Thoughts on Baptism

IN regard to the facilities for immersing on the route from Jerusalem to Gaza, the following is the result of Mr. Samson's own observation:—

"Starting now from Jerusalem on the route thus indicated, let us view the faculties for immersion along its course, and especially at the spot where history has fixed the eunuch's baptism. Proceeding on horses at the ordinary rate of three miles an hour, in two hours and thirty minutes we reach the three immense pools of Solomon, from which water was conducted to Jerusalem. In Christ's day they were little lakes of water, for the three cover about three acres of ground, and when filled they furnished all needed facilities for immersion, lying open, as they do, and in a retired valley. Even now, such is the quantity of water in the lower pool, that a more convenient place for the sacred ordinance could hardly be desired. Proceeding thence over hill and dale, and through one long valley, which, from the number of its wells, the muleteers call Wady el-Beer, the Valley of Wells, in one hour and fifty minutes more we stopped on a hillside to water our horses, and to drink at a large reservoir with an arched roof, from which the water is drawn up with a bucket. Of this place Dr. Robinson says: 'The road up the ascent is artificial; half way up is a cistern of rain-water, and an open place of prayer for the Mohammedan travelers.' At this spot, immersion would not be difficult. Descending thence into the fine valley before us, crossing it, and ascending on the opposite side, in thirty-five minutes more we reached the ruins of an ancient town, which our muleteer calls Howoffnee, but which Dr. Robinson has marked Abu Fid; mentioning olive trees, and tillage around, and a reservoir of rain-water.' This reservoir lies in the open field, with a grassy brink around it. It is fifty or sixty feet square, and it is now, in the last of April, full of water, the depth being apparently from three to five feet. It is evidently ancient, the walls being built up of large hewn stones. A fitter place for immersion could not be desired. Proceeding onward, through a country quite open and considerably cultivated, in one hour and five minutes we reach, at the foot of a long, steep hill, the ruins of a fortress or church on the left of our road. . . In front of the fortress by us is a fine gushing fountain of sweet water, and broad stone troughs in which we water our horses. This spot has been fixed on by Dr. Robinson as the Bethsur mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome as the place where the eunuch was baptized. . . . The ground in front of the fountain and of the structure behind it is so broken up and covered with stones, that it is difficult to determine what was once here. There is now a slightly depressed hollow with a sandy or gravelly bottom. It is hardly conceivable that, in the days of Herod, the fountain builder, this most favorable spring should not have been made to supply a pool in this land of such structures; and even now water sufficient to supply such a reservoir flows from the troughs and soaks into the soil."

Omitting notice of all other places, we give evidence only in regard to the route traveled by the eunuch "from Jerusalem to Gaza," as on this there has been so much doubt and misapprehension. We find:—

1. The word eremos (desert) signifies an uninhabited region, and not necessarily an arid, barren plain. Proved also by Matt. 14.

2. The route traveled by the eunuch is a land of hills and dales, mountains and valleys, much of it fit for cultivation.

3. There are on this route numerous springs and pools of water; some of the pools are open to this day, while appearances indicate that others were open in the days of the Saviour.

This shows how needlessly wrong it is to doubt against the plain language of the Scriptures.

ONE BAPTISM OR THREE BAPTISMS.

There are those who affirm that three immersions ("trine immersion") are necessary to the full consummation of the ordinance; and they are accustomed to refer, with great confidence, to the practice of certain people or churches, as proving the correctness of their views. We have no regard whatever for the practice of churches, except wherein they conform to the specified requirements of the sacred word. Neither age nor popular consent gives warrant to error. Our inquiry is not, What has been practiced? but, What is truth? We care nothing for what people have done, but for what they ought to have done. We know that many grievous errors were brought into the church at a very early age. But we have no more confidence in, or respect for, a practice or an institution which can be traced to the darkness of the third century, than if it could be traced only to the fifteenth century. "What say the Scriptures?" is our sole inquiry.

But it is urged thus: "The Greek Church practice trine immersion, and we ought to give place to them in the understanding of their own language." We reply to this, There is no mention of trine immersion in the Greek of the New Testament. There is a commandment to be baptized (baptistheto), and the Greeks, in obedience to this precept, are immersed. So far we safely trust their knowledge of the Greek tongue. But the Greek also says, Eph. 4:5, there is one baptism (hen baptisma), and if they depart from this and practice three baptisms, then they depart from the text of their own language, and we may not follow them. For trine immersion is nothing else but three baptisms, as the following will show:—

1. They who practice trine immersion never sprinkle; they agree with us that the Greek word is properly translated immerse; and therefore we are agreed that baptism is equivalent to immersion. Hence, if Eph. 4:5, were translated throughout, it would read, "One Lord, one faith, one immersion." Therefore their system is clearly contrary to this scripture; for they really have three baptisms. To reply as they always do, that they have one baptism with three immersions, is only to contradict their own avowed faith, that baptism is immersion. For if baptism is properly translated immersion, then the expression, "one baptism with three immersions," is as much of a paradox as if they said, one baptism with three baptisms, or one immersion with three immersions. This is certainly so, unless we admit that baptism is not identical with immersion. But if we do this we concede the entire ground, and the question of mode has yet to be settled; that is, it will remain to be proved that immersion, and that only, is baptism.

2. It does not appear reasonable that three baptisms are required because there are three names given in the commission. That view involves too much separation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Even in commercial transactions, anything done by an agent for a firm of three parties is done once for them all; as a debt of one thousand dollars could not be collected three times, once for each one of the firm, if one thousand were the sum specified. But the union of a firm in business comes far short of representing the unity existing between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and one baptism is the specified requirement.

3. It is not correct to claim that the ellipses of the language of the commission can only be supplied by the reading, "Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and baptizing them in the name of the Son, and baptizing them in the name of the Holy Ghost." It is against the fact of Scripture and the analogies of language. Separately baptizing in each name is three baptisms, and it cannot be denied. As to analogy, we read that Jesus will come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and in that of the holy angels. Their method of argument would make it read thus: "When he shall come (once) in his own glory, and come (twice) in the glory of his Father, and come (three times coming) in the glory of the holy angels." But that is not the truth. It is but one coming in the three-fold glory.

There is full better reason to affirm on Ex. 3:6, that there are three Gods,—"the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." There is a just difference between the use and the abuse of language, and all should recognize it.

4. But, again, their practice is not consistent with their theory. They insist that three immersions are necessary to one baptism. Then if we read the commission as they do, and apply the definition of baptism as they claim it, it will stand thus: baptizing them (thrice immersing) in the name of the Father, and baptizing them (thrice immersing) in the name of the Son, and baptizing them (thrice immersing) in the name of the Holy Ghost. And thus nine immersions are necessary to fulfill the commission! They cannot possibly avoid this conclusion unless they acknowledge that they properly and truly baptize in each name by one immersion in each name, which is to say that one baptism is truly administered by one immersion, which is fatal to their theory.

5. Heb. 6:2, is quoted by them ("doctrine of baptisms") as proof that there is a plurality of baptisms. But if this is proof in point, why do they deny that they practice three baptisms? and what is the necessity for their inventing the paradoxical expression of "one baptism of three immersions"? The text quoted is truth, but not in the sense in which they take it. The Scriptures speak of one baptism of water and one baptism of the Spirit. To admit of three of one kind most surely contradicts Eph. 4:5. Whether Eph. 4:5, speaks of the baptism of water or of the Spirit, it certainly proves that there is but one of the kind of which it speaks.

6. Paul, in Rom. 6:3, says we are baptized into the death of Christ, or planted in the likeness of his death. 1 Cor. 15:3, 4, says that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again. This is the order. And that it is this to which the apostle refers in Rom. 6:1-3, is plain, for he gives our baptism or burial as proof that we are dead; he makes death (very properly) precede the burial. We inquire, then, did Christ die three times? We insist that he died as often as he was buried. And if we are buried three times, we are not planted in the likeness of his death; for he died and was buried but once. This is decisive on the subject.

Whether a person should be buried face downward, as the trine immersionists baptize, may be, perhaps, a matter of taste, but we think no such method of burial was ever known. One author says we cannot safely appeal to custom in this matter, because the Romans cremated or burned the dead instead of burying them! But the Saviour was not cremated, nor was this a custom with the Jews. Could it be shown that Jesus was laid in the grave face downward, there would be some show of reason for that practice. But we do not think he was; nor do we think burial in that manner is at all seemly, and we shall ever follow that which appears to be a more proper way