Thoughts on Baptism

THE investigations of others, especially of Dr. Carson and Prof. Conant, were no less exhaustive than that of Prof. Stuart, and all give the same results. And while we consider the vast number of instances given where it refers unmistakably to immersion, there is no instance found where the Greek word baptizo means anything but immerse. Now, where the lexicons are agreed, and the usage is uniform and unvarying, we think the question is settled beyond all chance of reasonable dispute; baptism is immersion, and that only.

Of the figurative use of the word baptizo, Prof. Stuart says:—

"Inasmuch, now, as the more usual idea of baptizo is that of overwhelming, immerging, it was very natural to employ it in designating severe calamities and sufferings."

It is a great mistake, yet made by many, to suppose that, because words are used in figures of speech, therefore they have a figurative meaning. There is no such thing as the figurative meaning of words. They must have a definite and fixed meaning in order to an understanding of the figures which they represent to us. The use of a word in a figure of speech works no change in its signification.

Having given such decided testimony from Prof. Stuart in favor of immersion, we should not do him justice did we not notice the reasons he gave for deviating in his religious views and practice from the meaning of the word. The paragraphs following contain the gist of his reasonings on the subject:—

"For myself, then, I cheerfully admit that baptizo in the New Testament, when applied to the rite of baptism, does in all probability involve the idea that this rite was usually performed by immersion, but not always. I say usually, and not always; for to say more than this, the tenor of some of the narratives, particularly Acts 10:47, 48; 16:32, 33; and 2:41, seem to me to forbid. I cannot read these examples without the distinct conviction that immersion was not used on these occasions, but washing or affusion."

We must again commend the frankness of his admission, but are constrained to express our conviction that he viewed the texts specified rather in the light of his theology than of any necessary construction, to find in them an argument for affusion. On Acts 2, he states what appears to him probable, but which everyone knows is not necessary, and adds:—

"I concede that there are some points here which are left undetermined, and which may serve to aid those who differ from me in replying to these remarks."

On Acts 10, he thinks Peter's words imply this:—

"Can any one forbid that water should be brought in, and these persons be baptized?" And yet he is constrained to say:—

"I admit that another meaning is not necessarily excluded which would accord with the practice of immersion."

On Acts 16:33, he speaks more at length, and is more unfortunate in his statement:—

"Here it is said that the jailer, after the earthquake and other occurrences, and when brought under deep convictions of sin, took Paul and Silas at midnight and washed them from their stripes, i. e., washed off the blood which flowed from the wounds made by their stripes; and straightway (parachrema, forthwith) he was baptized, and ALL HIS. Where was this done? At the jail, or in the jail, where he met Paul and Silas; at any rate, within the precincts of the prison; for after the whole transaction was completed, he brought Paul and Silas to his house and gave them refreshments."

Yet here, also, he admits that there might have been a bath in the jail wherein they were immersed; and so admits that his construction of the text is not necessary. The order of the events is not fully and correctly stated by him. It is as follows:—

1. He brought them out of the prison. Verse 30.

2. They spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. Verse 32.

3. He washed their stripes, and he and all his were baptized. Verse 33.

4. He brought them into his house, and set meat before them. Verse 34.

Thus the record does not give countenance to the idea that all this took place in the jail; for he brought them out, and they preached to all that were in his house, before his baptism. And after his baptism he brought them into his house and gave them food. The baptism took place neither in the prison nor in his house.

But we appeal to every candid, God-fearing reader, against all such reasonings. While it is admitted that the meaning of the word is immerse, and it is admitted that the text may be explained in harmony with that meaning, genuine reverence for the word of God should lead every inquirer to search for that exposition which is in harmony with the evident meaning of the word used, and not to inquire if an exposition may not also be found, not in harmony with the meaning of the word used. The latter course is subversive of divine revelation, and is calculated to engender strife and cause division. For, it must be confessed, the nearer we keep to the literal meaning of the text, the greater is the probability of uniformity in our faith and practice. And when we diverge from the true meaning of the words of the revelation, and admit supposed meanings, confusion is the unavoidable result, for each one is equally authorized to bring in his own supposition. But "God is not the author of confusion, but of peace." We ought, then, to pursue that course which will shut out confusion, and bring peace and union to the household of faith.

The import or design of baptism is the main point, however, on which Prof. Stuart relied for his argument in favor of sprinkling; and as he expressed the view of a large class, which ought to be noticed, we give at some length his remarks on this point:—

"Is it essential, in order that baptism should symbolize purification or purity, that it should be performed by immersion? Plainly not; for in ancient times it was the water which was sprinkled upon the offending Jew, that was the grand emblem of purification. So Paul considers it, when he gives us, as it were, a summary of the whole ritual of purification, by specifying the most significant of all its usages, viz., that of the ashes of a heifer mixed with water (Num. 19:17), with which the unclean are sprinkled. Heb. 9:13. So too, he decides, when he speaks of drawing near to God, in the 'full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience.' Heb. 10; 22.

"It is then a perfectly clear case that the sprinkling of water or of blood was altogether the most significant mode of purification or atonement, or of consecration to God, under the ancient dispensation."

From this he infers that sprinkling is preferable to immersion in the rite of Christian baptism! But the whole argument is exceedingly defective, and the inference inadmissible. How do we learn that the water of purification was to be sprinkled on the unclean? By the use of a word in the law which always means sprinkle—never immerse. And how do we learn how the ordinance of baptism is to be administered? By the use of a word in the law which always means immerse—never sprinkle.

If the terms of the law are to be set aside, and speculations or suppositions substituted for them, then we may as well lay aside the Bible at once. In every text and instance which he cites, the word sprinkle is used, and the apostle shows that it is a symbol of the application of the blood of Christ, having no reference whatever to the ordinance of Christian baptism.

We insist, and none can deny, that if the priest had immersed the unclean person in the water of purification, he would not have obeyed the law of that ordinance, for the commandment was to sprinkle. And we likewise insist that to sprinkle a person with water for Christian baptism, is not to fulfill the law of the ordinance, for the commandment says immerse. Prof Stuart admitted that a word was used by our Saviour which signifies immerse. Did Prof. Stuart, and do all of like faith and practice, know the mind of our divine Lord better than he knew it himself? Do they understand the import and significance of his own ordinance better than he understood it? Or, if sprinkling is preferable, why did Jesus and his apostles never use a word signifying to sprinkle when they spoke of the ordinance? They understood such words, for they used them in reference to other things. Or, if they wished to leave it indefinite, and to let the rite cover every method of application of water to the person, as many now teach, why did they not use the various words which signify sprinkle, pour, and immerse? This would be absolutely necessary if it was designed to give the rite so wide a range, for no one of these words expressed all these modes. Hence, to use invariably, one word, confines it definitely to one action.

These inquiries and statements may be better appreciated when it is considered that the word baptizo, in its various forms, is used one hundred and twenty times in the New Testament. It is used at least seventy-eight times in direct reference to the ordinance; and if we add to that fifteen times in which it is applied to John as the Baptizer, which title he received solely because he administered the rite, we have ninety-three times in which it refers to the ordinance. If sprinkling were the better method, it is amazingly strange that the speakers and writers of the New Testament never once used a word which signified to sprinkle, though referring to the ordinance so great a number of times. It would certainly detract much from our respect for the record as a divine revelation if it could be shown that, in referring to the ordinance nearly one hundred times, it always says immerse, and yet means sprinkle.