Thoughts on Baptism

AN argument in favor of pouring is supposed to be found in this baptism, because the Spirit was poured out, or shed forth. See Acts 2. But there are two decisive difficulties in the way of this conclusion: 1. The word ekcheo is never once used in the numerous instances in the New Testament where the ordinance of baptism in water is referred to. 2. Though the Spirit was poured out on the day of Pentecost, it filled the whole room wherein the disciples were. If water were poured out into a room until the room was entirely filled, all the persons in that room would be entirely surrounded with or submerged in the water. And this was the case in the pouring out of the Spirit. When speaking of the Spirit the word ekcheo is used, which is defined, poured out. But when speaking of the persons the word baptizo is used, which in all the lexicons is defined, immerse. This was literally accomplished by the Spirit filling the whole room wherein they were.

SCRIPTURE ILLUSTRATIONS. TO THE OPPONENTS OF CHRISTIANITY.

The Apostle Paul twice speaks of baptism as a burial. This expression is just, according to the meaning of the word immersion. But the term is not well chosen if it is intended to represent sprinkling or pouring. It is likened to the burial and resurrection of Christ, to which the ordinance has undoubted reference. "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Rom. 6:4. "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." Col. 2:12. The most eminent scholars among those who advocate and practice sprinkling, have been constrained to admit that these illustrations have undoubted reference to the primitive practice of immersing in the rite of baptism.

The reader will pardon us for noticing the effort that has been made to evade the force of these scriptures. Because this baptism is a burial, and cannot be made a sprinkling, it has been denied that it refers to water baptism. Perhaps, said the objector, it refers to the fact that the disciples were buried in the love of God! Were that the truth, it would not destroy the force of the statement that baptism is a burial. The meaning of the word is the same, no matter what element is used. But that cannot be true, for this consideration: In whatsoever a person is buried, when he is raised he is raised out of the same. If we are buried in the earth, we are raised out of the earth; if buried in water, we are raised out of water; and if buried in the love of God, we are raised out of the love of God! Said the apostle to his brethren, "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him." Were they raised out of the love of God? Would such a resurrection lead them to seek those things which are above? See chap. 3:1. Again we ask pardon for noticing such an objection. And we must express our astonishment that men of eminence and learning have presented this idea as against immersion. It is sometimes necessary to show how utterly idle is the effort to evade the force of the plain testimony of the word of God. And this shows what positions men are willing to take, and what conclusions they will risk, to support their theories against the plain reading and evident meaning of the Scriptures.

Under this head should be considered 1 Cor. 10:2. Dr. Clarke sanctions the idea that the Israelites were sprinkled by the cloud over them, and that this indicates that sprinkling is baptism. It is to be deplored that one so ripe in scholarship—so able as a critic—should so suffer himself to be blinded by the theology of a church. The language and the facts do not admit of such a construction. Shall we read it, "Sprinkled by the cloud and by the sea?" We cannot. "Sprinkled in the cloud and in the sea?" That is impossible. Prof. Stuart is much more reasonable on this point; he says:—

"The suggestion has sometimes been made, that the Israelites were sprinkled by the cloud and by the sea, and this was the baptism which Paul meant to designate. But the cloud on this occasion was not a cloud of rain; nor do we find any intimation that the waters of the sea sprinkled the children of Israel at this time. So much is true, viz., they were not immersed. Yet, as the language must evidently be figurative in some good degree, and not literal, I do not see how, on the whole, we can make less of it than to suppose it has a tacit reference to the idea of surrounding in some way or other."

Granting that they were not immersed, certainly they were not sprinkled. And granting that the word baptize is used figuratively in some good degree, yet the figure must be so construed as most nearly to conform to the actual meaning of the word, i. e. immerse. And this is done by the idea of surrounding, as Prof. Stuart has it; and it meets the conditions stated far better than any other construction.

INSTANCES OF BAPTISM.

John baptized in the river Jordan. Christ, our pattern, was baptized in the Jordan. The record says, "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water." Matt. 3:16. Alas, how many professed followers of Christ would be ashamed to go down into the water to be baptized; be ashamed to be seen coming up out of the water, as Jesus their Lord was seen!

"John also was baptizing in Aenon, near to Salim, because there was much water there." John 3:23. The reason here given for baptizing in that place looks unmistakably to the same action as we find indicated in Matt. 3, baptizing in a body of water. We may safely leave it to the judgment of every reader that this reason would never be offered in favor of the modern practice of rhantism, if it can even be called that; as we recently saw a minister barely touch the ends of his fingers in water, and lay them upon the head of a child. Water is not even sprinkled upon the child. Nothing of that kind is found in the language of the New Testament.

The circumstances attending the baptism of the eunuch afford important evidence on this subject. First, we notice in this case the importance of baptism in the preaching of the gospel. Philip "preached unto him Jesus," and in the same interview the eunuch desired baptism, which proves that the preaching of Jesus included preaching baptism in the ministry of the apostles and evangelists. How different was this from the teaching and preaching of many at the present day.

Secondly, we notice that they both went down into the water, and there Philip baptized the eunuch. And together they came up out of the water. This is not consistent with the idea of any administration but that of immersion. The only remark we find in Prof. Stuart on baptism which gives occasion to doubt his candor as a writer, is on this text. He says:—

"If katabesan eis to hudor is meant to designate the act of plunging or being immersed into the water, as a part of the rite of baptism, then was Philip baptized as well as the eunuch; for the sacred writer says that BOTH went into the water. Here, then, must have been a rebaptism of Philip; and what is at least singular, he must have baptized himself as well as the eunuch."

These remarks are entirely uncalled for by the record; they are as unworthy of the man who wrote them as of the subject on which they are written. Going down into the water is a necessary prerequisite to baptism (but not to sprinkling); but no one ever claimed or even thought that katabesan eis to hudor expresses "the action of plunging or being immersed." We fear the idea sprung up in the mind of a theologian rather than of a critic; for almost the next sentence says "kai ebaptisen auton," and he "baptized him." This excludes every possibility of obscurity.

It is true that they both went down into the water, and this is always the case when immersion is practiced. The administrator and subject both go down into the water. But going down into the water is not and was not baptism. Does the record say they both went down into the water and were baptized? No. "They went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch and he baptized him." It is no part of candor nor reverence for the Scriptures to raise a dust over such plain and unmistakable testimony as this.

A doubt has been raised about there having been sufficient water for immersion in this instance, because verse 26 speaks of the country as being "desert." The word desert (eremos) does not necessarily mean a dry, barren place, destitute of water or vegetation, as may be supposed, but a solitary, uninhabited region. See Greenfield, and compare Matt. 14:13, 15, 19. This scripture says they were in "a desert place apart," and because it was desert, and the day was passing, the disciples requested Jesus to send away the multitude that they might go into the villages and procure food. But he commanded the multitude to "sit down on the grass," and he fed them there. So far the point is proved. In the case in question, Acts 8, they came to standing water, as is indicated by the sudden exclamation of the eunuch, "See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?" Travelers who have passed "from Jerusalem to Gaza," say there were springs and pools on the route quite sufficient for the purpose.

"The Bourdeaux Pilgrim, less than three hundred years after the event [A. D. 333], described with care its situation. His note is (as he advances from Bethlehem): 'Thence to Bethazsora is fourteen miles, where is the fountain in which Philip baptized the eunuch. Thence to the oak where Abraham dwelt, is nine miles.' 'Thence to Hebron is two miles.' Eusebius, on the word Bethsur, has the following note: 'Bethsur of the tribe of Judah or Benjamin. There is also now a village Bethsoron, twenty miles distant from Jerusalem toward Hebron, where also a fountain issuing from a mountain is shown, in which the eunuch of Candace is said to have been baptized by Philip.' Jerome in like manner says on the same word: 'Bethsur in the tribe of Judah or Benjamin. And there is at this day a village Bethsoron, to us going from Jerusalem to Hebron, at the twentieth milestone; near which a fountain boiling up at the foot of a mountain, is absorbed by the same soil from which it springs, and the Acts of the apostles record that the eunuch of Queen Candace was baptized in this by Philip.'"

These quotations are taken from a recent American traveler, Rev. G. W. Samson.