Thoughts on Baptism

THE influences of association and education, brought to bear upon us even from childhood, are so many, so varied, and often so subtle, that it seems impossible to find an investigator who is entirely free from prepossession or prejudice. But this should lead us, not to excuse this unhappy state of things because so many are involved in the same difficulty, but, rather, to distrust our positions and always be willing to have them tested anew by the great detector—the Bible.

Brought up under the influence of the Presbyterian Church, I had no views of baptism which I could call my own, that is, which were received by conviction instead of tradition. At the age of twenty-three I made a profession of faith, and was then requested to read "Dwight's Theology." At that time I had never read a work or heard a sermon on baptism which was opposed to the faith of the church of my parents. By carefully and prayerfully examining the arguments of Dr. Dwight, and all the passages referred to by him, together with their contexts, I became thoroughly convinced that his conclusions were not just.

On the mode of baptism (as it is improperly expressed), a very extended argument seems hardly needed at this day. The Baptist authors, Carson and others, though they have not exhausted the subject, have well established the principles from which safe conclusions may be drawn. The Baptist denomination, as also the "Christian," is worthy of our high regards for the service they have done to the cause of truth on this subject, under reproach, opposition, and often persecution, if not always open and violent, none the less keen and cutting to the conscientious and sensitive, when it comes from those who ought to befriends, and to whom Christian charity would indicate a different course.

The "Disciples" also, led out by Alexander Campbell, have shown an earnestness and zeal worthy of commendation in their efforts to extend the truth concerning the action and subjects of baptism. But they have, unfortunately, so related these to certain errors, especially that of antinomianism, as greatly to detract from the value of their efforts on these important points. Because of the prevalence of this "antinomian delusion," as Rev. Andrew Fuller aptly called it, the relations of baptism need now to be specially considered.

Many are ready to justify the differences of opinion which exist in regard to Scripture truth, while they deplore and condemn the controversies which are the necessary result of such differences. Every conscientious person will endeavor to spread the views which he holds, as long as he considers them connected with the will and glory of God, and the well-being of his fellowmen. These differences show that error prevails, and as it may be with ourselves, we should never refuse to bring our faith to the test of examination by the light of the word of God, ever remembering that it is the truth alone which can sanctify us. John 17:17.

WHAT IS BAPTISM?

It is often claimed that words, when used in the Scriptures, have a different meaning from that which they have when used elsewhere, and this claim is especially made in regard to the word baptizein, the Greek infinitive, to baptize. Our understanding of language is gained only through our knowledge of the meaning of its terms. If these are not clearly defined, then we can have no clear understanding of the language. If words in the Bible do not have the meaning which is established by usage and given in the lexicons of the languages in which they were written, then it follows evidently that we cannot understand the things which are professedly revealed unless we have a special lexicon to give these unusual meanings of the words. Such a claim really destroys the efficiency and sufficiency of the word of God as a revelation. By connection with a certain doctrine or ordinance, a term may come to have a technical or restricted application, but its meaning is not thereby changed.

This is illustrated in the common use of the word millennium. Webster says, "A thousand years; used to denote the thousand years of the twentieth chapter of Revelation." No particular thousand years can be indicated by the meaning of the word; yet in all discussions of the Scriptures it is at once understood that it refers to that thousand years mentioned in the Scriptures. While the word has acquired such a restricted application as to direct the mind to that particular period, its signification is not at all changed by that use. True, by that use we have been accustomed to associate with the word the idea of peace, etc., but such ideas have no necessary connection with the term. They are but the result of a certain accepted description of the thing specified. A millennium may be either of joy or of sorrow. Neither is indicated by the word, and it is only by arbitrary association that we attach the idea of joy and peace to the millennium, for the term itself could never convey any such idea to the mind.

And such is the case with the word baptism. When spoken in Christian lands, and especially in discussions of the Scriptures, the mind at once turns to the ordinance of Christian Baptism. But in the phrase, "Christian baptism," we have added to the word baptism all that we have associated in our minds with the act or thing as a Christian ordinance. Of course, much that is foreign to the simple meaning of the term is attached to it by association. When searching for the meaning of a term we ought to free it from all such associations or foreign elements. In this case the word had an established meaning before it was used to designate a Christian ordinance. And if the ordinance was not made to conform to the meaning of the word, then the word so used did not convey a correct idea to the mind of the hearer or reader; and such a use would be well calculated to create confusion.

We cannot suppose that the Institutor of the ordinance designed to be obscure in his directions for the discharge of a gospel duty. Then the question arises, was there any word in use in our Saviour's time which would specify any particular action in the administration of this ordinance? We answer, There was; and such a word was chosen by him; one having an established and unmistakably definite signification.

It should be borne in mind that it is not safe to trust to modern dictionaries for the meaning of words adopted from other languages. They aim to give the signification of words as they are now used. And here it is proper to remark that usage takes precedence of the lexicon as authority. When use has established the meaning of a term, the dictionary gives that meaning. A dictionary cannot make meanings. It is a standard only so far as it gives correctly the meaning established by the best usage. If we wish to ascertain the true meaning of words in other languages, we must resort to the usages and lexicons of those languages. We have an illustration of this point. We have an English dictionary published in Scotland in which the only definition given of baptize is "to christen." That was the idea attached to the word at the time when, and the place where, the book was published. But insert that definition in a Scripture text, as Mark 16 or Acts 2, and it is found to be, not only erroneous but, ridiculous.

Again we should never try to settle the meaning of the word by our ideas of the intention of the ordinance. The intention of ordinances is always more or less a subject of controversy; and the occasion of controversy is increased by confusion in regard to the meaning of the terms used. We do not learn the meaning of words by the intention of ordinances; but we learn, rather, what the ordinance is by the meaning of the words which define it.

There are eight words in the Greek of the New Testament referring to the several actions which are supposed to be admissible in the administration of the ordinance of baptism. These are,—

1. Baptizo. This word is never translated in the Authorized Version, that is, in our Bible, commonly known as King James' Translation. It always appears under its anglicized form, baptize. We pass this for the present to briefly consider the others.

2. Rhantizo. This word is used six times in the New Testament and is translated sprinkle every time. It has no other meaning. It is found in Heb. 9:13, 19, 21; 10:22; 12:24; 1 Pet. 1:2.

3. Proschusis. This occurs but once in the New Testament, Heb. 11:28, rendered sprinkling. The lexicons give it the definitions of pouring upon, and sprinkling.

4. Ekcheo. This word is used eighteen times, and is translated pour out and shed forth. The lexicons give this definition. Ekchuno is considered a form of the same word, having the same signification, and is rendered in the same manner. It occurs ten times.

5. Epicheo is used but once, Luke 10:34, and is rendered pouring in.

6. Katacheo occurs twice, Matt. 26:7; Mark 14:3, and is rendered pour.

7. Kerannumi (kerao) occurs three times, Rev. 14:10, and 18:6 twice. In the first-named text it is rendered poured out, and in the latter is used thus: "In the cup which she hath filled, fill to her double." The lexicons give it the definition, to mix, mingle, or pour out, as "from one vessel to another."

8. Ballo. This word has the definition of throw or cast. It is used one hundred and twenty-five times; rendered cast, ninety times; pour out, twice, Matt. 26:12, and John 13:5.

Of the seven words last noticed, not one of them is ever used in referring to the ordinance of baptism. The word ekcheo is supposed to be an exception, but it is not; for the ordinance is a subject of commandment, but the baptism of the Spirit, to which the word is applied, is not a subject of precept. But this will be noticed more particularly hereafter.

We come now to consider the word baptizo. This is defined immerse in all the lexicons. We say in all, for we have never seen or even heard of an exception. We might give authorities to any length in justification of this statement, but as it would only lengthen our remarks needlessly, we forbear, contenting ourselves with some quotations from Prof. Moses Stuart. We choose to offer Prof. Stuart as authority, for several reasons: 1. He occupied a prominent position in the Presbyterian denomination, and his admissions will therefore carry more weight than the claims of Baptist authors, though their testimony may be in perfect agreement. 2. His ability and learning were unquestioned; he long stood as a distinguished teacher in a theological school. 3. His writings being of recent date, he was in possession of all the advantages of the investigation on this subject, ancient and modern. Of the Greek he says:—

"Bapto and baptizo mean to dip, plunge, or immerge into anything liquid. All lexicographers and critics of any note are agreed in this. My proof of this position, then, need not necessarily be protracted; but for the sake of ample confirmation, I must beg the reader's patience while I lay before him, as briefly as may be, the results of an investigation which seems to leave no room for doubt."

He then proceeds to quote Greek authors, beginning with Homer, and gives thirty-seven instances of the use of the original with this signification. Giving five instances from Hippocrates, he remarks:—

"And in the same way in all parts of his book, in instances almost without number." Closing his list of citations, he adds:—

"It were easy to enlarge this list of testimonies to this use; but the reader will not desire it."

Leaving the classics, and coming to the records of the church, he says:—

"The passages which refer to immersion are so numerous in the fathers, that it would take a little volume merely to recite them."

He gives no instance where it is used with any other meaning than immerse.