church before Christ did. For if John was a
gospel minister under the new dispensation, and ad¬
ministered Christian baptism to the Jews, he took
them into the Christian Church before he baptized
Christ into the same Church. "Now when all the
people were baptized, Jesus was also baptized." Luke
iii. 21-23. Hence, all the Jewish people were re¬
ceived by John into the Christian Church by baptism,
before the Saviour was baptized into his own church!
This is certainly a legitimate deduction from Baptist
premises, and proves conclusively the ^absurdity of
their position on this subject.
But this is not all: St. Paul tells us that "Christ is
head over all things to the Church, which is his body."
Did the Church exist for six months as the body of
40
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
Christ, without its head ? It certainly did, if Jesus
was out of it till John baptized him. into it; and
this must have been the case if he received Christian
baptism. Just think of Christ, the head, being bap¬
tized into his own body ! Will Baptists ever allow
themselves to think ?
These are some of the absurdities into which our
opponents are unavoidably driven by the false views
they entertain concerning the nature and design of
John's baptism, and that of our Lord Jesus Christ.
4. In the fourth place, we deny that Christ was
baptized as an example for any one to follow. A
more unfounded assumption is seldom met with any¬
where. There is not even a shadow of foundation for
it in all the word of God. Where are we taught, ex¬
cept in Baptist books and Baptist pulpits, that our
Lord Jesus Christ, in his baptism, left us an example
to be followed ? Is it in Luke iii. 21, where it is said,
"Now when all the people were baptized, it came to
pass that Jesus was also baptized ?" etc. In his bap¬
tism, did he set an example to Jerusalem, and all
Judea, and the region round about Jordan, who were
baptised before he was ? Or is it in 1 Peter ii. 21-
23, where it is said, "Christ also suffered for us, leaving
us an example that we should follow his steps?" etc.
Was his baptism by John any part of his suffering
for us ? Peter goes on with Christ's example: "Who
did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth :
when he was reviled, he reviled not again ; when he
suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself
to him that judgeth righteously." We commend
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
41
this to all Christians as eminently worthy of being
followed; but to talk of following Christ in his bap¬
tism, is simply absurd, as we have shown that he did
not receive Christian baptism, and, consequently, in
this respect could not leave us an example to follow
his steps.
5. In the fifth and last place, we proceed to show
for what purpose our Lord was baptized by John.
When the Saviour came to John to be baptized by
him, he told him plainly the reason why it should be
done. "Suffer it to be so now," said he, "for thus it
becometh us to fulfill all righteousness." It was,
then, "to fulfill all righteousness " that he was bap¬
tized. It was not " for remission of sins," nor was
it for the purpose of inducting him into the Chris¬
tian Church, but "to fulfill all righteousness." John
knew that he could not consistently administer to the
Lord the baptism of repentance, and hence refused, at
first, to baptize him. "But John forbade him, saying,
I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou
to me?" Then Jesus explained the design of his
baptism, which John at once perceived to be very
different from the baptism which he had been admin¬
istering to the Jews, "and then he suffered him" to
be baptized. The design, therefore, of our Lord's
baptism was " to fulfill all righteousness." But all of
what "righteousness" is meant ? The Greek word
here rendered "righteousness," is dikaiosunen, and
means, among other things, law, precept, statute, ordi¬
nance, institution. Righteousness invariably has ref¬
erence to law, that which is required by statute. There
42
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
was, therefore, some existing law, statute, or institu¬
tion, which required our Lord should be baptized in
some way, and for some special purpose. "For thus,''
i. e., in this way, "it becometh us"—you and me,
John—"now," at this time, "to fulfill all righteous¬
ness." The Greek word here rendered " to fulfill," is
plerosai, and means to perfect, complete, finish, to end,
to bring to a close. The thing, therefore, that was
done on that occasion \yas not to be repeated by any
individual; it was finished, ended, and brought to a
close. But what did he thus "finish and bring to a
close?" The answer is, "righteousness." He then
and there fully met the claims of some existing law,
or statute, which he fulfilled in his baptism.
Now, there was no gospel law which required him
to be baptized, because the new dispensation had not
yet been introduced. But even if it had been, we
have seen that Christ was in no sense a proper subject
of either the baptism of repentance or the Christian
baptism. In their application to him, they both
alike would have been without meaning. We are
therefore compelled to seek for some law then in force
which required the Lord Jesus to do the very thing
which he came to the Jordan to perform.
Was there in existence and in force such a law?
There was. St. Paul calls it " The law of command¬
ments contained in ordinances" (Eph. ii. 15.) The
whole Mosaic ritual was still in full force, and
"Christ came not to destroy the law, [moral or rit¬
ual,) but to fulfill."
Now, one "precept" of this law required that
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
43
every prophet, priest, and king should be duly con¬
secrated before entering upon the duties of his office :
prophets and kings by being anointed with oil, and
priests by being both washed with water and anointed
with oil. *
When Samuel, anointed King Saul, "he took a vial
of oil and poured it upon his head, and said, Is it not
because the Lord hath anointed thee to be captain
over his inheritance?" He also anointed David in
like manner. " Then Samuel took the horn of oil,
and anointed him, in the midst of his brethren, and
the Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that
day forward."
The Lord said to kings, "Touch not mine anointed,
and do my prophets no harm." Christ said of him¬
self, " The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he
hath anointed me, to preach the gospel to the poor,"
etc.
"And the Lord said unto Moses, Thou shalt anoint
Aaron and his sons, and consecrate them, that they
may minister unto me in the priest's office."
These quotations are sufficient to show that the law
required all prophets, priests, and kings to be conse¬
crated before entering upon the duties of their respec¬
tive offices. In Exodus xxix., xxx., and xl., we have
the law for consecrating priests : "And thou shalt
bring Aaron and his sons unto the door of the taber¬
nacle of the congregation, and ivash them with water;
and thou shalt anoint them, and sanctify them, that
they may minister unto me in the priest's office.
Then shalt thou take the holy anointing oil, and pour
it upon his head, and anoint him."
44
BAPTISMAL LEMONSTR ATIONS.
Now, it will not be denied that Jesus embodied in
himself the threefold office of prophet, priest, and
king; and the law required that before he entered
upon the duties of these offices he should be washed
with water, anointed, and consecrated. Therefore,
when he came from Galilee to the Jordan, it was that
he might be "washed with water" by John, and
anointed ivith the Holy Ghost, which the holy anoint¬
ing oil signified, and thus be consecrated the prophet,
priest, and king of the Church of God. " He is head
over all things to the Church ; " prophet to teach,
priest to atone, and king to reign over Zion.
1. Christ was a prophet. "A prophet shall the
Lord your God raise up from among your brethren,
like unto me ; him shall ye hear in all things," etc.
2. He was a king. " Yet have I set my king upon
my holy hill of Zion; I will declare the decree: the
Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son ; this day
have I begotten thee."
3. He was a priest. " The Lord hath sworn and
will not repent, Thou art a priest forever." Now,
St. Paul says: " Every high-priest taken from
among men is ordained for men in things pertaining
to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices
for sins." "And no man taketh this honor to him¬
self but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So
also Christ glorified not himself to be made a high-
priest, but" God called and glorified him when he
said, "Thou art a priest for ever." "For such a
high-priest became us, who is holy, harmless, unde-
filed, and seperate from sinners." "For the law
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
45
maketh men high-priests which have infirmity ; but
the word of the oath which was since the law,
maketh the Son a high-priest who is consecrated for
evermore." "Now of the things which we have spo¬
ken, this is the sum : We have such a high-priest,
who is a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true
tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
For every high-priest is ordained to offer gifts and
sacrifices; wherefore it is of necessity that this man
have somewhat also to offer," seeing he was ordained
for that very purpose. See Heb. v., vii., viii.
The above Scripture quotations clearly prove—
First. That Christ was " a high-priest."
Second. That he was "called of God" to this office,
as was Aaron.
Third. That he was "ordained" and "consecrated"
to the office of " high-priest for evermore, that he
might offer both gifts and sacrifice fors sin."
And finally, that he is " a minister of the true tab¬
ernacle," i. e., the Church which he purchased with
his own blood, "which the Lord pitched and not
man."
Now, we assert that without being "called," "or¬
dained," and "consecrated," Christ could not legally
"minister in the true tabernacle" as a high-priest;
hence, he was regularly "called," "ordained," and
" consecrated " to this office as the law required.
But when and hoio was this done P We answer ;
God called him. "He was called of God a high-
priest." John the Baptizer "washed him with water"
at the Jordan, and then the Father "anointed him
46
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
with the Holy Ghost and with power" Thus he was
consecrated, and set apart to the threefold office of
prophet, priest, and king, in the Church of God.
" The Lord hath anointed me to preach the gospel,"
said the Saviour. " For of a truth against thy holy
child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, they were
gathered together." Acts iv. 27. Peter says : " God
anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and
with power, who went about doing good, and healing
all that were oppressed by the devil." Acts x. 38-
We have said that Christ was consecrated at the
Jordan. As soon as John washed, and thus legally
purified, him, the Father " anointed him with the
Holy Ghost and with power." "And when he was
baptized, (washed,) the heavens were opened unto
him, and the Spirit of God descended like a dove, and
abode upon him ; and a voice came from heaven say¬
ing, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleas¬
ed." In fulfilling the law, it was essential that Je¬
sus should be washed with water by a priest before
entering upon his office as high-priest of "the true
tabernacle;" and this was done by John, the only
son and successor of Zacharias, the priest. It was
also essential that he should be anointed, but not
with the holy anointing oil, as he received instead
thereof that which the holy oil was intended to rep¬
resent, viz:, the unction from above. "God anointed
him with the Holy Ghost and with power."
It was not essential to his legal ordination and con¬
secration that he should be washed and anointed at
the door of the Jewish tabernacle, because he was not
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
47
to be a minister in the old, but in the new " tab¬
ernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.''
Hence, he was consecrated at the Jordan, and not at
the temple in Jerusalem. But that he nevertheless
fulfilled the law in every essential point, we farther
prove by the following arguments:
1. St. Paul tells us that " Christ was made under
the law, to redeem them that were under the law."
The Saviour says, " I came not to destroy the law, but
to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, not one jot nor
tittle shall pass till all be fulfilled." Accordingly
when he was eight days old he fulfilled that precept
of the law which required every male to be circum¬
cised. Also, at the age of twelve years, we find
him in Jerusalem attending the Jewish passover
with his parents, the law requiring every male at
that age to keep this feast. And during every sub¬
sequent year of his sojourn among men, he is found
at the appointed time attending the feasts, and other
usages which the law prescribed, thus strictly fulfill¬
ing every precept of "the law of commandments
contained in ordinances." And finally, one of the
last acts of his natural life was to celebrate the Jew¬
ish passover with his disciples, at the close of which
feast he took bread and wine and instituted his own
supper, which was henceforth to take the place of the
passover, now legally celebrated for the last time.
" For Christ our passover was then sacrificed for us."
It was then that he "took the law out of the way,
nailing it to his cross," after having fulfilled every
jot and tittle of it.
48
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
It seems, from several passages of Scripture, that
the washing used in consecrating priests was not
that of the whole body, but was confined to the
hands, feet, and head, or face.
"And the Lord said unto Moses, Thou shalt make
a laver of brass and put it between tho tabernacle
of the congregation and the altar, and thou shalt
put water therein." "And Moses set the laver be¬
tween the tent of the congregation and the altar,
and put water therein to toash withal. And Mo¬
ses, and Aaron and his sons, washed their hands
and their feet thereat, when they went into the tent
of the congregation, and when they came near the
altar, as the Lord commanded Moses." "And when
they come near unto the altar to minister to the Lord,
they shall wash their hands and feet, that they die
not." "And Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring
unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation,
and shalt wash them with water. Then shalt thou
take the anointing oil, and pour it upon his head,
and anoint him." "And thou shalt anoint them as
thou didst anoint their father, that they may min¬
ister to me in the priest's office."
Now, it would be a violent presumption to suppose
that Aaron and his sons were entirely stripped of
their clothing, and washed before the door of the tab¬
ernacle, in the presence of the whole congregation of
Israel assembled to witness their consecration to the
sacred office of the priesthood. We therefore reason¬
ably infer that the washing required, was confined to
the hands, feet, and head, or face.
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
49
Their hands were washed because they were to min¬
ister in holy things ; their feet were washed because
they were to tread the holy courts of the Lord;
and their heads were both washed and anointed to
show that they were required to serve the Lord
with a 'pure mind. It is likely Peter had reference
to this custom when he said to the Saviour, "Lord,
wash not my feet only, but my hands and my head'7
Now, when we are told by the evahgelists that Je¬
sus came from Galilee to Jordan to John to be bap¬
tized of him, we understand them to mean nothing
more than that he came to be ceremonially washed by
John, according to the law regulating the priesthood,
and " anointed with the Holy Ghost and with power,"
that he might enter upon the duties of his threefold
office of prophet, priest, and king over the Church of
God. We maintain, therefore, that his baptism, both
as to its design and mode, was in strict conformity
with the law. John washed his hands, feet, and head;
and God the Father u anointed him with the Holy
Ghost," and " consecrated him high priest in the true
tabernacle for evermore."
The age at which Christ was thus consecrated was
also in conformity with the requirements of the law
touching the priesthood. We find this law in Num.
iv., and it reads: "From thirty years old and upward,
even unto fifty years old, all that enter into the host,
to do the work in the tabernacle of the congregation."
And Luke informs us (iii. 23) that when Jesus came to
Jordan to be baptized, "he began to be about thirty
years of age." This ought to settle the question with
3
50
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
every intelligent reader as to the design and mode of
our Lord's baptism. The conclusion, therefore, at
•which we arrive is, that our Lord's personal baptism
was designed to induct him into office, and not into
the Church; and hence it could not be an example for
us to follow, as his baptism meant one thing, and ours
another.
We will close this subject by recapitulating the pre-
ceeding arguments. We claim to have proved :
1. That our Lord did not receive "John's baptism,"
which was " the baptism of repentance for the remis¬
sion of sins."
2. That he did not receive Christian baptism, be¬
cause there was nothing in his nature, relations, or
cicumstances, that could possibly constitute him a
suitable subject for Christian baptism.
3. That he was not baptized as an example for any
to follow in their baptism.
4. But that his baptism was the legal ceremonial
rite by which he was inducted into office.
Hence, the notion held by immersionists, that we
are required to follow the Saviour in his baptism, is a
foolish fancy of a distempered imagination, without
the shadow of foundation in the word of God upon
which to rest.
CHAPTER IV.
design and mode of christian baptism.
Haying dwelt at some length, in the preceding
chapters, on the design and mode of John's and of
Christ's baptism, we now enter directly upon the ques¬
tion of the design and mode of Christian baptism.
*In this investigation it is necessary that we should
first of all determine the meaning of the baptismal
terms, baptizo, baptisma, and baptismos, as these are
the words rendered baptized and baptism.
Now the question to be considered is, What do these
words mean in the New Testament? We first notice
what immersionists say of these words. Dr. Mell
says: "That immersion is essential to the ordinance of
baptism, is argued, 1. Because the Greek words used
in the New Testament to designate it mean immersion.
All the standard lexicographers give as the primary
meaning of the verb baptizo, to immerse or dip, and
of (the nouns) baptisma and baptismos, immersion"
Mell on Bap.} p. 8. Again, he says, page 16, "These
three words are the only words used to designate the
ordinance, and they express the act of immersion, and
nothing else" And again he says, p. 43, "If bapto
or baptizo does not mean to immerse, then there is no
word in the Greek language that can express that act.
If there is, what is it? " We answer, duno and dup-
52
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
to—duno, to enter, to go in, to penetrate, to be 'plunged;
dupto, to dip, dive, bathe. Is the Doctor enlightened?
We suppose, if the apostles had needed a word to ex¬
press the act of dipping, diving, bathing, plunging,
"and nothing else," dupto would have answered the
purpose very well, and might have decided the ques¬
tion of mode.
Dr. Carson says: " My position is, that baptizo al¬
ways signifies to dip—never expressing anything hut
mode."—Carson on Bap., p. 56.
Dr. Fuller says: "One of the latest and most prom¬
inent of our opponents drops altogether the act, and
assures us that baptizo means to purify. The feelings
which are in my bosom, as I behold these things, are
grief and humiliation."—Fuller on Bap., p. 51. Per¬
haps the " grief and humiliation " of the Doctor ought
not to be wondered at, when we consider that to "puri¬
fy" is the true New Testament meaning of baptizo,
and that this fact effectually ruins his immersion the¬
ory.
The above quotations give us the position of im-
mersionists universally, as to the meaning of the bap¬
tismal terms made use of in the New Testament.
To sustain themselves in this position, they first
appeal to the dictionaries. Dr. Mell says: "All the
standard lexicographers give, as the primary meaning
of the verb baptizo, to immerse, or dip ; and of the
nouns baptisma and baptismos, immersion." They
also appeal, for the same purpose, to all the ancient
Greek authors, from Homer down to Diodorus Siculus.
But the question naturally arises, Did the Greeks
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
53
living before the Christian era have any words in their
vocabulary which expressed the names and qualities
of things which at that time had no existence ? Did
the doctrines and ordinances of Christianity exist
among the Greeks in the days of Homer, Plato, Or¬
pheus, and Euripides, who are quoted by Christian
Doctors to show in what sense Christ and the apos¬
tles used Greek words when they taught the New
Testament Christianity ? Did the Saviour and his
apostles when they taught the Christian religion, al¬
ways use Greek words in their primary sense i. e.,
in the sense in which Homer and Plato used them ?
If so, what, then, is the difference - between Chris¬
tianity and heathenism ? It will hardly be denied
that Christ and his apostles taught new doctrines,
imposed new ordinances, and instituted new offices, of
which the old Greek authors never dreamed. Now,
then, did they have any words in their language,
which, in their days, meant these new things, and de¬
fine these new doctrines and ordinances? No one can
believe they had. Why, then consult these authors
upon subjects they could possibly know nothing
about?
Christianity, in many respects, being entirely a new
thing, there was a moral necessity that Christ and his
apostles, in teaching its doctrines and ordinances,
should use old Greek words in a new sense, in a sense
in which Homer and Plato never used them, because
they had no such ideas.
As ideas are generally conveyed in words, words are
said to be " the signs of ideas." The meaning of a
54
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTKATIONS.
word is the idea which it is intended to convey. Any
word may be said to have as many meanings as it con¬
veys ideas—no more, and no less. Every time a new
■idea is attached to a word, it takes on a new meaning.
Now we affirm that those Greek words, used by inspi¬
ration, in the New Testament, to teach the doctrines
and ordinances of the Christian religion, are not used
in their primary heathen sense, but in a new ecclesias¬
tical, and religious sense. And they certainly mean,
when thus used, what they never meant in the days
of Homer and Plato. Therefore, in coming to the
study of the New Testament, we should not be so much
concerned about the "primary" and classical meaning
of Greek words as about their ecclesiastical and reli¬
gious meaning. The opposite view destroys complete¬
ly all distinction between Christianity and heathen¬
ism, and therefore cannot be true.
But as the lexicons have been appealed to in this
dispute about " mode, and nothing but mode," we will
tarry for a brief space before proceeding to the Greek
Testament, and take down the depositions of a dozen
of them as to the meaning of the words haptizo, bap-
tisma and baptismos.
Gases, a native Greek lexicographer, defines baptizo
by brecho, pluno, loUo, antelo. Brecho means, to wet,
moisten, bedew; to steep, drench, rain, drop, soak,
suck, imbibe. Pluno means, to wash ; louo, to wash,
bathe ; antleo, to draw, pump, shed, spill.
Sudias renders it, to sink, plunge, immerse; to wet>
wash ; to cleanse ; to purify.
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
55
Schrevelius renders it by lavo, which means, to
wash, bathe ; to moisten, besprinkle, bedew.
Stephanus defines it, to dip, immerse ; to merge,
submerge; to cleanse, wash.
Scapula renders it, to dip, immerse; to dye; to
plunge, submerge : to cleanse, wash.
Schleuser defines it, to plunge, immerse ; to wash,
cleanse, purify.
Hedericus renders it, to dip, immerse ; to cleanse;
to wash
Wahl defines it, to wash ; to perform ablutions ; to
cleanse; secondly, to immerse.
Bretschneider defines it, to dip ; to wash; to cleanse.
Groves renders it, to dip, immerse, immerge : to
plunge; to wash, cleanse, purify; to baptize; to de¬
press ; to humble; to overwhelm.
Liddell and Scott define it, to dip, to sink; to bathe;
to drown; to draw water; in the New Testament, to
baptize.
Greenfield defines it, to immerse, submerge; to sink;
in the New Testament, to wash, perform ablution ; to
cleanse; to baptize; with the accessory idea of obli¬
gation imposed, to bind to the performance of some
duty.
From these twelve " standard Greek lexicons" we
get more than two dozen different meanings of bapti-
zo, but they do not inform us as to the mode in which
we are required to be baptized. And if the lexicons
are the best authority we have on this subject, we as¬
sert that there is not a living man that can certainly
say that he has ever been baptized in the right mode;
56
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
and before he can be certain of this fact, he must be
dipped, plunged, immersed, sunk, drowned, humbled,
depressed, overwhelmed; then soaked, sucked, im¬
bibed; then drawn, pumped, shed, spilled; then wet¬
ted, moistened, besprinkled, bedewed, dyed, stained,
colored; and finally, washed, cleansed, and purified.
For " the standard Greek lexicons " say the baptismal
terms mean all this, and more.
Now, then, what are we to do ? "Which of all these
is the right meaning—the New Testament meaning—
of baptizo1 Immersionists tell us that the "primary"
meaning is the right one, and that wherever baptizo
occurs in the New Testament, it means, " to immerse,
and nothing else," as this is its "primary" meaning—
the meaning that Homer and Plato, Orpheus and Eu¬
ripides, uniformly attached to it when they used it—
and besides, this is the first meaning given to baptizo
by " all the standard Greek lexicographers ;" there¬
fore this is the sense in which Christ and the apostles
used it.
But some of the lexicographers, as we have seen,
give what they call the New Testament meaning of
baptizo, viz., to wash; to perform ablution; to cleanse,
purify; to baptize; with the accessory idea of obliga¬
tion imposed, to impose obligation by baptism. Now
did Homer ever attach any such ideas to this word
when he used it ? No one will contend that he did.
But the Baptist Doctors think " the position some¬
what irreverent," which maintains that "baptizo, as
an ecclesiastical word, has a different meaning from
baptizo as a common Greek word."
baptismal demonstrations.
57
Is it true, then, that there is no difference between
the secular and religious meaning of Greek words ?
That there is an essential difference, has been believed
and taught for ages by the most learned and able
Biblical scholars belonging to the Christian Church.
Dr. George Campbell says '' that many of the idi¬
oms of the New Testament Greek would not have
been more intelligible to a classic Greek author than
Arabic or Persian. Classical use, both in Greek and
in Latin, is not only, in the study of the Scriptures,
sometimes unavailable, but may even mislead. The
sacred use and the classical are often very differ¬
ent."—Prelim. Bis. I., Vol. 1.
Also, Professor Edward Robinson, in the Biblical
Repository for April, 1841, says: " The language of
the New Testament is the later Greek, as spoken by
foreigners of the Hebrew stock, and applied by them
to subjects on which it had never been employed by
native greeks. They spoke in Greek on things of
the true God, a,nd the relations of mankind to Jehovah
and to a Saviour—subjects to which no native Greek
had ever applied his beautiful language; hence it
will be obvious that an appeal merely to classic Greek
and its philology will not suffice for the interpreter of
the New Testament. The Jewish Greek must be stud¬
ied almost as an independent dialect."
The above is good human authority for believing
that there is an essential difference in the meaning of
classic and Neiu Testament Greek.
The Baptist view of this subject certainly destroys
all distinction between Christianity and heathenism,
58
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
by maintaining that there is no difference between the
classical and religious meaning of Greek words.
But we claim that there is an essential difference,
and, in proof of this position, will give some exam¬
ples from the New Testament.
Pneuma "primarily" meant wind, air, breath; but
in the New Testament it means, spirit, a spiritual be¬
ing, as it is used as the name of the third person in the
Holy Trinity, " The Holy Pneuma." Shall we render
it, Holy Wind, Air, or Breath ? Shall we go and bap¬
tize all nations in the name of the Father, Son, and Ho¬
ly Wind, or Breath ? Is it true that, " except a man
be born of water, and of the Wind, he cannot see the
kingdom of God !" Now, as wind, air, breath, is the
"primary" meaning of pneuma, the meaning which
Homer and Plato attached to it, shall we stick to the
primary sense of this word, and turn the spiritual
Christianity of the New Testament into a religion
of wind ? or shall we believe that there is such a thing
as spir it, in spite of the primary meaning of pneuma?
Who will pretend that pneuma, is used in the New
Testament in its primary sense ?
Ecclesia, primarily, meant an assembly or gather¬
ing of any kind known to the Greeks. The assembling
of citizens at Athens, for any purpose whatever, was
called the Bcclesia. In the New Testament, this is
the word rendered church: " The Church of God,
which he purchased with his own blood." Therefore
the Church of Christ, the New Testament Bcclesia, is
a very different institution from that of a Greek leg¬
islative or political ecclesia. Hence ecclesia is not
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
59
used when it designates the Church in its primary
sense, hut in a new, ecclesiastical, and religious sense.
Stauros means a cross, " a transverse beam." Christ
was put to death upon a cross. But when he said,
" Except a man deny himself, and take up his cross
and follow me, he cannot be my disciple," who be¬
lieves he meant " a transverse beam ? " " To take up
the cross" is to submit to trials and persecutions for
Christ's sake. Is this the " primary " meaning of the
word stauros.
Apostolos, among the Greeks, meant, " a messenger,"
sent on any kind of secular business. It also meant
" the commander of a naval force, or squadron, or ex¬
pedition, or a fleet ready for sea, or a merchant's
vessel." This word is rendered in the New Testament,
apostle, and is usually applied to twelve of Christ's
disciples. Who does not see that a Christian apostle
is a very different person from a common " messenger "
sent on secular business, or from " a commander of a
naval force, or squadron, or expedition, or fleet or a
merchant's vesself
Aggelos is rendered angel in the New Testament,
which title is generally given to the highest order of
created intelligences of which we have any knowl¬
edge. In a few instances it is applied to pastors
of Churches, as in Rev. ii., iii. The Greeks meant}
when they used this word, "a messenger, an envoy,
one that announces or tells," and it is even applied to
" birds of augury."
Poimen, primarily, means a herdsman. A keeper
of sheep or cattle was called a poimen. So Homer and
60
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
Hesiod used it. This is its secular meaning. In the
New Testament, it means, a pastor of the Church.
This certainly was not its primary meaning. It there¬
fore means, in the word of God, what it never meant
among the heathen Greeks.
jEpiscopos, primarily, meant, an overseer of any kind
of secular business. The Athenians used to send pub¬
lic officers, called Episcopoi, to the subject states.
These were civil or military overseers of the affairs of
state. This word, in the New Testament, is generally
rendered Bishop, and means a pastor of the Church of
Christ. Did Episcopos ever mean a pastor of the
Church before the Spirit of inspiration so used it ?
Certainly this is not its primary meaning.
Deipnon is the Greek word for " a meal, the princi¬
pal meal of the day," answering to our dinner. In the
New Testament it is called " the Lord's deipnon—sup¬
per," and it is intended to-represent his death upon the
cross. " He took bread and brake it, and gave it to
his disciples, saying, Take, eat, this is my body, which
is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me.
Likewise he took the cup and gave it to them, say¬
ing, Drink ye all of this ; for this is in the New Test¬
ament, in my blood, which is shed for many for the
remission of sins." This was a the Lord's deipnon—
supper," and was a very different supper from any
that had ever been eaten before. Will any one be bold
enough to say that the apostle here used the word deip¬
non in its primary sense ?
Protestants universally admit that we have but two
sacraments in the Christian Church—the Lord's Sup-
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
61
per, and Baptism. And we have seen that the Lord's
Supper is essentially different from every thing else
that was ever called by the name of deipnon. Why,
then, should it be supposed that when our Lord used
the word baptizo to designate the other sacrament of
his Church, he used it in precisely the same sense that
it had before it was thus employed? Did Christ con¬
vert deipnon, and leave baptizo to grope in the dark¬
ness of heathenism P
Is it not morally certain that baptizo, when used
by the Spirit to designate the ordinance of baptism,
no more means what it did when Homer used it, than
pneuma means wind, or ecclesia " a legislative assem¬
bly," or deipnon an ordinary dinner or supper ? While
baptizo was used by the Greeks to represent various
things, as the standard lexicons show, yet nothing is
more indisputable than the fact that they had not the
least idea of baptism, because the thing now called by
that name did not then exist. We therefore contend
that when the Saviour and his apostles employed Greek
words for the purpose of setting forth the peculiar
doctrines, ordinances, and offices of the Christian relig¬
ion, they did not employ them in their primary, classi¬
cal sense, but in a new, religious, ecclesiastical sense.
It seems to us that every intelligent individual,
that will suffer himself to think at all upon this sub¬
ject, must admit that this is so, from the very nature
of the case.
Let us have done, then, with the nonsense of appeal¬
ing to the heathen Greek authors, for the purpose of
learning from them New Testament Christianity ; and
62 BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
to classic lexicons, which have nothing under the sun
to do with the settlement of the question of the mode
of baptism. Let us cease to talk of the " primary''
meaning of Greek words, when we come to the study
of the New Testament, as to its doctrines, ordinances,
and offices. For we have seen, in reference to these
subjects, that to apply the primary sense, is to turn
Christianity into barefaced heathenism.
We can only learn from the word of God the mean¬
ing of Bible doctrines and ordinances, and to this we
now turn our earnest attention.
CHAPTER V.
design and mode of christian baptism.
Having examined into the meaning of the baptis¬
mal terms, as they were used by the Greek authors,
and as to how they are defined by the standard lexi¬
cographers, we now proceed to examine them as to
their meaning in the light of the New Testament—the
Greek Testament.
We lay down the two following propositions :
First. We deny that baptizo, and its cognates bap-
tisma and baptismos, when used to express the ordi¬
nance of baptism, either under the Old or New Testa¬
ment dispensation, ever mean mode of any kind. They
neither mean to dip nor plunge, sprinkle nor pour.
Second. When thus employed, they simply mean to
wash, cleanse, or purify; and by implication to con¬
secrate and devote the person thus purified to the ser¬
vice of the party in whose name the purifying is per¬
formed. All persons who are baptized in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,
are symbolically cleansed or purified, and thus conse¬
crated and devoted to the service of the Holy Trinity.
Greenfield, in his Greek Lexicon to the New Testa¬
ment, says : Baptizo means "to wash, perform ablu¬
tion; to cleanse, purify; with the accessory idea of obli¬
gation imposed, to bind to the performance of some duty"
64
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
Baptism, in its very nature, binds its subjects to obey
in all things the party in whose name it is adminis¬
tered. Hence our Church requires the adult candi¬
date for baptism to " renounce the devil and all his
works," etc., "and obediently keep God's holy will
and commandments, and walk in the same all the days
of his life." The Israelites at the Red Sea " were bap¬
tized unto Moses," and hence were bound to obey him
in all things, as their leader, commander, judge, me¬
diator, etc. When John administered to the Jews
" the baptism of repentance," they were bound there¬
by to repent and " bring forth fruits meet for repen¬
tance."
The Saviour also, by his baptism, which as we have
seen was his consecration to the threefold office of
prophet, priest, and king over the Church, bound him¬
self. thereby to meet the obligations thus assumed.
This is one of the leading designs of baptism. It is
the oath of allegiance to Heaven's eternal King, which
the world of mankind is required to take.
There are several different kinds of baptism spoken
of in the New Testament, viz., that of water, that of
the Holy Ghost and fire, and that of suffering. J list
before our Saviour's passion and crucifixion, he said to
his disciples, "I have a baptism to be baptized with:
and how am I straitened till it be accomplished." This
was his baptism of agony in the garden of Gethemane
and on the cross. "And being in an agony, he prayed
more earnestly; and his sweat was as it were great
drops of blood falling down to the ground." By this
baptism he was fully consecrated and devoted to the
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
65
great work of saving the world from sin here, and its
consequences hereafter. "And he was clothed with a
vesture (bebamenon) stained with blood; and his name
is called The Word of God." Rev. xix., 13.
Having made these general remarks, we now pro¬
ceed to prove and illustrate the two propositions laid
down at the beginning of this chapter.
Baptizo and its cognates mean, in the New Testa¬
ment, to wash, cleanse, purify, etc. " I indeed purify t
you with water, but he shall purify you with the Holy
Ghost," etc. "And the Lord whom ye seek shall come
like a refiner's fire, and like fuller's soap ; and he shall
sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; and he shall
purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and
silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering
in righteousness—as in the days of old, and as in for¬
mer years." This prophecy of Malachi was fulfilled
in the baptism of the Holy Ghost which Christ con-
fered upon his disciples in its refining and purifying
power on the day of Pentecost. " But he shall purify
you with the Holy Ghost and with fire"
Baptizo and katharizo are used as interchangeable
terms in the following places: "Then there arose a
question between some of John's disciples and the Jews
about (katharismou) purifying. And they came to
John, and said unto him Rabbi, he that was with thee
beyond Jordan, to whom thou bearest witness, behold
the same (baptizei) baptizeth, and all come to him."
John iii, 25., 26. Now every one must see that kath¬
arismou and baptizei are here used in precisely the
same sense; and as katharismos means " cleansing,
66
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
purification, ablution," so baptizo must mean the same
thing. Again : " Christ gave himself for the Church
that he might sanctify and (katharisas) cleanse it with
the washing of water by the word." Eph. v., 25, 26.
The Saviour is here said to "sanctify and cleanse"
the Church in two ways. First. " With the washing
of water," which certainly means baptism.. Second.
" With the word ;" L e., the word of God, which is
his " power unto salvation." " Sanctify them through
thy truth: thy word is truth." John xvii. " The
washing of water " is the outward symbol; of inward
"sanctification" and "cleansing" by the word. Now,
Jcatharismos being here used to express this outward
cleasing " with the washing of water," which is bap¬
tism, is of the same import with baptizo, which there¬
fore means to cleanse. But baptizo and its cognates
are also used interchangeably with nipto and its cog¬
nates, in the following places :
In Luke xi., 38, it is said as Christ taught, "a cer¬
tain Pharisee besought him to dine with him; and he
went in, and sat down to meat. And when the Phar¬
isee saw it, he marveled that he had not first (ebaptis-
the) washed before dinner." The word here rendered
"washed" is ebaptisthe in the Greek, and is the same
word, letter for letter, which occurs in Mark i., 9, where
it is said, "Jesus came from Galilee, and was (ebaptis¬
the) baptized of John." The Baptists say "immersed
of John." Was the Pharisee surprised, then, that
Christ had not immersed himself before dinner ? Cer¬
tainly not. He was only surprised that he had not
" washed his hands before dinner," as we are informed
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
67
in Mark vii., 1-8; and in failing to do so, had violated
a tradition of the elders, which made it the duty o^
every person, on all occasions, to wash his hands be¬
fore eating. " Then there came to Jesus certain of the
Pharisees and Scribes; and when they saw some of his
disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with
unwashen hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees5
and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat
not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when
they come from the market, except they wash, they eat
not. And many other things there be, which they
have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and of
pots, brazen vessels, and tables. Then the Pharisees
asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to
the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with un¬
washen hands P " etc.
In the first eight verses of this chapter, the words
" unwashen," " wash," and " washing," occur six
times. In the second, third, and fifth verses, the
Greek is aniptois and nipsontai, both from nipto,
which means " to wet, to wash, the face, hands, feet,'7
etc. But in the fourth and eighth verses, the Greek
is baptisontai and baptismous, from baptizo, which, we
have seen, means to cleanse or purify. Therefore,
nipsontai and baptisontai, here used by Mark as in¬
terchangeable terms, must have the same meaning.
"For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they
nipsontai oft, eat not; and when they come from the
market, except they baptisontai, they eat not. And
many such things have they received to hold, as the
baptismous of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and
68
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
tables." Now, as nipto is not a word of mode, but
simply means to wash or wet, and by implication to
cleanse, and is applied to the washing of the hands,
face, feet, etc., it cannot be made to appear that bap-
tizo means anything more than symbolically to purify
a person by wetting or washing him ceremonially in
the name of the Holy Trinity, and thus consecrate
and devote him to the service of God. The Jews did
not wash their hands, cups, pots, brazen vessels, and
tables, on the occasions here mentioned, for the pur¬
pose of cleansing them' from any literal defilement;
but they were ceremonial purifications, performed in
obedience to a "tradition of the elders." The Phari¬
see mentioned by Luke, who invited our Lord to dine
with him, therefore "marveled" that he had not
" ebaptisthe (washed) his hands before sitting down to
meat." Now, ebaptisthe. baptisontai, and baptismos are
used as interchangeable with katharizo and nipsontai;
and, therefore, baptizo and its cognates, in the New
Testament, do not mean to dip or immerse, but to
wash, cleanse or purify, ceremonially and symbolically*
Again: John refers to this same custom of washing
hands before eating, in his Gospel, ii., 6, and uses the
word katharizo to express it: "And there were set six
water-pots, after the manner of the (katharismon) pu¬
rifying of the Jews, holding two or three firkins
apiece." These water-pots had been emptied by draw¬
ing out the water, and pouring it upon the hands of
the guests that came to this marriage-feast. " For
except they wash their hands, they eat not, holding
the tradition of the elders." "And Jesus said, Fill
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
69
up the water-pots; and they filled them to the brim
and he turned it into wine. These " purifyings of the
Jews" were not literal cleansings, hut legal purifica¬
tions of the hands, etc.
Now, as to the mode of these legal purifications
which baptizo and its cognates, as well as katharizo and
nipto, are used to express, it was universally either by
sprinkling or pouring. Hence, baptism is not a literal
cleansing of the flesh, but an emblematical purifica¬
tion of the person baptized, and signifies that spiritual
purification of the heart " without which no man shall
see the Lord."
In the Epistle to Titus, iii., 5, Paul says, " Not by
works of righteousness which we have done, but ac¬
cording to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of
regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost;
which he shed on us abundantly, through Jesus Christ
our Saviour." The Greek word here rendered washing,
is loutron, and means "a cleansing or purification."
Dr. A. Clarke says, " By the loutron (washing) of re¬
generation, the apostle undoubtedly means baptism—
the rite by which persons were admitted into the
Church." This being so, we are taught by the apos¬
tle that " baptism is the washing, cleansing, or puri¬
fication, which represents regeneration, wrought by the
renewing of the Holy Ghost, shed on us abundantly
through Jegus Christ our Saviour." Hence, loutron
and baptizo mean the same thing, when used to ex¬
press the ordinance of baptism. This text also proves
that baptism should be administered by pouring, as it
represents " the renewing of the Holy Ghost, which
70
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
was shed (ekcheo, poured out) upon us through Jesus
Christ our Lord."
Also, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, x., 22, 23, it
is said, " Having your hearts sprinkled from an evil
conscience, and your bodies (louo) washed or cleansed,
with pure water." That is, having your hearts puri¬
fied by the blood of Christ, called " the blood of
sprinkling," and your bodies—the outward man—
symbolically " cleansed with pure water;" that is, the
water of baptism, called in the Scriptures " the water
of purification." "And the Lord said unto Moses,
Take the Levites from among the children of Israel,
and cleanse them. Thus shalt thou do unto them, to
cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them.
And the Levites were cleansed, and washed their
clothesNum. viii., 7. Dr. Clarke says, " The apos¬
tle here (Heb. x., 22, 23,) probably alludes to the
cleansing of the Levites, (Num. viii., 7,) though it ap¬
pears that he refers principally to baptism, the wash¬
ing by which was an emblem of the purification of
the soul by the grace and Spirit of Christ." Hence,
this baptism of the Levites by " sprinkling the water
of purification upon them," was emblematical of that
purity of heart which they were required to possess in
ministering before the Lord in holy things. Ananias
said unto Saul, "Arise, and be baptized, and wash
away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord.''
That is, figuratively, wash them away ; for " the blood
of Christ" really "cleanses us from all sin," and
hence leaves nothing to be done by baptism but to
symbolize this cleansing. " Purge me with hyssop,'
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
71
said David, " and I shall be clean; wash me, and I
shall he whiter than snow/' " Purging with hyssop "
was emblematical of the cleansing blood of Christ,
called " the blood of sprinkling," which " purges the
conscience from dead works," and the sanctifying
grace of the Holy Spirit.
Now, the apostle, in the Epistle to the Hebrews,
ix., 10, calls these Jewish washings, or purifications,
baptisms. He says the tabernacle service " stood only
in meats and drinks, and divers washings," (baptis-
mois, i. e., baptisms,) " and carnal ordinances imposed,
on them till the time of reformation." And "all
these things were figures (types, patterns, emblems,)
for the time then present," etc. We learn from the
thirteenth and fourteenth verses what these " figures "
meant: "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 of¬
fered himself without spot to God, purge your con¬
science from dead works to serve the living God."
We think the Scriptures which we have thus quo¬
ted and explained demonstrably prove that bapiizo
and its cognates always mean to wash, cleanse, or pu¬
rify, and by implication to consecrate and devote, when
used in the word of God, with reference to the ordi¬
nance of baptism.
We think we have also very clearly shown the ab¬
surdity of appealing to the " lexicons " and to "ancient
Greek authors, for the purpose of determining in what
sense Christ and the apostles used Greek words, when
72
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
they taught the doctrines and ordinances peculiar to
the Christian religion. To the word of God, and to
that alone, must the appeal always be made, in deter¬
mining the mode of baptism, as well as its nature and
design.
CHAPTER VI.
GREEK PREPOSITIONS.
We think it best before proceeding farther with our
argument on the design and mode of baptism, to ex¬
amine into the meaning of the Greek prepositions
used in connection with the baptismal terms, viz: en,
eis, ek and apo; and also to give some account of the
views and practice of the translators of our English
version of the Scriptures, as to the mode of baptism.
We give the following rule for determining their
meanings: In all cases the meaning of these preposi¬
tions must be determined by their connections with, and
relations to, other words, and the nature of the subject.
In other words, the meaning of the verbs with which
they stand connected, and the nature of the subject
treated, must And do determine their meaning in all
cases.
This rule was generally followed by the translators
of our English Bible, and but seldom departed from,
except when they were influenced by their creed to do
so. According to this rule, the Greek preposition en
has about thirty-six meanings in the New Testament.
The following are some of them: In, at, by, near to,
among, before, in the presence of, when, then, while, in
the meantime, as, after, with, within, through, by means
of, by the example of, as to, according to, because of, to,
74
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
toward, into, in order to, up to, about, for the sake of
in reference to, concerning, etc.
This is the preposition Used in connection with the
verb baptizo in the following passages of Scripture:
"And John did baptize—en—in Jordan." "And they
went out to him, and were all baptized—en—in Jor_
dan." "John did baptize—en—in the wilderness/'
and—"en—in Enon" etc. Now, who can tell, with
these definitions before him, whether John baptized in
Jordan, or by, at, near to, with, or "by means of" the
water of Jordan ? Certainly we can learn nothing
from this preposition concerning the mode of John's
baptism. Why then do immersionists insist that
John must have immersed the people, because it is
said he baptized—en—in Jordan, when it is known
that in is only one out of its three dozen meanings ?
We will here give a few Scripture examples to show
that the meaning of this preposition is and must be
determined by its connections, and the nature of the
subject: " Christ is risen, and is even—en—at the
right hand of God." Rom. viii., 34. Again : " Christ
sitteth—en—on the right hand of God." Col. iii., 1.
Now, was Christ in or at the right hand of God? Did
he sit in or on the right hand of his Father?
" But the Pharisees said, He casteth out devils—
en—through the prince of the devils." Matt, ix., 34.
Now, did the Pharisees accuse the Saviour of casting
out devils in the prince of the devils, or through, or by
means of, his power ?
"And there met him out of the toombs a man—en,
with an unclean spirit." Mark v., 2. Was this man
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
75
in an unclean spirit, or was he possessed by or with
an unclean spirit ?
" Those eighteen upon whom the tower—en—in
Siloam fell and slew them," etc. Luke xiii. 4. Wat-
sou says, " Siloam was a fountain under the walls of
Jerusalem, near to which was a tower." This tower,
then, was not'in Siloam, which was a fountain under
the walls of the city, hut by or near to it. Why not
say, then, that John baptized—en—at, by, or near to,
Jordan ? There is not one particle of proof furnished
by the Greek preposition en that John baptized in
Jordan; and no candid man will accept immersion
upon any such testimony.
Eis in the New Testament has thirty-two meanings
assigned it. We give the following as examples: On,
into, upon, at, to, toward, among, near to, by, against,
even to, for, until, about, concerning, before, etc. This
is the preposition found in connection with baptizo in
the following passages : "Jesus came, and was bap¬
tized of John—eis—in Jordan." Mark i., 9. "And
they both (Philip and the eunuch) went down—eis—in¬
to the water, and he baptized him." Acts viii., 88. Now
let the reader look at the above definitions of eis, and^
say whether John baptized Jesus in Jordan, or only
on, at, by, or near to, it; and whether Philip and the
eunuch actually went into the water, or only down
from the chariot to, or near to, the water. We feel
free to say that there is not the least evidence from
this preposition, that the parties in either case even
wet so much as the soles of their feet. We will notice
this preposition again when we come to consider the
eunuch's baptism.
76
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
Ek in the New Testament has sixteen meanings as¬
signed it, viz., from, out of, of, for, with, on, at, upon,
by, without, among, through, on account of, because of}
after, since. Now, did Philip and the eunuch come up
—ek—out of the water, or only from it? If eis did
not carry them into the water, then ek did not bring
them out of it, but only from it.
"And the young man answered and said, All these
have I kept—ek—from my youth up." Certainly not
out of his youth up.
"And he riseth—ek—from supper, and took a towel
and girded himself." John xiii., 4. Did Jesus rise
out of supper or only from it ? Had he been in sup¬
per, or only to it ?
In Matt, xx., 2, ek means with: "And when he
had agreed—ek—with them for a penny a day, he
sent them into his vineyard." In verse 21 of the
same chapter, ek means on or at: " Grant that my
two sons may sit, the one—ek—on thy right hand, and
the other —ek—on thy left, in thy kingdom." Could
these disciples sit, the one out of his right hand, and
the other out of his left, in his kingdom ? Was that
what this mother desired for her two sons ? If so,
it is a marvelous request. Surely nothing can be
proved from this preposition concerning the proper
mode of baptism.
Apo is rendered in the New Testament by the same
words that ek is, i. e.,from, out of, of, with, by, for, since,
after, at, toward, when, on account of, according to, ever
since, etc. Both of these prepositions primarily mean
motion from a place; but whether a person or thing is
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
77
in, at, by, or near to, any place, ek and apo do not in¬
form us. The words with which they chance to be con¬
nected, defining the time, place, subject, and circum¬
stances, invariably determine the meaning of all these
prepositions. In our English Bible it is said, "When
Jesus was baptized, he went up straightway out of the
water." It is apo that is here rendered "out of," by
the translators; but it is not denied, even by immer-
sionists, that its primary meaning is from.
The translators had got the Saviour in Jordan by
rendering eis, in, and then in order to get him out, they
had to render apo by " out of," or let him stay in.
But who knows that Jesus went in the water when
John consecrated him? Eis did not carry him in, and
hence apo did not bring him out of Jordan. We re¬
peat, then, that nothing can be proved by the Greek
prepositions as to the mode of baptism.
If baptizo means to "immerse, and nothing else/7
then en and eis, when found in connection with it, must
mean in and into, and ek and apo must mean " out of."
But if baptizo does not mean to immerse, then when en
and eis are found in connection with it, they must mean
at, by, to, or near to; and ek and apo must mean from;
because their meaning must be determined by the mean¬
ing of baptizo, and its cognates—baptisma and baptis-
mos.
But we promised in this connection to give some ac¬
count of the views and practice of the translators of our
English Bible as to the mode of baptism. We affirm
that they were immersionists in faith and practice at the
time, before, and after they made the English version
78
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
of the Scriptures ; and that as such, they so rendered the
Greek prepositions en, eis, ek, and apo, when found in
connection with the baptismal terms, as to favor im¬
mersion, by translating them in, into, and out of, in¬
stead of by, at, to, near to, and from, as they fre¬
quently did in other connections where the mode of
baptism was not involved. Any one inay satisfy him¬
self perfectly on this point by reading the Greek Tes¬
tament and the English together.
The translators were nearly all genuine Episcopa¬
lians; and as members of the Church of England,
they were daily in the habit of "dipping" the children
of their parishes, as the "rubric" or "rule" of their
Church required ; and they were only allowed to sprin¬
kle or pour water in those cases where "dipping" was
impracticable. We are aware that this fact has been
denied by at least one respectable Baptist minister, but
upon what authority, he does not inform us.
Dr. Mell says, "When our author (Dr. Summers)
appeals from the rendering of our present English ver¬
sion, he calls in question the opinions, not of Bap¬
tists, but of a large body of learned pedobaptists. King
James' translators were not Baptists. As members of
the Church of England, they practiced pouring and
sprinkling; but as scholars and honest men, they felt
bound to give to give the present rendering, (of the
Greek prepositions,) even though it contradicted their
practice."—Mell on Bap., p. 54.
It is true that "King James' translators were not
Baptists;" for there were no Baptists in England at
that period, to engage iu this or any other transla-
baptismal demonstrations.
79
tion ; but it is none the less true, on that account,
that the translators were pedoimmersionists in faith
and practice. The "rubric" of the English Church,
to which the translators subscribed and conformed their
practice, made it the duty of the ministers to " dip "
every child they baptized, " unless the parents certi¬
fied that their child wRs weak and unable to bear it."
This fact Dr. Mell ought to have known. It would
have saved him, at least, the useless argument which
he has made, based upon the assumed fact that the
translators " practised sprinkling and pouring, but as
scholars and honest men, so translated as to contradict
their practice." They believed in and practiced " dip¬
ping," as we shall directly show from the very best
authority; and hence they could not be expected to do
otherwise than favor " dipping," in their translation
of the Scriptures; for they could not translate con¬
trary to their convictions of truth, on this or any oth¬
er subject. Where a word would bear several different
constructions, they uniformly gave it that which best
agreed with their own faith and practice. This was
natural. Any other denomination would do the same
thing. They could not do less than make a denom¬
inational translation upon all those points which
they might regard as material in doctrines and ordi¬
nances. And this they did. Dr. Mell and forty-six
other immersionists could not be expected so to trans¬
late the Bible, or any thing else, as to countenance
sprinkling and pouring, because they do not believe
this to be the Bible mode of baptism. And for the
same reason the translators did not so translate where
80
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTBATIONS.
it could be avoided—which was not always the case—
because they believed immersion to be the proper mode
of baptism.
The English Church, however, through the increase
of light and learning, has long since abandoned the
faith and practice of the translators on this subject.
We now proceed to furnish the proof that the
translators were pedoimmersionists when they made
our English version.
Alexander Campbell says ; " The translators of the
common version were all, or nearly all, genuine Epis¬
copalians, and at the very time they made the version,
were accustomed to use a liturgy which made it the
minister's duty in the sacrament of baptism ' to take
the child and dip it in the water' contained in the
font. I have seen copies of James' version printed in
1611, (the year the translation was first published,)
which contained the Psalms and the service of the
Church, in which frequent allusions are made to im¬
mersion, all indicative of the fact it was then regarded
as the primitive and proper mode of baptism and on
no occasion did they favor the innovation of sprinkling,
by any rendering or note marginal, in that transla¬
tion."—Camp, on Bap., p. 140.
This extract needs no comment; it demonstrates
our position, as Mr. Campbell certainly knew what he
saw with his own eyes; and hence, is a competent
witness as to the faith and practice of the translators.
We next quote from Mr. Wesley's Journal, for proof
on this subject as to the faith and practice of the
English Church. While a missionary of that Church
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
81
in Savannah, Ga., he made the following entries: "Feb.
21, 1736. Mary Welch, aged eleven days, was bap¬
tized, according to the custom of the first Church and
the rule of the Church of England, by immersion.
The child was ill then, but recovered from that hour."
Journal, p. 20. Here Mr. Wesley records the fact
that "immersion" was "the rule of the Church of
England; " and did he not know the rule of his own
Church on this subject ? Sprinkling or pouring was
the exception to this " rule," and was only resorted to
where immersion was impracticable.
Again, Wednesday, May 5, he says: "I was
asked to baptize the child of Mr. Parker, second bai¬
liff of Savannah, but Mrs Parker told me, ' Neither
Mr. P. nor I will consent to its being dipped.' I an¬
swered, ' If you certify that your child is weak, it shall
suffice (the rubric says) to pour water upon it.' She
replied, 'Nay, the child is not weak, but I am resolved
it shall not be dipped.' This argument I could not
confute ; so I went home, and the child was baptized
by another person."—Journal, p. 24.
Mr. Wesley here quotes from the "rubric "of the
Established Church, in 1736, which required the min¬
ister to " dip " all the children he baptized, " unless
the parents certified that their child was weak; "
then " it will suffice (the rubric said) to pour water
upon it." The parents would not " certify," in this
case, "that their child was weak," and Mr. Wesley
" went home, and the child was baptized by another
person," because he would not violate the "rubric " of-
his Church.
82
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
On pages 42-3 he records " a list of grievances"
brought against him by certain citizens of Savannah,
one of which was, "For refusing to baptize Mr. Par¬
ker's child otherwise than by dipping, except the pa¬
rents would certify that it was weak and unable to
bear it." In answer to this " grievance " twelve grand
jurors made the following reply in Mr. Wesley's de¬
fense : " The fifth we do not think a true bill, because
we conceive Mr. Wesley is justified by the 'rubric/
viz., ' If they (the parents) certify the child is weak,
it shall suffice to pour water upon it;' intimating, as
we humbly suppose, it shall not suffice if they do not
certify." Now, this "rubric," which controlled Mr. Wes¬
ley in Savannah, in 1736, can be traced back to the
reign of Edward VI., fifty years before the transla¬
tion of our English version. "A commission was
formed for drawing up a book of offices, that is, a
prayer-book to be used in churches, for the general use
of the Church. Cranmer and Ridley were at the head
of this commission. They agreed to make every thing
conform as near as they could to the practice of the
pure and early ages of the gospel. They retained
many of the prayers of the Romish Church, and fixed
the liturgy nearly as it is now"—Markham's His. of
Eng., p. 239.
At the time, then, the Bible was translated, the
Church of England required dipping in every instance,
except in cases of weakness. Now, bishops and min¬
isters were the persons engaged in this translation, and
it is reasonable to suppose that this " rubric " of their
Church expressed their belief as to the mode of bap-
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
83
tism. They had the power, with King James' con¬
sent, to take this "rubric" out of their prayer-hook;
and its remaining there is the strongest proof that
they believed immersion to be the Scripture mode of
baptism.
Now, in the light of these historical facts, what are
we to think of Dr. Mell's assertion that " the transla¬
tors, as members of the Church of England, practiced
pouring and sprinkling, but as scholars and honest
men, felt bound to give the present rendering, (of the
Greek prepositions,) even though it contradicted their
practice? "
The conclusion is, that as the translators practiced
dipping, believing it to be the primitive and proper
mode, they favored this mode in their rendering of the
Greek prepositions found in connection with the bap¬
tismal terms. And by their rendering, they make the
impression upon the mind of the reader of the Eng¬
lish New Testament that baptism was always per¬
formed in the water, instead of at or near by it; and
hence, by immersion. But it requires no argument
here to prove that we are no more bound by the ren¬
dering of the translators in this case than we would
be by the rendering of any other forty-seven learned
immersionists of this day.
Of all others, we think Baptists have the least rea¬
son to complain of our English version, because the
translators were—in faith—both Calvinists and im¬
mersionists ; and though they were " scholars and
honest men," they did not " translate so as to contra¬
dict their practice." But they did all that " honest
84
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
men " could do to set forth their views-in the transla¬
tion they made—of the doctrines and ordinances of
Christianity. This was natural. They could not he
expected to do otherwise. Hence we do not blame
them, but simply claim the inalienable right of think¬
ing for ourselves.
CHAPTER VII.
design and mode of christian baptism.
After having thus examined into the New Testa¬
ment meaning of the baptismal terms, and the import
of the Greek prepositions connected with them, we are
now prepared to proceed with the argument on the
mode.
We take the position, that sprinkling or pouring is
plainly taught to be the Scripture mode of baptism,
both from the design of the ordinance and the exam¬
ples given in the Old and New Testaments.
We have already called attention briefly to the
" divers baptisms " practiced among the Jews, to which
St. Paul alludes in Heb. ix., both with reference to
their design and mode. And we have seen that they
were "figures for the time then presentthat they
" sanctified and purified the flesh " from all legal de¬
filement, and thus typified the blood of Christ, called
" the blood of sprinkling," which, when applied by
"the eternal Spirit" to the conscience, "purges it
from dead works," in order to the service of the living
God. We have also seen that these " divers baptisms "
(diaphorois baptismois) were all administered by
sprinkling. In this chapter, the apostle evidently re¬
fers to the law of ordinances, for cleansing from lep¬
rosy and legal impurities, found in Lev. xiv., and Num.
86
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
xix. Leprosy being an incurable disease by any hu¬
man means, is made a type of the corruption of human
nature ; and the legal process for cleansing the leper
indicates God's method of cleansing the soul of man,
through the blood of the everlasting covenant, and the
sanctification of the Holy Spirit.
" And the priest shall command to take for him that
is to be cleansed from leprosy, two birds, alive and
clean, and cedar-wood, and scarlet, and hyssop. And
the priest shall command that one of the birds be
killed in an earthen vessel over running water. And
he shall take the living bird, and the cedar-wood, and
the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them and
the living bird into the blood of the bird that was
killed over the running water. And he shall sprinkle
upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven
times, and shall pronounce him clean."
This was one of the " divers baptisms " imposed on
the Jews until the time of reformation. But what did
this ceremony figuratively teach ? We answer :
The blood and water, thus combined, which, when
sprinkled upon the leper, " sanctified to the purifying
of the flesh," represented the blood of atonement, ''•the
blood of sprinkling," and the sanctifying power of the
Holy Spirit, which " purges the conscience from dead
works."
The hyssop, being an emblem of immortality, was
intended to teach that eternal life would result from
an application of the blood of atonement, and " the
renewing of the Holy Ghost, shed on the sinner through
Jesus Christ."
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
87
The cedar, being an emblem of incorruption, repre¬
sented the unchangeable nature of the covenant of
grace, revealed in the gospel, " which abideth forever ."
The scarlet wool, perhaps, was intended to show that
this covenant was founded upon the blood of " the
Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world.''
These " figures," therefore, teach that eternal life
rests upon the covenant of grace, founded upon the
blood of Christ, which is applied by the Holy Spirit,
in its cleansing power, to the sinful soul of man. No
immersion can be made out of the baptism of the
leper, and yet it was one of the "divers" Jewish
" baptisms."
In Num. xix., more of the divers Jewish baptisms
referred to by Paul are particularly described. In
these cases the water was mixed with the ashes of a
red heifer, and that of cedar-wood and scarlet wool,
all burnt together without the Israelites camp ; and is
called " a water of separation, a purification for sin."
" Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man, and
purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the
Lord, because the water of separation was not sprinkled
upon him. 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 the hyssop, and dip it in the
water, and sprinkle it upon him that touched a bone,
or one slain, or one dead, or a grave. But the man
that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself,
shall be cut off from among the congregation, because
he hath defiled the sanctuary of the Lord: the water
88
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
of separation hath not been sprinkled upon him ; he
is unclean/'
So we see these '' divers baptisms " were all admin¬
istered by " sprinkling the water of separation, a puri¬
fication for sin," upon the unclean ; and in no case
was the priest ever required to immerse any one for
any purpose whatever. They universally sprinkled.
In Ezekiel xxxvi., the Lord makes the following
gracious covenant-promises to the scattered Jews: "I
will take you from among the heathen, and will gather
you out of all countries, and will bring you into your
own land. 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. A new heart also
will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within
you ; and I will take away the stony heart out of your
flesh, and will give you a heart of flesh. And I will
put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in
my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do
them. And ye shall be my people, and I will be your
God."
Now this prophecy concerning the Jews has never
yet been fulfilled, and evidently refers to their conver¬
sion in the latter days of the Christian dispensation.
Paul says, " That blindness in part is happened to
Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.
And so all Israel shall be saved : as it is written,
There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall
turn away ungodliness from Jacob ; for this is my cov¬
enant unto them when I shall take away their sins."
"Then," saith the Lord, "will I sprinkle clean water
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
89
upon you, and ye shall be clean. I will give you a new
heart, and I will put my Spirit within you, and ye
shall be my people, and I will be your God." Now>
we are here taught that when the Jews are converted
to Christianity, and gathered out of all countries, and
brought into their own land, by " the Deliverer who
shall come out of Zion," then they shall be baptized
in his name by being " sprinkled with clean water."
This proves that sprinkling is the proper mode of
Christian baptism.
At the close of the fifty-second chapter of Isaiah
you will find this language: " Behold, my servant
shall deal prudently ; he shall be exalted and extolled;
and shall be very high." This refers to the Saviour's
personal dignity, wisdom, and exaltation. (See Isaiah
ix. 6.) "As many were astonished at thee, (hisyisage
was so marred more than any man, and his form more
than the sons of men.") This refers to his maltreat¬
ment, humiliation, sufferings, and death upon the cross.
The next verse tells us of the triumphs of his king¬
dom as the result of his sufferings and death upon the
cross. " So shall he sprinkle many nations," etc. The
prophet foresaw that, through the power of Christ's
death and resurrection, preached to the world, the na¬
tions of the earth would be converted to Christianity ;
that he would claim " the heathen for his inheritance,
and the uttermost parts of the earth for his posses¬
sion and that they would take an oath of allegiance
to him as "King of kings, and Lord of lords," by
being baptized in his name: therefore he exclaimed,
" So shall he sprinkle many nations." And unto this
90
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
end he commanded his apostles to " go and teach all
nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
Now, we ask immersionists this question: If the
prophet had said, <£ So shall he immerse many na¬
tions," would you not claim this prophecy as positive
proof in favor of immersion ? We believe that you
would. Why, then, does it not prove that sprinkling
is the proper mode of baptism? Was the prophet
mistaken ? Or did he tell a falsehood, that you will
not believe him ?
The last Old Testament example is that of the bap¬
tism of the Israelites at the Red Sea, recorded hv Paul
in 1 Cor. x., 1, 2: u Moreover, brethren, I would not
that you should be ignorant how that all our fathers
were ynder the cloud, and all passed through the sea,
and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in
the sea."
Now the question is, In what mode were they bap¬
tized on that occasion ? In order to determine this
question correctly, it will be necessary to notice the
facts in this case as related by Moses, in Ex. xiv. 21,
22, 29, and xv. 8: " And Moses stretched out his hand
over the sea ; and the Lord caused the sea to go back
by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea
dry land, and the waters were divided. And the chil¬
dren "of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the
dry ground ; and the waters were a wall unto them on
their right hand, and on their left. And the children
of Israel walked upon the dry land in the midst of the
sea." The wall mentioned was a solid iee wall.
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
91
" With the blast of thy nostrils the waters were gath¬
ered together, the floods stood upright as an heap, and
the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea."
Now at this time, and under these circumstances,
" They were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and
in the sea." And it should not be forgotten that this
was a real bona fide baptism with water unto Moses.
It was not "a dry immersion," as some have imag¬
ined, but a real water baptism by pouring. The bap¬
tism was administered by Jehovah himself, but it was
" unto Moses," as their appointed leader and mediator,
and they were bound thereby to obey him, as Jehovah's
representative.
The Greek preposition, en, in the expression, " in
the cloud and in the sea," most certainly means by, and
has the force of by means of. " They were all bap¬
tized (eis) unto Moses, (en) by means of the cloud, and
(en) by means of the sea." For how could they be
baptized in the cloud, which was above them, or in the
sea, which was a solid wall on either hand, and not to
be penetrated by them P For " the depths were con¬
gealed in the heart of the sea;" while under foot the
land was dry : " and they walked upon the dry land
in the midst of the sea." David says, (Ps. cvi., " God
rebuked the Red Sea, and it was dried up : so he led
them through the depths, as through the loilderness."
Certainly, then, they were not immersed in the cloud
and in the sea. The notion that they were is absurd.
But David settles the question as to the mode of their
baptism in Ps. lxxvii.: " The waters saw thee, 0 God,
the waters saw thee; they were afraid : the depths
92
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
also were troubled. The clouds poured out water.
Thy way is in the sea, and thy path in the great wa¬
ters. Thou leddest thy people like a flock by the hand
of Moses and Aaron." The apostle says, " They were
baptized (en) by means of the cloud;" and David says,
" The clouds poured out water" "What better proof
do we want that they were baptized by pouring ? The
strong east wind which drove back the sea, and made
" the floods stand upright as an heap," mixed the spray
of the sea with the waters of the cloud, and they fell
in gentle showers upon the hosts of Israel; and they
were all thus baptized unto Moses by the waters of the
cloud and by the waters of the sea. The reason why
all—men, women, and children—were baptized unto
Moses, was because they were all bound to obey him,
as their leader and mediator. For the same reason,
we baptize all—men, women, and children—(eis) unto
Christ, because all are bound to obey him, as their
lawgiver and Saviour.
We think the foregoing examples, taken from the
Old Testament, will suffice to convince the candid
seeker after truth, that the law and the prophets both
teach that sprinkling or pouring is the proper mode
of baptism; and that there is no foundation, at least
in the Old Testament, for the practice of immersion.
CHAPTER VIII.
BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST.
We now turn our attention to the examples of
baptism given in the New Testament, and expect to
furnish from this source abundant proof confirm¬
atory of the views we have already advanced on the
subject.
Water baptism is emblematical of spiritual pu¬
rification wrought by the baptism of the Holy
Ghost. This is clearly taught by the following
Scriptures :
" I indeed (baptizo) purify you with water, but he
shall (baptisei) purify you with the Holy Ghost."
"For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty,
and floods upon the dry ground ; I will pour my
Spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine off¬
spring." Isa. xliv. 3.
" He shall come down like rain upon the mown
grass ; as showers that water the earth. In his days
shall the righteous flourish ; and abundance of peace
so long as the moon endureth." Ps. lxxii. 6, 7.
"He saved us by the washing of regeneration, and
the renewing of the Holy Ghost ; which He shed on
us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour."
Tit. iii. 5, 6.
These pasages, with many more that might be
94 BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
quoted, clearly teach that water baptism, both as to its
design and mode, is the divinely appointed symbol of the
baptism of the Holy Ghost, by which the soul of a man
is renewed, purified, and refreshed. " He shall come
down like rain upon the mown grass ; as showers that
water the earth. In his days shall the righteous flour¬
ish, and enjoy abundance of peace." " For I will send
you another Comforter, even the spirit of truth, and
he shall be in you." For ye shall be baptized with
the Holy Ghost." "For I will pour water upon him
that is thirsty ; and I will pour my Spirit upon thy
seed, and my blessing upon thine otfspring." Certain¬
ly nothing can be clearer than that water baptism rep¬
resents the baptism of the Holy Spirit ; hence, it
should be so administered as to represent the mode of
the Spirit's Baptism. The baptism of the Holy Ghost
is not a figure of speech, as some have supposed, but
a thing, a glorious reality, which savingly unites the
sinner to Christ, who "saves us by the renewing of the
Holy GAost, shed on us abundantly." Neither does
this baptism consist in the miraculous gift of tongues,
which was but its temporary concomitant. "But by
one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether
we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free ;
and have all been made to to drink into one Spirit."
1 Cor. xii. 13.
But by what mode, according to the Scriptures, is
spiritual baptism administered ? We answer, by
" pouring," " shedding forth," " falling upon." See
Acts ii., x., xi., Tit. iii., Isa. xliv., etc.
"And when the day of Pentecost was fully come,
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
95
they were all with one accord in one place. And there
appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire,
and it sat upon each of them ; and they were all filled
with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other
tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance." This
was the baptism of the Holy Ghost and of fire, which
John had said Christ would confer upon his disciples,
and which Jesus promised them ten days before Pen¬
tecost, saying, " John truly baptized with water, but
ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many
days hence ." Acts i. 5. The " cloven tongues like
as of fire sat upon each of them, and they were all
filled with the Holy Ghost." This was the the bap¬
tism. Now as to the mode: " But Peter standing up in
the midst of the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said
unto them, This is that which was spoken by the
Prophet Joel: It shall come to pass in the last days,
saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh;
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and
your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall
dream dreams; and on my servants and on my hand¬
maidens will I pour out in those days of my Spirit;
and they shall prophesy." Here the mode is clearly
expressed: "/ will pour out of my Spirit upon all
flesh," etc. Now immersionists tell us that baptizo ex¬
presses an action, and that action is " dip or immerse,
and nothing else." If this be so, then the disciples
were dipped or immersed by pouring the Holy Ghost
upon them ; for that the Holy Spirit was " poured
out" upon them on this occasion, and that they were
then and there baptized with the Holy Ghost, cannot
96
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
be denied. Do Baptists immerse their subjects by
pouring? We think we have shown, however, that
baptize means not to dip, but to purify. " He shall
purify you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." And
the mode is here said to be by pouring. The Spirit
was applied to them, and not they to the Spirit; and
so we apply water to the person, and not the person
to water.
But we find another case of the baptism of the
Holy Ghost by pouring, in Acts x. 44-48. This took
place in the house of Cornelius, a Roman centurion,
while Peter was preaching to him, and his family,
and friends. " While Peter yet spake these words,
the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
And they of the circumcision (i. e., the Jews) which
came with Peter, were astonished, because that on the
Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy
Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues and
magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man
forbid water that these should not be baptized, which
have received the Holy Ghost as well as we ? And
he commanded them to be baptized." This- was
the Gentile Pentecost, and the Holy Spirit was poured
out upon them, just as it had been years before upon
the Jewish disciples in Jerusalem. After this occur¬
rence, Peter was called to account by the Church at
Jerusalem for going in unto the uncircumcised Gen¬
tiles and eating with them. And in his defense he
said: "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, (Acts i., 5,) how that he said,
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
97
John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be bap¬
tized with the Holy Ghost." This shows us that the
Gentiles were baptized with the Holy Spirit in the
same manner that the Jews were on the day of Pen¬
tecost. " For on them also was 'poured out the gift of
the Holy Ghost, and they spake with tongues and
magnified God." " The Holy Ghost fell on them as
on us at the begininng." Then Peter commanded them
to be baptized with water.
These examples prove, beyond all contradiction, that
the baptism of the Holy Ghost was uniformly admin¬
istered by "pouring," "shedding forth," and "falling
upon," and not by immersion in any sense. There¬
fore, to baptize with the Holy Ghost, does not mean to
immerse in the Holy Ghost. And for the same reason,
to baptize with water, does not mean to immerse in
ivater. Then, as water baptism is the divinely ap¬
pointed symbol of spiritual baptism, both as to its
design and mode, we reasonably infer that it should be
conferred in like manner, by applying the element to
the subject, and not the subject to the element, as im-
mersionists do. " I will pour water upon him that is
thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground ; I will pour
my Spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine
offspring."
We conclude, therefore, that sprinkling or pouring
is the proper mode of baptism, and that it is a per¬
version of the mode, if nothing more, to administer it
by immersion ; because its symbolical nature and ref¬
erence is thereby ignored and destroyed. Especially
is this the case when it is administered to represent
98
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ—things
which it was never intended to symbolize in the Chris¬
tian Church, as we shall show in the proper place.
THE BAPTISM OF THREE THOUSAND AT PENTECOST.
In Acts ii. we have a record of the conversion and
baptism of three thousand persons in Jerusalem, prob¬
ably at the temple, on the day of Pentecost. The
facts in the case are as follows : The Holy Ghost was
poured out upon the disciples at nine o'clock in the
morning; and when this strange occurrence was noised
abroad through the city, the multitude came together
and were confounded at what they saw and heard.
Then Peter, standing up with the eleven, preached to
them about this matter at some length. The result
was that about three thousand persons professed con¬
version, and were baptized and added to the Church
the same day. "Then they that gladly received his
word were baptized; and the same day there were ad¬
ded unto them about three thousand souls." All this
took place between nine o'clock in the morning and six -
in the afternoon of this memorable day.
How, the facts in this case forbid the supposition
that the apostles began to baptize till in the afternoon,
for the first three hours must have been consumed by
the assembling of the multitude and the preaching of
Peter. Luke says, " With many such words he ex¬
horted them." Then confessions had to be made, and
explanations given. " What must we do ? " said the
people. "And he said unto them, Repent and be
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
99
baptized, every one of you," etc. All this consumed
time; and upon the Baptist supposition that they were
immersed, additional time would be required for the
people to return to their homes and prepare them¬
selves with "a change of raiment" for the occasion,
and also for the apostles to look out suitable places
with sufficient depth of water and standing room for
each of the twelve to baptize two hundred and fifty per¬
sons by six o'clock.
Now, the questson is, Could the twelve apostles im¬
merse three thousand persons in the city of Jerusalem,
under all these circumstances, in four or five hours'
time ? Common sense says they could not. Immer-
sionists, conscious of the impossibility of such a thing,
have concluded that " the seventy disciples" must
have been present to lend a helping hand. But this
supposition contradicts the record, which says, " But
Peter standing up with the eleven, (not the seventy,)
lifted up his voice and said," etc. The apostles, theny
did the baptizing ; and as it was done by sprinkling or
pouring, they needed no help.
We take the ground that the three thousand Pen¬
tecostal converts were the " first-fruits " of the harvest
of the nations prophesied of by Isaiah at the close of
the fifty-second chapter of the book of his prophecies,
where it is said, " So shall he sprinkle many nations
For " there were dwelling in Jerusalem," at this very
time, " devout men out of every nation under heaven "
" These all heard the apostles speak in their own
tongues, wherein they were born, the wonderful works
of God, and they marveled, saying, What meaneth
100
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
this?" Peter told them, in his sermon, what it all
meant; and doubtless many of them, along with the
native Jews, constituted the three thousand souls con¬
verted and baptized on that memorable day. And as
Isaiah had said they should be " sprinkled," we believe
they were. "And the same day there were added un¬
to them about three thousand souls."
Those who can believe that the three thousand con¬
verts at the Pentecost were immersed by the apostles
in a few hours, must have faith to remove moun¬
tains.
THE BAPTISM OF PAUL, (ACTS ix., Xxii.)
We take the position that Paul was baptized in the
house of Judas, in an erect posture, and, therefore, by
sprinkling or pouring.
We shall rest our argument in poof of this position
upon the meaning of the Greek word anastas. This
word is compounded of ana—up, and istemi—to stand;
literally, "stand up." And Ananias said unto Saul,
" Why tarriest thou ?—anastas—stand up and be bap¬
tized, and wash away thy sins," etc. "And he—anas¬
tas—stood up and was baptized."
We will give a few examples out of many that
might be adduced in confirmation of the position
that anastas means to stand up.
"And in those days Peter—anastas—stood up in the
midst of the disciples and said," etc. Acts i., 15.
"And Paul fell to the earth," etc., " and the Lord
said unto him—anastas—stand up, and go into the
city. And he was there three days and nights; nei¬
ther did he eat nor drink." Acts ix., 4-6.
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
101
" Paul and Silas went into the synagogue and sat
down," etc. " Then Paul—anastas—stood up, and
beckoning with his hand, said," etc. Acts xiii., 14-16-
"And the high-priest—anastas—stood up in the
midst, and said to him, Answerest thou nothing."
Mark xiv., 60.
These examples prove conclusively that the literal
and uniform meaning of anastas is to stand up. An¬
astas places any one in an erect position, upon one's
feet, but it does not imply any additional motion.
Hence, if motion or progression is required of the in¬
dividual who thus "stands," another verb is used to
express this requirement. "And the Lord said unto
Saul, Arise (from the earth where he had fallen) and
—eiselthe—go into the city." "And the Lord said
unto Ananias, Arise, stand up, and go into the street
called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for
one Saul of Tarsus, for behold he prayeth." "And
Ananias arose and went his way, and entered into the
house, and putting his hands upon him, said, Brother
Saul—anastas—stand up, and be baptized." Not
stand up and go and be baptized. "And—anastas—
he stood up and ivas baptized." Not he stood up and
went and was baptized. There was no going in the
case. None was commanded, because none was nec¬
essary. He was simply required to " stand up and be
baptized." "And he—anastas—stood up and was
baptized, there and then, in the house of Judas, with¬
out going out, if language means any thing.
Paul had fasted three days and nights without either
eating or drinking, and was, of necessity, very much
102 BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
prostrated by this long fast, combined with extreme
mental agony, and was evidently lying down when
Ananias came in, and requested him to—" anastas—
stand up and be baptized," etc.
Now, if any thing can be proved by the Scriptures,
we claim that we have established the fact that Paul
was baptized in the house of Judas in an erect pos¬
ture, standing either upon his feet or his knees, con¬
sequently either by sprinkling or pouring, and not by
immersion, which would have been impossible under
the circumstances.
THE ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH'S BAPTISM, (ACTS VIII.)
The eunuch was a proselyte to the Jew's religion,
and had been up to Jerusalem to worship, and was re¬
turning when Philip fell in with him in the desert be¬
tween Jerusalem and Gaza. The eunuch was reading,
at the time, the prophesy of Isaiah with reference to
the dignity, humiliation, sufferings, and death of our
Lord Jesus Christ, and the glory that should follow.
This prophesy begins with the 13th verse of the 52d
chapter, and ends with the 53d chapter. "And Philip
said unto him, Understandest thou what thou readest?"
He confessed he did not, and desired him to come up
into the chariot and instruct him. Philip did so ; " and
beginning at the same scripture, preached unto him
Jesus. And as they journeyed on, they came to a certain
water ; and the eunuch said, See water: what doth hin¬
der me to be baptized ? And Philip said, If thou be-
lievest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he an¬
swered, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
103
And he commanded the chariot to stand still; and they
went down (eis) into the water, both Philip and the
eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they were
come up (ek) out of the water, the Lord caught away
Philip, and the eunuch went on his way rejoicing."
Now, the supposed strength of this example in fa¬
vor of immersion lies entirely in the force of the Greek
prepositions eis and ek, here rendered into and out of,
by the translators. Immersionists ask with conscious
triumph, Why did they both go down into the water,
if Philip only sprinkled a little of it upon the eunuch?
But is it a fact that both or either of them went into
the water when Philip baptized the eunuch? We
answer, it is by no means certain that they did. But
on the contrary, it is almost philologically certain that
they did not go into the water. Let the reader re¬
member the definitions of eis, given in the chapter on
prepositions, and not forget that it means nearly three
dozen different things, some of which are as follows :
On, at, by, to, near to, unto, toward, about, against,
etc., as well as in and into. Now, unless immersion¬
ists are infalliable, how do they know that eis in this
place means into, instead of to, by, at, near to, or
against, the water ? Certainly they do not obtain any
such knowledge from the Greek New Testament. And
the rendering of the prepositions eis and ek in this
case proves conclusively, as we have already shown, the
bias of the translators in favor of immersion. There
is proof of this found in this very chapter, where the
preposition eis occurs twelve times. They render it by
the English preposition to, five times; unto, one time;
104 baptismal demonstrations*
at, once; in, twice; and into, twice; and in one place,
wherethey did not translate it at all, it means together;
"Thy money perish (eis) together with thee," said Pe¬
ter to Simon. In the third verse, one of the places
where eis is rendered into, it is compounded with the
verb poreuo—eis poreuomenos—and is correctly ren¬
dered " entering into." The other place where they
render it into, is the thirty-eighth verse, where the
eunuch's baptism is mentioned. Here it is not com¬
pounded with a verb, but stands alone. In the other
ten places where eis occurs in this chapter, they do not
render it into, but by other words, e. g., to, at, unto,
etc., ten times out of twelve. Why, then, did the
translators render eis into in the thirty-eighth verse ?
The answer is, simply because they were immersion-
ists in their belief and practice. For there was noth¬
ing in eis, or in its connections, in the thirty-eighth
verse, different from the other seven places, where they
render it to, at, and unto.
The fact to which we now invite attention is, that
eis never literally means into, in the sense of entrance
or penetration into any thing material, except when it is
compounded with a verb. Then, and only then, does
it certainly and definitely mean to enter or penetrate.
Hence, whenever the apostles intended to express,
definitely and certainly, the fact of penetration into
any thing material—such as a city, house, sepulcher,
etc.—they uniformly compounded the prepositions, eis,
en, etc., with a verb. Let any one who can read Greek,
that doubts this assertion, examine the New Testa¬
ment on this subject.
baptismal demonstrations.
105
We will here give a few examples in support of this
position:
" Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple,
and came (eis) to the sepulcher. So they ran both to¬
gether ; and that other disciple did outrun Peter, and
came first (eis) to the sepulcher; yet went he not in.
Then cometh Simon Peter following him,and (eiselthen)
went into the sepulcher. Then (eiselthe) ivent in also
that other disciple, that (eltheneis protos) came first to
the sepulcher." John xx., 3-8. Here the difference
is clearly shown between the force of eis when alone,
and when compounded with a verb. When alone, it
does not definitely mean more than to, at, by, toward,
against, etc.; but when compounded, it always defi¬
nitely means to penetrate or enter.
Take another example, found in Mark xiii., 15 :
" Let him that is upon the housetop not (Jcatabato eis
oikian) go down to the house, nor [eiseltheto oikias) en¬
ter into the house, to take any thing out of it ; but let
him flee to the mountains." Here, again, th^ differ¬
ence in the meaning of eis when alone, and when pre¬
fixed to a verb, is perfectly clear.
In Acts viii., 38, where the baptism of the eunuch
is the subject, eis stands alone, between the verb and
the noun. " (Amphoteroi) they both (katebesan eis
hudor) went down to the water, and he baptized him."
Now, in view of these examples of the force of this
preposition, when alone and when compounded, where
is the evidence that Philip and the eunuch went into
the water ? Certainly it is not in the text. It should
be remarked that the "going down" in this case,
106
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
was from the chariot to the ground, and not from the
ground into the water. The chariot had been stopped
near the water, (how much there was no one knows,)
and they both descended from it. For of course the
eunuch would not, on such an occasion, remain in his
chariot, and either send Philip or any one else to bring
water up there with which to he baptized. It was
highly proper that he should manifest his humility be¬
fore God. and his respect for his minister sent to teach
him, by going down with Philip from the chariot to
the water, and there receive baptism, rather than
proudly to remain in his seat and demand thus to be
baptized. This would have been unnatural.
Now, upon the supposition that immersion was the
apostolic mode of baptism, Luke did a work of super¬
erogation in being so particular as to tell us " they
both went down into the water, and he baptized him."
For, if immersion was the mode, and nothing else
would do, then of course they both, of necessity, would
have to go down from the chariot into the water, uh-
less immersion could be performed on dry land. But
upon the supposition that sprinkling or pouring was
the mode of baptizing then in use, we can see at a
glance the propriety of emphasizing the fact of their
both going down to the water, as going down from the
chariot was not a matter of necessity, if affusion was
the mode; but he might in this way have received
baptism where he sat, if he had been so disposed. But
his humility, sincerity, and sense of propriety, caused
him to accompany Philip in his descent from the
chariot to the water; and we think Luke, by the care-
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS. 107
fill manner in which he detailed all the facts in this
case, intended to impress the reader's mind with the
above named traits of the eunuch's character as worthy
of commendation. Another fact should also be no¬
ticed in this connection—that is, that in the very por¬
tion of prophesy which the eunuch was reading, and
from which Philip preached unto him Jesus, occurs
this remarkable passage: "So shall he sprinkle many
nations." Isaiah said nothing about immersing any
one, much less many nations. And if Philip immers¬
ed the eunuch, he did it contrary to the prediction of
the prophet that it should be done by sprinkling, in
the very text from which he had preached the gospel
to him.
As to the preposition ek, here rendered " out of," we
have shown in the chapter on the prepositions that it
does not necessarily mean out of, and hence proves noth¬
ing as to the mode of the eunuch's baptism. It would
have been just as proper to say, " They both came up
(ek) from the water," as it was for John to say that
" Jesus rose (ek) from supper," instead of out of it.
If they went into the water, then ek brought them out
of it; but if they only went down to it, then ek only
brought them from it. We think, however, that we
have proved conclusively that Philip and the eunuch
did not go into the water, and hence had no occasion
to come out of it.
THE BAPTISM OF THE JAILER AND HIS FAMILY.
This transaction is circumstantially recorded in Acts
xvi.; and the facts are brief and clear. Paul had cast
108
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
an evil spirit out of a certain damsel, who by sooth¬
saying brought her masters much gain; "and. when
they saw that the hope of their gains was gone, they
caught Paul and Silas, and brought them before the
magistrates, who rent off their clothes, and beat them
with many stripes, and cast them into prison, charging
the jailer to keep them safely; who, having received
such a charge, thrust them into the inner prison, and
made their feet fast in the stocks. And at midnight
Paul and Silas sang and prayed; and there was a great
earthquake, and the prison-doors all flew open, and
every prisoner's bands fell off. The jailer, being roused
from his slumbers by the earthquake, and seeing the
prison-doors open, drew his sword, and would have
killed himself, supposing the prisoners had all fled.
But Paul cried unto him with a loud voice, Do thy¬
self no harm, for we are all here. Then he called for
a light, and sprang in., and came trembling, and fell
down before them, and brought them out, (i. e., of the
inner prison,) and said, Sirs, what must I do to be
saved? They told him what to do; and he took them
the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes;
and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. Then
he brought them into his own house, and set meat be¬
fore them, and.rejoiced, believing in God. Now when
it was day, the magistrates sent, saying, Let these men
go. And the jailer told this to Paul. Now therefore
depart, said he, and go in peace. But Paul said, They
have beaten us openly uncondemned, being Romans,
and have cast us into prison; and now do they thrust
us out privily? Nay verily; but let them come them-
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS. 109
selves and fetch us out. And they came, and brought
them out, and desired them to depart outpf.their city.
And they went out of the prison, and entered into the
house of Lydia."
We call attention only to a few points in this case:
First. The jailer and his family were baptized at the
hour of midnight in the prison. " And he took them
the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes;
and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And
when he brought them into his house, he set meat he-
fore them," etc. Second, Paul refused to leave the
prison privily, and demanded that the magistrates
themselves should come and bring them out as publicly
as they had been thrust in. Now who can believe
that they had left the prison privily at midnight, and
had gone—no one knows where—in search of water,
in company with the jailer and his family, in order to
immerse them, and then slipped back into the prison,
and refused to go out privily, when they had already
been out in this way the night before? If they had
done this, might they not have been justly charged
with hypocrisy? But is any one impious enough to
believe that Paul and Silas were capable of any spe¬
cies of deception and hypocrisy? The conclusion that
they had not been out of prison-bounds is inevitable.
Therefore the jailer and his family were baptized in
the prison, and hence by sprinkliny or pouring, as im¬
mersion would have been impossible under the circum¬
stances.
110
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
THE BAPTISM OF CORNELIUS AND HIS HOUSEHOLD.
This transaction is recorded in Acts x., 44-48. Cor¬
nelius, a Roman centurion, and a devout man who
worshipped God, was directed by an angel to send to
Joppa for Simon Peter, who would tell him what he
ought to do. This he did; and Peter came without
delay, and found that Cornelius had gathered his kin¬
dred and near friends; and he immediately preached
to them in his house. " While Peter yet spake these
words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard
the word. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid
water, that these should not be baptized, which have
received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he com¬
manded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord."
There is nothing said in this case about going to wa¬
ter to be baptized. Therefore the inference is legiti¬
mate that they were baptized on the spot in the house
of the centurion, where they had just been been bap¬
tized with the Holy Ghost by pouring; and hence
were baptized with water in the same manner.
In concluding these examples, we call attention to
the fact that, from the day of Pentecost to the final
Amen in the Revelation of St. John, no one is ever
said to have gone away from the place where he was
converted in order to be baptized. Wherever any are
said to have been converted, right there and then were
they baptized; whether in Jerusalem at the temple on
the day of Pentecost, or at the house of Judas in the
city of Damascus, or in the prison at Philippi, or at
the house of Cornelius, or anywhere else, it seems they
universally found water enough at hand for baptizing
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
Ill
purposes. Moreover, there is not a single instance re¬
corded in which an apostle or evangelist ever went from
the place of preaching in search of water to baptize
his converts. Nor is any one ever said to have been bap¬
tized, after John closed his ministry, at or in a river,
creek, branch, pond, tank, or pool, except the eunuch,
and this was a mere accident; for they were not in
search of water for any purpose, but came by chance
upon some oasis in the desert as they journeyed on*
But even in this case there was no immersion, as we
have clearly shown. Therefore we may safely affirm,
that there is no foundation for baptizing by immersion
in the word of God, and that it is a mere human in¬
vention, introduced into the Church after the days of
the apostles.
CHAPTER IX.
We now proceed to notice several passages of Scrip¬
ture found in the Epistles of Paul, much relied upon
by the advocates of immersion in support of their
theory. We begin with the sixth chapter of Romans.
That the language here used is highly figurative, is
admitted on all hands. The only difference of opin¬
ion is as to the meaning and application of these fig¬
ures. We do not believe that the apostle, in this
chapter, refers to any mode of baptism, but to the de¬
sign of the ordinance, which is to separate those bap¬
tized from the love and practice of sin, by pledging
them in the very act to renounce the devil and all hjs
works, and to a constant observance of God's holy will
and commandments.
1. But our opponents take the ground that the
apostle here teaches immersion; and that immersion
in water represents the death, burial and resurrection
of Christ, and our death, burial, and resurrection with
him. Now, if they are right in their views of this
subject, baptism by immersion must either represent
the Saviour's death in the abstract—that is, simply
considered in itself, without reference to the manner
of it—or it must represent it in the concrete, that is,
including the manner and circumstances of his death.
But his death in the abstract cannot be represented by
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS. 113
any mode of baptism, because natural death (and
Christ's death was natural) is but the separation of
the soul from the body, and the extinction of ani¬
mal life—neither of which has any visible manifesta¬
tion, and hence cannot be represented by any material
thing whatever, when it is simply considered in the
abstract. As there cannot, therefore, be any resem¬
blance between immersion and death in the abstract,
we will examine and see if there is any between im¬
mersion and the manner of his death. His death was
by crucifixion. He was nailed to the cross, and then
suspended between the heavens and the earth, and for
six dreadful hours hung in pain, and agony, and blood;
then crying with a loud voice, said, It is finished, and
gave up the ghost. Now is there any sort of resem¬
blance between immersion in water and the manner of
Christ's death?
This point, then, is settled, that immersion in no
sense represents the death of the Saviour on the cross.
2. But it is also asserted that immersion represents
the burial of Christ. If this be true, of course it can
be made to appear. How, then, was he buried? We
are told that when Joseph had taken down his body
from the cross, he wrapped it in clean linen, and laid
it in his own new tomb; and rolling a great stone to
the door of the sepulcher, he departed. According to
the custom of his country, Joseph had excavated a
tomb in a rock large enough to serve as a burial place
for himself and family. In the sides of the excava¬
tion thus made were niches cut for each one of the
family, and so arranged as to deposit the dead body in
114 BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
a reclining posture. Now, in the niche which Joseph
had cut for himself, he deposited the body of Jesus
in a reclining posture, and so left it. This was the
manner of his burial. Who can see any resemblance
between immersion in water and Christ's burial in
Joseph's niche in the side of a rock, above ground, in
a reclining posture, and leaving him there till his res¬
urrection? The notion is absurd.
3. But again it is said that " immersion represents
the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ." This of
course is a contradiction in terms. Immersion means
simply to put under, and nothing more. Therefore it
cannot express two such opposite actions as burial and
resurrection. It may he that our opponents mean to
say emersion—not immersion—represents Christ's res¬
urrection. How, then, did he rise? After reclining
in his niche till the morning of the third day, the
spirit which forsook the body upon the cross, re-enter¬
ed it, and he at once awoke to life, and came down
from his niche in the side of the rock, and walked out of
the sepulcher. This was the manner of his resurrec¬
tion. Now, in all conscience, where is the resemblance
between the resurrection of Christ and dipping a man
in water? Who can show it.
We feel free to say that there is no more foundation
in truth for the belief that immersion represents the
death, burial, and resurrection of the Saviour, than
there is for the Bomish doctrine of transubstantiation.
The assertion of our opponents that immersion also
represents our death, burial, and resurrection with
Christ, has no more foundation in truth than the one
we have just examined.
baptismal demonstrations.
115
Baptism, in its design, (not in its mode,) does teach
the doctrine of our death and burial to sin, (not our
death by drowning and our burial in water,) and our
resurrection from the death of sin to a neio life*
" through the faith of the operation of God, who raised
Christ from the dead." And this is the doctrine which
Paul here teaches us. Notice the following facts:
First. The death, burial, and resurrection of Christ
here spoken of, were his literal death on the cross, his
burial in Joseph's new tomb, and his resurrection from
that tomb. Nothing is here said about his baptism.
Second. His death, burial, and resurrection had their
design, which is thus stated by Paul: " He died for
our sins, and rose for our justification" Third. Our
baptism harmonizes in its design with the design of
Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. " He died
for our sins." " We are dead to sin" "How shall
we who are dead to sin live any longer therein?" " He
died and was buried." " We are buried with him
(dia baptismatos) by means of baptism "—not into wa¬
ter, but (eis) aunto death" "Know ye not that so
many of us as were baptized {eis) unto Jesus Christ,
were baptized {eis) unto his death?" That is, our
baptism is in harmony, in its design, with the death
of Christ, which was " to put away sins by the sacri¬
fice of himself." "For as many of you as have been
baptized (eis) unto Christ have put on Christ." Gal.
iii., 27. We make a public profession of Christianity
by being "baptized unto Christ;" and in this way we
"put on Christ;" by assuming his character, and liv¬
ing in harmony with the design of his death, burial,
116
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
and resurrection; by dying to the love and practice of
sin, and by rising out of the death of sin, and walk¬
ing in newness of life. " That like as Christ was
raised up from the dead by the glorious power of the
Father, even so we also "—being raised up from the
dead by the same glorious power—" should walk in
newness of life." The death and burial here men¬
tioned are in the present tense, while the baptism is in
the past tense. " So many of us as were baptized unto
Jesus Christ were baptized unto his death. There¬
fore we are buried with him by baptism unto death."
Now, as many of the Roman Christians had been bap¬
tized long before this Epistle was written to them, if
the apostle, by the expression, " We are buried with
him by baptism unto death," meant " buried in im¬
mersion," then they had continued under the water
for many long years, and were still under it, when
Paul wrote to them. For he says, " We are buried
with him by baptism." And the apostle was also un¬
der the water when he wrote this Epistle; for, includ¬
ing himself, he says, " We are buried by baptism."
So they were all still buried unto death in consequence
of the baptism they had received years before; and if
the burial was by immersion in water, then they were
all still in the " liquid grave," " buried unto death,''
and not likely to come out till the resurrection. All
this is legitimate from Baptist premises. They seem
to forget, however, that the burial here spoken of, is
never said to be in water, but unto death. "We are
buried (dia) by means of baptism unto death." What¬
ever else this chapter may teach, it is certain it does
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
117
not teach that immersion by water is the mode of
Christian baptism; and as such, was designed to rep¬
resent the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ,
and our death, burial, and resurrection with him.
Baptism in its design—not in its mode—is the great
lesson taught in this chapter.
In Paul's Epistle to the Colossians (ii., 10-12) he
teaches them precisely the same lesson concerning the
design of baptism which we find in the sixth chapter
of Komans. The preposition en occurs in these verses
(10-12) six times, and is rendered in five times, and
by once, in the expression, " By the circumcision of
Christ." The Greek proposition en has the force of
by, or by means of, in every instance in these verses.
"Ye are complete (perfected) (en) by him; (en) by
whom also ye are circumcised, etc.; (en) by putting off
the body of the sins of the flesh; (en) by the circum¬
cision of Christ; buried with him (en) by baptism, (en)
whereby ye are also risen with him, through the faith
of the operation of God, who raised him from the
dead." We are not buried with Christ by immersion
in water, because lie was not so buried, but was buried
in a rock. And we are not said to be buried in immer¬
sion, but " we are (not were) buried by baptism (eis)
unto death." Hence the burial here meant is not in
water, nor is the resurrection a coming up out of the
"liquid grave," but a resurrection from the death of
sin unto a new life of righteousness, "through the
faith of the operation of God," and not through the
operation of a minister of the gospel. The design of
baptism is to separate us from the love and practice
118
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
of sin, and consequently harmonizes with the design
of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection.
In Ephesians [iv., 5] we find this expression : "One
Lord, one faith, one baptism." Our opponents as¬
sume that this one baptism is immersion. But this
is begging the question instead of proving it. We do
not contend that there are more water-baptisms than
one in the Christian Church. But we object to our
opponents claiming this, without proof, to be immer¬
sion. Immersion is not baptism; neither is sprink¬
ling, nor pouring: because baptism is not a mode, but
a thing. The thing is a ceremonial purification, and
the proper mode in which it should be done is by
sprinkling, or pouring, as we have abundantly proved
in the preceding pages. Let him that readeth under¬
stand.
We close our argument on the mode of baptism by
the following deductions from admitted facts : It is
admitted by all Protestant Christians that we have but
two sacraments in the Christian Church—the Lord's
Supper and Baptism. The supper represents the death
of Christ, the breaking of his body, and the shedding
of his blood. " This bread is my body broken for you;
and this cup is the new testament in my blood, shed
for you for the remission of sins. Do this in remem¬
brance of me. For as oft as ye eat this bread and
drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death, till he
come."
Now suppose some minister among us should con-
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
119
ceive the idea that the Lord's Supper was not inten¬
ded to represent the breaking of the body and the shed¬
ding of the blood of the Saviour, but was designed by
its Author to represent the baptism of the Holy Ghost
on the day of Pentecost; and, with this view, propose
to us to join with him in celebrating the supper. Is
there an intelligent Christian among us that would
commune with him for any such purpose ? But even
if this was done, it would not be the Lord's Supper;
because it would be made to represent a fact that it was
never intended to represent, and hence would destroy
its sacramental character so entirely as to render it null
and void. For its validity does, and must of necessity,
consist in its design, which is to represent the death of
Christ by the breaking of his body, and the shedding
of his blood upon the cross.
Now, this being true of the Lord's Supper, the same
results follow as to Baptism. Whenever it is admin¬
istered to represent facts, which it was never intended
to represent, its sacramental character is so completely
destroyed as to render it null and void. Therefore,
for this ordinance to be valid, it must be administered
with the right design. To this position immersionists
will not object; and for this reason they deny the va¬
lidity of baptism administered by sprinkling or pour¬
ing, because they contended that this ordinance was
designed to represent the death, burial, and resurrection
of Christ: and as sprinkling and pouring, they say, can¬
not represent these facts, therefore baptism performed
in this way is not valid. Now, if they are correct in
their views of the design of baptism, we must admit the
120
BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
force of their argument against the validity of sprink¬
ling and pouring. But if their views prove to he er¬
roneous and unscriptural, then they must admit, upon
their own principles, that they have no valid baptism,
having destroyed its sacramental nature by preverting
its design.
But we think we have proved conclusively in the
preceding pages, from the Scriptures, that the ordi¬
nance of baptism was never instituted for the purpose
of representing the death, burial, and resurrection of
Christ, and hence to administer it for this purpose de¬
stroys its sacramental character, and its validity.
We think we have demonstrated that this ordinance
was intended by its Author to represent spiritual pur i-
fication by the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and there¬
fore should always be performed with direct reference
to this fact, whether it be done by sprinkling, pour¬
ing, or immersion. Every one, however, who admits
this to be its design, must see the propriety, if not the
necessity, of administering it by sprinkling or pouring,
as it represents the baptism of " the Holy Ghost shed
on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Lord."
" I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be
clean." " So shall he sprinkle many nations." " I will
pour luatcr upon him that is thirsty, and I will pour
my Spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine
offspring."
THE END.