Thus is Jesus revealed in characters of unspeakable grandeur, as the
true and only Baptizer,—his the real baptism, of which all others are
mere shadows. His baptizing office is the very end of his exaltation,
the peculiar and distinguishing characteristic of his throne and
scepter. As the cross of Christ is the symbol of the whole doctrine of
his humiliation, sorrow and death, so his baptizing scepter represents
the whole doctrine of his exaltation his kingdom and glory. And, as the
sacrament of the supper shows forth his abasement and atonement for sin;
so, that of baptism proclaims the glory and power of his exaltation, and
the riches of salvation and grace which he sheds on his people from on
high. The ritual ordinance therefore if true to its office, must be true
to the similitude of the real baptism,—must represent and proclaim those
very things which are realized in the office and work of the great
Baptizer. But what has the real baptism to do with the humiliation of
Christ, in any of its aspects? And, especially, what has it to do with
the burial of his dead body? With the throne of his power, the
prerogatives of his scepter, the grace, the grandeur and the glory of
his achievements to the end, its relations are intimate and from them
inseparable. But with humiliation and shame, with death and the grave,
it holds no relations but those of boundless distance and infinite
contrast.
Here then, at the culminating point in the history of baptism and the
plan of God’s grace, as identified with it, the divergence of the
immersion theory from the statements, conceptions and principles of the
Scriptures on the subject interposes between them a widening and
deepening gulf, broad, profound and impassable. Whilst the Scriptural
rite points exultingly upward to Christ’s high throne, and calls us to
lift up our heads and admire and adore the height of his majesty and the
grace and grandeur of his baptizing work,—the immersion theory
constrains its votaries, with bowed heads and stooping forms, to grope
among the graves, in the vain endeavor to trace some fanciful
resemblance between the rite which they espouse and the form and manner
of the burial of the dead,—a burial, too, which, as thus imagined, the
crucified One never received!
The doctrine of the real baptism is thus utterly incongruous to that of
immersion. Equally irreconcilable with that form are all the phenomena
and expressions used in connection with the administering of Christ’s
baptism. The sound from heaven as of an outbreathed mighty breath poured
down, and filling all the place, was the only phenomenon of Pentecost
indicative of form or mode. And its mode was affusion, or outpouring,
and descent from above. The language in which the transaction is
everywhere described and referred to is equally specific and invariable.
It was a shedding down—a pouring down—a falling upon—a filling of the
disciples;—a style of expression used, not on the occasion, only, but in
every subsequent allusion to the subject. So, the prophecy cited by
Peter is an express definition of this as the mode. “I will pour out of
my Spirit.” But, more than this, it identifies the outpouring of
Pentecost with all those Old Testament prophecies, in which the gift of
the Spirit is spoken of in terms of pouring and sprinkling. All these,
again, as we have formerly seen, are intimately associated with the
baptisms of the Levitical system. Those baptisms represented in ritual
form the things which the prophets set forth in analogous figures. If
Christian baptism departs from the Old Testament mode, it to the same
degree departs from the form in which the grace of Pentecost is
uniformly predicted, represented, described, and referred to.
The attempt is made to evade the force of these facts by the assertion
that the “sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind,” “filled all
the place where they were sitting;” and that the disciples were immersed
in it. But (1.) the immersion thus imagined is, an inversion of the
Baptist theory. The result of an admitted affusion, it is an application
of the element to the person, and by a sustained analogy, on Baptist
principles, would require that the grave should have been brought and
put about the body of Jesus, and that, in water baptism, the element
should be poured over the subject, until he is covered, although
drowning would be the inevitable result. (2.) There is, in fact, no
analogy, except in the jingle of words, between an immersion in water,
which is immediately and inevitably fatal to life, and an immersion in
the vital air, which is the very breath of life, the withdrawal of which
is fatal. (3.) If Christian baptism sustains any real relation at all to
the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which Christ administers—as it assuredly
does—it is that of type to antitype—of a similitude to the reality. Both
the form and the meaning of the rite must be derived from the nature of
the reality, of which it is the symbol. If then the immersion of the
disciples in the wind or breath of Pentecost is the antitype symbolized
in the outward form of baptism, the ordinance means, not the burial of
Christ’s dead body, but the imparting of his Spirit of life to his
people. Thus the Baptist theory of the form and meaning of the ordinance
is exploded, since the two ideas can not stand together. They are
mutually destructive and the incongruity is fatal to the whole scheme,
which can not stand without an immersion on Pentecost; and can not
endure the crucial test of the only immersion which they can pretend to
discover there.
The alternative is inexorable. If that which Christ dispenses is the
normal, the antitype, baptism, then by it the ritual baptisms of both
economies are to be interpreted; and their signification is to be found,
not in the sepulchre, but on the throne—in the Spirit thence poured out,
and the life and salvation thence dispensed;—and the form of the
ordinance must needs correspond to its meaning. If, on the other hand,
immersion in water is the normal baptism, and the burial of the body of
Jesus, its meaning, then the baptism of Pentecost with all its phenomena
and doctrine is to be struck from the record, as no baptism at all. _If
that which Christ dispenses is baptism, immersion is not._
PART XII.
THE BAPTIST ARGUMENT.
SECTION LXXV.—_Baptizo and the Resurrection._
The argument in proof that the disciples of John and of Christ were
immersed comprehends four essential propositions. (1) That _baptizo_
means, to dip, to plunge, to immerse, to submerge,—one or other of
these, and _nothing else_; (2) That the prepositions, _eis_, _en_, _ek_,
and _apo_, as used in the New Testament, in connection with _baptizo_,
require and enforce that meaning; (3) That the resort of John to the
Jordan, and to Enon, “because there was much water there,” is conclusive
to the same effect; (4) That Paul, in saying that we are “buried with
Christ in baptism,” refers to the form of immersion; (5) It is,
moreover, held that the account of the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch
shows it to have been by immersion. The last point will be considered
further on.
As to _baptizo_, enough has already appeared to render it certain that
the definition heretofore insisted on by Baptists is untenable, and that
the word, in itself, determines nothing as to form. It was formerly
maintained as unquestionable, that _bapto_ and _baptizo_ are strictly
equivalent; and that the meaning is, “to dip, and nothing but dip.” This
assumption may now be considered obsolete. It is definitely abandoned by
the ablest representatives of immersion. Dr. Conant having been
appointed thereto by the American (Baptist) Bible Union entered into an
elaborate investigation of “The Meaning and Use of _Baptizo_.” In a
treatise published under that title, he thus states the result. “The
word, _immerse_, as well as its synonyms, _immerge_, etc., expresses the
full import of the Greek word, _baptizein_. The idea of emersion is not
included in it. It means simply to put into or under water; without
determining whether the object immersed sinks to the bottom, or floats
in the liquid, or is immediately taken out. This is determined, not by
the word, itself, but by the design of the act, in each particular case.
A living being, put under water without intending to drown him, is of
course to be immediately withdrawn from it; and this is to be
understood, whenever the word is used with reference to such a case. But
the Greek word is also used where a living being is put under the water
for the purpose of drowning, and of course is left to perish in the
immersing element.”[102] It is of the primary meaning of the word that
Dr. Conant here speaks. As we have already seen, he also recognizes a
secondary meaning, the importance of which he entirely ignores. As to
the former, the admission here transcribed is conclusive, although
obscured by ambiguous and impertinent explanations. No verb can
“determine” any thing subsequent to the completion of its own proper
action. The healed paralytic, “_departed_ to his own house.” “Paul
_arose_ and was baptized.” “John _came_ baptizing.” He that should
explain that “departed” does not of necessity imply that he never
returned, that Paul may have sat down again; and that for all the
meaning of “came” John may afterward have gone away, would be held
guilty of puerile trifling. Of course, _baptizo_ determines nothing but
its own action. The explanation of Dr. C. that the word does not
determine whether the object sinks to the bottom or is immediately taken
out, is not trifling, because open to a more serious charge. It is a
diligent, although undoubtedly unconscious obscuring of the subject,
induced by the instinctive recoil of the author’s own mind from the
picture drawn by his definition. He is therefore impelled to retire it
into the background and veil its nakedness in the drapery of
explanations, by which he is as much confounded as are his
readers,—explanations wholly impertinent to the question in hand, which
is the meaning of _baptizo_. That word, in its primary classic sense, as
here defined, expresses a definite and _completed_ act. When by one
continuous process a person or thing is put into the water and
withdrawn, it is not a _baptizing_, in the classic meaning, but a
_bapting_, a dipping. It is true the word does not determine “whether
the object immersed sinks to the bottom or floats in the liquid, or is
immediately taken out,” provided that by “immediately,” is not to be
understood, instantaneously,—provided that by the baptism, the object is
deposited in the water and left there. The emersion, if it take place at
all, must be a distinct and subsequent act, and can not be performed as
_a part of the baptizing_. This, Dr. Kendrick, professor of Greek in the
Rochester University, and a member of the American Committee of Revision
on the New Testament, in his review of Dr. Dale, most emphatically
concedes, with italics and emphasis none the less significant because of
the intense irritation which breathes in his article. “Granting that
_bapto_, _always_ engages to take its subject from the water (which we
do not believe), and that _baptizo never_ does (which we readily admit),
we have Mr. Dale’s reluctant concession that it interposes no obstacle
to his coming out.” _Baptizo_ “lays its subject under the water; it does
not hold him there a single moment. Its whole function is fulfilled with
the act of submersion. It offers no shadow of an obstacle to his instant
emergence from his watery entombment. We have the utmost confidence in
the kindly purpose of _baptizo_, and of Him who has made its liquid
grave the external portal to his kingdom. Neither it nor He intends to
drown us. We let _baptizo_ take us into the water, and can trust to
men’s instinctive love of life, their common sense, their power of
volition and normal muscular action, to bring them safely out.” “The law
of God in revelation sends the Baptist down into the waters of
immersion; when it is accomplished, the equally imperative law of God in
nature brings him safely out.” “As between the two [_baptizo_ and
_bapto_], _baptizo_ is the appropriate word, partly from its greater
length, weight and dignity of form, and still more from its distinctive
import. It is not a dipping that our Lord instituted, but an immersion.
He did not command _to put people into the water_ and _take them out
again_; but _to put them under the water_, to _submerge_ them, to _bury_
them, symbolically, in the grave of their buried Redeemer; like him
indeed, not to remain there, but with him to arise to newness of life.
This arising, though essential to the completeness of the transaction,
could not be included in the designation of the rite, any more than the
rising of the Redeemer could be included in the words denoting his
crucifixion and burial.” “We repeat with emphasis, for the consideration
of our Baptist brethren; Christian baptism is no mere literal and
senseless ‘dipping,’ assuring the frightened candidate of a safe exit
from the water; it is a symbolical immersion, in which the believer
goes, in a sublime and solemn trust, into a figurative burial, dying to
sin for a life with Christ; and just as far as Mr. Dale’s distinction
holds good (which even thus far _he_ has not established), _baptizo_,
and not _bapto_ is the only suitable designation of the baptismal
ordinance. The early Israelites were baptized to Moses in the cloud and
in the sea. They emerged indeed, and were intended to emerge at last.
But it was in their wondrous march, through that long and fearful night,
with the double wall of water rolled up on each side, and the column of
fiery cloud stretching its enshrouding folds above them,—it was in this,
and not in the closing emersion that they were baptized into their
allegiance to their great Lawgiver and Leader.”[103]
Footnote 102:
The Meaning and Use of Baptizein, p. 88.
Footnote 103:
Review of Dale’s Classic Baptism, in the _Baptist Quarterly_,
Of the baptism of Israel, we shall take notice hereafter. In these
passages, it is evident that the distinguished professor 1869, pp. 142,
143. is as much disturbed at the apparition of his own raising as is Dr.
Conant. At first he seems determined to face it squarely, and calls upon
his Baptist brethren to look and see that it is nothing dangerous. But
suddenly, he crosses himself, and starts back in a hurried talk of the
resurrection of Christ and the rising of his people to newness of life;
all of which is very true and precious, but, has no more to do with the
question in hand, himself being witness, than has the doctrine of
original sin. The question is, the meaning of _baptizo_, and the
professor admits that it has no part in the resurrection. The very
perplexing position in which he found himself, is some apology for the
confusion of ideas and the incongruities which appear in his statements.
He is discussing the relative merits of the two words _bapto_ and
_baptizo_. The former, in its primary and ordinary meaning, he can but
acknowledge, engages both to put its subject into the water and take him
out again; while _baptizo_ only puts him in. The latter, says the
professor, was chosen because of this its distinctive import, because
the command was, _not_ “to put the people into the water and take them
out again; but to put them under the water,—to submerge them.” But
before he is done, we are told that the coming out, “though essential to
the completeness of the transaction _could_ not be included in the
designation of the rite.” Does “the transaction,” here mean the life
saving operation which he confides to the “instinctive love of life,
common sense,” etc? Or, are we correct in supposing it to mean that
baptismal rite which he is discussing? And if the latter be the design,
how is the statement to be reconciled with the reason just before given
for the employment of _baptizo_, because it does _not_ take the subject
out of the water, while _bapto_ does? Waiving this difficulty, the
question occurs,—Why the rising “could not be included in the
designation of the rite,” seeing _bapto_ was ready to add that very idea
to the meaning of _baptizo_? The question is anticipated by the
professor, and the answer given. It is because the latter word has
“greater _length_, _weight_, and _dignity_ of form!” The meaning of the
words was a secondary consideration! _Bapto_ has but two syllables,
while _baptizo_ has three. It has the advantage, therefore, in a greater
length, and a buzzing zeta, to add to its “weight and dignity of form!”
Or, perhaps, the superior “weight” of the one word over the other
consists in the fact that while _bapto_ accurately expresses the hasty
resurrection which the instinct of life and other influences specified
so happily, though not invariably, connect with the administration of
the rite, _baptizo_ maintains a dignified silence on that part of the
subject. But the professor drifts back again to his first position. He
insists that the baptism of Israel into Moses was received in their
“wondrous march” enclosed between the walls of water, and enshrouded in
the cloud, “and _not_ in the closing emersion.” And yet, even here, his
protest that _bapto_ itself would not have given absolute assurance of
exit, looks like a disposition to weaken the force of “the distinctive
import” of _baptizo_.
However these “dark sayings of the wise” are to be interpreted, the
facts remain, that, confessedly, the word chosen by the Savior to
designate the rite of baptism does not include in it the idea of
emersion, typical of resurrection,—that it was chosen in preference to a
kindred word which does distinctly express that idea,—and that the best
reasons suggested by Baptist scholarship for this remarkable fact are,
that _burial_ and _not_ resurrection was the doctrine symbolized; and
that _baptizo_ sounds best! Such are the results of the elaborate
researches of the scholarly Conant, confirmed by the eminent learning of
Kendrick, divines than whom the Baptist churches have had none more
zealous or more competent. Essentially the same is the definition
reached through the exhaustive studies of our own departed Dale.
Thus, according to the Baptist rendering of the gospel commission, we
are to go into all the world and _submerge_ every creature,—a command
which neither contains nor implies authority in any one to neutralize it
by a systematic rescue of its subjects from the “liquid grave.” A result
of the most serious import to our Baptist brethren follows from these
facts. The definition, to dip, for the sake of which they have so long
separated themselves, in translating the Scriptures into the languages
of the heathen, is demonstrably and confessedly false, and the result is
a corrupting of the word of God.
The force of these facts against the very foundations of the immersion
fabric is utterly destructive. But the matter does not rest even here.
Dr. Conant recognizes in _baptizo_ a second meaning. The word does not
even limit itself to “submerge and nothing but submerge.” It also
“expressed the coming into a new state of life or experience, in which
one was, as it were enclosed or swallowed up, so that temporarily or
permanently he belonged wholly to it.”[104] Thus, the man who is brought
under the control of a passion of anger, fear, or love, or who is
overcome with wine or sleep, was by the Greeks said to be baptized with
these things. So, in the Scriptures, he who is under such control that
he is “led of the Spirit,” is said to be “baptized with the Spirit.”
This meaning of _baptizo_ no candid scholar can deny; and in it we have
already seen abundant relief from all the perplexities of the immersion
theory. Respecting it, however, a caution is necessary. A mere momentary
impulse or influence by which one is seized, but, instantly, released,
is not a baptism, in the classic sense. The word expressed a control
which not only seizes but _holds_ its object. It brings him “into a new
_state_ of life or experience.” This use of the word flows from the
primary meaning, to _submerge_, as expressive not of comprehensive
control, only, but of continuance. Nothing analogous to a momentary
dipping was known to the Greeks as a baptism.
Footnote 104:
“Meaning and Use of Baptizein,” p. 158.
SECTION LXXVI.—_The Prepositions._
In the common English version of the New Testament, the translations
which occur in connection with baptism are such as to show an evident
bias on the part of the translators in favor of immersion. In fact they
were, all of them, immersionists, if not by personal conviction, then,
by constraint of law. They were members, and with a few exceptions
clergymen of the church of England, by law established. That church had
originally incorporated among its ordinances, baptism by trine
immersion. By the parliamentary revision during the reign of Edward VI,
the book of prayer was so altered as to require but one immersion. The
rubric for baptism was and is to this day in these words:—“Then the
priest shall take the child in his hands, and ask the name; and naming
the child, shall dip it in the water, so it be discreetly and warily
done, saying, ‘N., I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.’ And, if the child be weak, it shall
suffice to pour water upon it, saying the aforesaid words.”[105]
Footnote 105:
“The Two Books of Common Prayer,” set forth by authority of
Parliament, in the reign of King Edward VI, edited by Edward Cardwell,
D.D., Principal of St. Alban’s Hall, Oxford, 1852.
As to the bearing of the prepositions on the present argument, a brief
illustration may make it clear to the English reader. In the following
citations, the words in italics answer to the Greek prepositions under
which respectively they are cited.
1. _En._ “And were all baptized of him (_en_) _in_ Jordan.”—Matt. iii,
6. “John did baptize _in_ the wilderness.”—Mark i, 4. “John was
baptizing _in_ Enon.”—John iii, 23. “These things were done _in_
Bethabara, beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.”—John i, 28. “The
tower _in_ Siloam.”—Luke xiii, 4. “Elias is come, and they have done
_unto_ him whatsoever they listed.”—Matt. xvii, 12. “Turn the
disobedient _to_ the wisdom of the just.”—Luke i, 17. “Lest they trample
them _with_ their feet.”—Matt. vii, 6. “Sanctify them _through_ thy
truth, thy word is truth.”—John xvii, 17. “They that take the sword
shall perish _with_ the sword.”—Matt. xxvi, 52. “There is none other
name ... _by_ which we must be saved.”—Acts iv, 12. “He will judge the
world ... _by_ that man whom he hath ordained.”—Ib. xvii, 31. “Now
revealed _by_ the Spirit”—Eph. iii, 5. “That _at_ the name of Jesus
every knee should bow.”—Phil. ii, 10. From these illustrations two
deductions are manifest (1.) _En_ does not always mean _in_. It may mean
_with_ or _by_, instrumentally. “_With_ the sword.” “The name _by_
which,” etc. It may mean _by_ a mediate agent. “Revealed _by_ the
Spirit.” “He will judge the world _by_ that man.” It may mean _at_,
_by_, or _in_, locally. “_In_ Enon.” “_At_ Siloam.” It may be used in a
yet more general signification, as, “_At_ the name.” Other meanings
might be stated, but these are sufficient (2.) If, by reason of the
phrase “_in_ Jordan,” we must understand that John immersed his
disciples _into_ the Jordan, it of necessity follows that he also
immersed them “_into_ Enon,” and “_into_ the wilderness.” In short, the
expression indicates that the Jordan was the place _at_ which the
baptizing was done:—this, and this only. Why it was done there, we shall
presently see.
2. _Eis._ “Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized of John
(_eis_) _in_ Jordan.”—Mark i, 9. “They went down both _into_ the water,
both Philip and the eunuch and he baptized him.”—Acts viii, 38. These
passages mutually illustrate each other and show that the going _into_
the water was not the baptizing. “He came and dwelt _in_ a city called
Nazareth.”—Mat. ii, 23. “He cometh _to_ a city of Samaria,” but he
remained outside, at the well, while the apostles went “_into_ the
city,” whence the Samaritans “went out of the city and came to
him.”—John iv, 5, 8, 28, 30. “He loved them _to_ the end.”—Ib. xiii, 1.
“I speak _to_ the world.” Ib. viii, 26. “If thy brother trespass
_against_ thee.”—Matt, xviii, 15. “_Therefore_” (Literally, _to_ this)
“came I forth.”—Mark i, 38. “What are they _among_ so many.”—John vi, 9.
“The Son which is _in_ (on) the bosom of the Father.”—John i, 18. “He
went up _into_ (_to_, or, _on_,) a mountain.”—Matt., v, 1. “Depart
_unto_ the other side.”—Ib. viii, 18. “Fell down _at_ his feet.”—Ib.
xviii, 29. _Eis_ is even used in express contrast with entrance into.
“The other disciple did outrun Peter, and first (_ēlthen eis_) _came to_
the sepulchre, ... yet went he not _in_. Then cometh Simon Peter
following him and (_eis-ēlthen eis_) _entered into_ the sepulchre.”—John
xx, 4-6. This illustrates a usage concerning _eis_. When entrance _into_
is to be expressed by the mere force of the word, it must be doubled.
See Matt. vi, 6; x, 5, 12; Luke ix, 34, etc. The same remark applies to
_ek_, in the sense of _out of_. But neither of these words is ever used
in duplicated form, with reference to baptism. It is evident that the
word of itself determines no more as to the mode of the baptism of Jesus
than does _en_. The ordinary office of _eis_ is to point to the terminus
of a preceding verb of motion. When it is said that Jesus came and dwelt
(_eis_) _in_ a city called Nazareth, _en_ would have been the proper
preposition to express the in-dwelling; but _eis_ is preferred because
the city was the terminus of the coming “He came (_eis_) _to_ a city.”
So Mark above uses the same word, not because of its appropriateness to
the baptizing, which is always elsewhere expressed by _en_, but because
the Jordan was the terminus (_eis_) to which he came from Galilee.
3. _Ek._ “And when they were come up (_ek_) _out of_ the water.”—Acts
viii, 39. In his gospel, Luke the author of this account thus uses the
preposition. “Saved _from_ our enemies.”—Luke i, 71. “Every tree is
known _by_ its own fruit, for _of_ thorns men do not gather figs; nor
_of_ a bramble-bush gather they grapes.”—Ib. vi, 44. “He cometh _from_
the wedding.”—Ib. xii, 36. “All these have I kept _from_ my youth
up.”—Ib. xviii, 21. So far as this word determines, Philip and the
eunuch may have come up _from_ the water, without having been _in_ it,
at all.
4. _Apo._ “Jesus when he was baptized, went up straightway (_apo_) _out
of_ the water.”—Matt. iii, 16. _Apo never_ means, “out of,” as here
translated; but, “from,” “away from.” “When Jesus was come down _from_
the mountain.”—Matt. viii, 1. “_From_ whom do kings take tribute?”—Ib.
xvii, 25. “Cast them _from_ thee.”—Ib. xviii, 8. “Beginning _from_ the
last unto the first.”—Ib. xx, 8.
From these illustrations, which might be multiplied indefinitely, it is
evident that the prepositions will not bear the stress put upon them by
the Baptist argument. Not only are they, in themselves, insufficient to
constitute a reliable basis for the conclusions sought; but the
statements to which they belong have respect, _not_ to the _mode_ of the
baptism, but to the places of it. They are defined by the phrases, “_in_
Jordan,”—“_in_ Enon,”—“_in_ Bethabara.” Recent Baptist writers have had
the courage to follow their principles to the result of translating
John’s words,—“I immerse you _in_ water, but he shall immerse you _in_
the Holy Ghost and _in_ fire,”—a rendering from which the better taste,
if not the better scholarship, of the translators of King James’s
version revolted. The thorough consideration already given in these
pages to the baptism of the Spirit justifies an imperative denial of the
correctness of this translation. If any thing in the Bible is clear, it
is that the baptism administered by the Lord Jesus is not an immersion,
but an outpouring.
On the question of the prepositions in this connection, light is shed by
an expression of the apostle Paul. “By one Spirit are we all baptized
into one body, ... and have been all made to drink one Spirit.”—1 Cor.
xii, 13. Of this passage we have already indicated that “into,” as found
in the last clause, in the common version (“to drink _into_ one
Spirit”), is spurious, and that _potizo_ (“made to drink”), properly
signifies, to _apply_ water or other fluid, whether externally or
internally, to water, to cause to drink. In this passage, we have both
the prepositions, _en_ and _eis_, each dependent on the one verb,
_baptizo_, but each having its own distinctive subject. “Baptized
(_en_), _in_ one Spirit (_eis_), _into_ one body.” Into which of these
media does the immersion take place? Shall we follow the Baptist
interpretation of the words of John, “He shall immerse you _in_ the Holy
Ghost?” But in the first place, we have seen that this is false to the
real manner of the baptism in question; which consists in a shedding
down of the Spirit. In the second, how then, in harmony with Baptist
principles, are we to understand the other clause of the
passage,—“Immersed _in_ one Spirit, _into_ one body?“ Are there here two
immersions by one act? the one subject put at one and the same time into
two different media? Moreover, the language with which the apostle
closes the passage, while it is in perfect accord with the true mode of
the baptism of the Spirit, is altogether incongruous to the Baptist
interpretation. If we are baptized with or by the Spirit, shed upon us,
we may consistently be said to drink (or, to be watered with) the
Spirit. For, the earth and its vegetation drink the rain that falls upon
them. But if we must be immersed in the Spirit, Paul’s language implies
that in order that men be caused to drink they are to be immersed in the
water. “Immersed in one Spirit, and all made to drink one Spirit.”
But the phrase, _en heni Pneumati_, does not mean “_in_ one Spirit.” As
we have seen, the preposition may and often does mean “_with_,” or
“_by_,” the Spirit, as the agent or instrument. Especially by Paul, the
writer of the passage in question, is the phrase so used,—“Through Him
we both have access (_en heni Pneumati_), _by_ one Spirit unto the
Father.”—Eph. ii, 18. Here is the very phrase in question. Through the
Lord Jesus, the Mediator, _by_ his Spirit as the instrument, who, being
sent by him helpeth our infirmities, in prayer (Rom. viii, 26), we have
access to the Father’s presence. Again,—“On whom,” as the chief corner
stone, “we are builded together, for an habitation of God (_en
Pneumati_), _by_ the Spirit,” who is the efficient builder of the
spiritual temple. Again, the apostle tells of the mystery which is “now
revealed unto His holy apostles and prophets (_en Pneumati_), _by_ the
Spirit” (Eph. iii, 5), and exhorts us, “Be not drunk with wine, wherein
is excess, but be filled (_en_) _with_ the Spirit” (Ib. v, 18), and to
“pray with all prayer and supplication (_en_) _by_ the Spirit.”—Ib. vi,
18. So in the text,—“_With_, or, _by_ one Spirit,” the instrument and
agent of grace shed on us abundantly by Jesus Christ “are we all
baptized”—brought into a new state of incorporation “into one body,”
which he pervades and controls as the Spirit of life. Into it we are not
immersed; but, united by his common in-dwelling power, are made daily
“to drink of that one Spirit,” which is in us, “a well of water
springing up into everlasting life.”—John iv, 14.
It is not necessary to the present purpose to dwell further on the
signification and bearing of the prepositions. The moment _baptizo_
ceases to mean, to dip, and nothing else, the prepositions lose all
determining force upon the questions at issue. If John’s disciples were
dipped or submerged in Jordan all is plain, and discussion is at an end.
But if John _baptized_ in Jordan, the question still remains,—_How_ did
he baptize? This is very clearly illustrated by the case of the
Ethiopian eunuch, if we accept the immersion rendering of the
prepositions. “They went down both into the water, both Philip and the
eunuch.” They have now reached the place, _in_ the water, if you will.
But the baptism is yet to be performed.—“_And_ he baptized him.” But
_how_ did he do it? The baptism is now ended; but both are still in
position “_in_ the water;” out of which they are then stated to have
come. (Acts viii, 38, 39.)
SECTION LXXVII.—“_There was much Water there._”
Appeal is made to the fact that John baptized “in Enon, near to Salim,
because there was much water there.”—John iii, 23. Enon (_Aenōn_), is
the plural form, a word which means a spring or fountain. In a few
places it is translated, a well of water. But it signifies a flowing
spring. The name, therefore, means, The Springs near to Salim. All
attempts to trace a town or city of that name have failed; and the whole
manner of John’s ministry and statements of the evangelists indicate him
to have selected a retired spot, rather than a town or city, as the
place of his preaching and baptism.
The phrase, “much water,” is not a correct translation of the original
(_polla hudata_), which means, many waters,—that is, many springs, or
streams. The phrase occurs nine times in the Greek of the Old Testament,
and four times in the New, beside the place in question. It is never
used in the sense of unity,—“much water,”—but invariably expresses the
conception of plurality. In several places, it designates the waves of
the sea in a tumult. Thus, Psa. xciii, 3, 4,—“The floods have lifted up,
O Lord, the floods have lifted up their voice; the floods lift up their
waves. The Lord on high is mightier than the noise of _many waters_;
yea, than _the mighty waves_ of the sea.” See, also, 2 Sam. xxii, 17;
Psa. xviii, 16; xxix, 3; Isa. xvii, 12, 13; Ezek. xliii, 2; Rev. i, 15;
xiv, 2; xix, 6. In these places the noise of many waters, is the sound
of the waves, as they toss in the fury of a storm, or thunder upon the
shore. Again, it is used to designate many streams, and even the
rivulets which for the purposes of irrigation were carried through
vineyards and gardens. Thus, “Thy mother was as a vine, and as a shoot
planted by a stream, by waters; the fruit of which, and its sprouts were
from _many waters_.”—Ezek. xix, 10. See, also, Num. xxiv, 7, and Jer.
li, 13. In the last of these passages, Babylon is described as dwelling
“upon many waters,” meaning, not the Euphrates, only; but the four
rivers, Euphrates, Tigris, Chaboras and Ulai, and the many canals of
irrigation, vestiges of which continue to this day, to which Babylonia
was indebted for its fertility, and the city for its wealth and power.
Compare Psalm cxxxvii, 1, “By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down,
yea we wept, when we remembered Zion.” In the text of John, the phrase
coincides with the name of Enon, to indicate that the peculiarity of the
place was a number of flowing springs. The bearing of these upon the
question as to the mode of John’s Baptism is inappreciable; as, for the
purposes of immersion, he did not need more than one.
But, we recur to the challenge, so confidently urged. If John did not
immerse, why his resort to the Jordan, and to the “much water” of Enon?
We reply by another question. Why did the Lord Jesus concentrate his
ministry upon the shore of the Sea of Galilee? Why did he, after the
close of his labors in that part of the land, take up his abode at that
very “place where John at first baptized?”—John x, 40. A comparison of
the evangelists shows that, as did John (Luke iii, 3), so Jesus began
his ministry by journeying through the country and villages preaching
the gospel. But, as his fame spread abroad and the concourse of his
hearers increased, he was accustomed to resort to the shores of the Sea
of Galilee and the slopes of the mountains which enclose it on the west.
A comparison of the evangelists shows the sermon on the mount to have
been uttered from one of those mountains. (Matt. v, 1; Mark iii, 7-13.)
In the brief narrative of Mark, that sea is six times spoken of as the
scene of his labors; and these are evidently mere illustrations of the
habit of his ministry. Thus, the first such mention states that “he went
forth _again_ by the sea side, and all the multitude resorted unto him
and he taught them.”—Mark ii, 13, and see iii, 7; iv, 1; v, 21; vi,
31-33; vii, 31; viii, 10. Here, he fed the five thousand men, beside
women and children, with five barley loaves and two small fishes; and
here, the four thousand, with seven barley loaves and a few small
fishes. Afterward, when his ministry in Galilee was finished and he
would preach in Judea, he found himself beset, before his time, by the
machinations of the scribes and rulers. He therefore withdrew beyond
Jordan, to “the place where John at first baptized, and there he abode,
and many resorted to him, ... and many believed on him there.”—John x,
39-42, and Mark x, 1. It is evident that the facts here referred to were
not casual nor fortuitous. They constitute one of the most prominent
features of the story of our Lord’s ministry. It is also manifest that
these and the facts concerning the places of John’s ministry belong to
the same category; so that no explanation can be sufficient which does
not account for all alike.
The Baptist theory is not thus adequate. They will not pretend that it
was to immerse his disciples, that Jesus resorted to the lake and to
Bethabara. We may, therefore, conclude that the explanation of John’s
places of baptism is to be sought upon some other principle. A candid
consideration of the circumstances will discover it; and customs
peculiar to this country may confirm the solution. The assemblies that
attended on the ministry of John and of Jesus were essentially similar
to our camp-meetings, with the only difference, that the simpler habits
of the people of Judea and Galilee rendered any preparation of tents or
booths unnecessary. On one occasion we casually learn that the people
remained together three days (Mark viii, 2); and the circumstances
indicate that generally they were “protracted meetings.” For example, at
one time, Mark states that “Jesus withdrew himself with his disciples to
the sea; and a great multitude from Galilee, followed him, and from
Judea, and from Jerusalem, and from Idumea, and from beyond Jordan, and
they about Tyre and Sidon, a great multitude, when they had heard what
great things he did, came unto him.”—Mark iii, 7, 8. Luke in one place
speaks of “an innumerable multitude of people (_tōn muriadōn tou
ochlou_, the tens of thousands of the throng) insomuch that they trode
one upon another.”—Luke xii, 1. See, also, the descriptions of John’s
audiences. In choosing the place for a camp-meeting, three things are
recognized as of the first necessity. These are, retirement,
accessibility, and abundance of water. Why these are essential, needs no
explanation. As to the last, food may be brought from a distance; but if
abundance of water, for the supply of man and beast, is not found on the
spot, its use for such a purpose is manifestly and utterly
impracticable.
The argument applies with double force to the thirsty climate of Judea.
As heretofore stated, there are very few running streams in the land.
The requisite supplies for the people in the towns and villages in which
the population was concentrated were obtained from wells. There is
scarcely a single perennial stream flowing from the west into the
Jordan, in its whole course from the sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea. Its
affluents are “mere winter torrents, rushing and foaming during the
continuance of rain, and quickly drying up after the commencement of
summer. For fully half the year, these ‘rivers,’ or ‘brooks,’ are often
dry lanes of hot white or gray stones; or, tiny rills, working their way
through heaps of parched boulders.”[106] In a word, the banks of the
Jordan, the shores of the sea of Tiberias, and some such exceptional
spots as The Springs near Salim, presented the only sites in Palestine
in which the three requisites above indicated were to be found united.
Suppose the multitudes that were gathered to our Savior’s ministry,—four
and five thousand men, beside women, children and cattle; and those of
John’s preaching were, without doubt, as numerous,—to have been
assembled with an improvident forgetfulness of the prime necessity of
water! The alternative would have been a vast amount of suffering and
the dispersion of the assembly, or miraculous interposition. But this
does not meet the case of John’s congregations; for “John did no
miracle.”
Footnote 106:
Mr. George Grove, in Smith’s Bible Dictionary, _article_, “Palestine.”
It is plain that we need no immersion theory, to account for the places
chosen by John and Jesus for fulfilling their ministry. The necessities
of their numerous audiences were decisive, and were in harmony with the
requirement of the law that the sprinkled water of purifying should be
living or running water.
SECTION LXXVIII.—“_Buried with him by Baptism into Death._”
The principal remaining Baptist argument is derived from two expressions
of the apostle Paul which are supposed to show by implication that
baptism was administered by immersion. These are;—Rom. vi, 4,—“Buried
with him by baptism into death;” and Col. ii, 12,—“Buried with him in
baptism.” In our common English version as here quoted, there is a
repeated neglect of the definite article, where it occurs in the
original, which obscures the meaning. This defect being rectified, the
first passage reads thus:—Rom. vi, 1-11. “What shall we say then? Shall
we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we that
are dead _by_ sin live any longer therein? Know ye not that so many of
us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Therefore, we are buried with him by the baptism into the 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. For, if we have been
planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the
likeness of his resurrection: knowing this, that our old man
(_sunestaurōthē_) _was_ crucified with him, that the body of sin might
be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For (_ho
apōthanōn_) _he that died_ is freed (_dedikoiatai_, _is justified_) from
sin. Now, if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with
him.... For in that he died (_tē hamartia_) _by_ sin he died once: but
in that he liveth he liveth (_tō theō_) by God” (that is, “by the power
of God.”—2 Cor. xiii, 4.) “Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead
indeed by sin, but alive by the power of God, through Jesus Christ our
Lord.”
In the present state of our argument, it might seem almost needless to
discuss this passage. But this and the parallel text sustain relations
to the subject, which clothe them with an importance in the discussion,
such as attaches to no other Scriptures whatever. In them is contained
and exhausted the entire evidence in behalf of the assumption that the
form of baptism represents the burial of the Lord Jesus. Confessedly,
that supposition, if not established by these two phrases of Paul, is
without warrant anywhere in the Bible. But to prove the _interpretation_
of the rite, they must of necessity, first, establish its very
existence, which as yet is more than problematical. That they are not
likely to prove adequate to the task thus laid upon them, will be
apparent to the reader upon a moment’s consideration. It is evident, and
admitted by all, that the immediate subject of discussion in them is the
baptism of the Spirit, and not ritual baptism, in any form. If the
latter is referred to, at all, it is by mere allusion. That, this is
true, as to the text to the Romans, is indicated alike by the form of
expression, “baptized into Jesus Christ,” and by the phenomena and
results which are attributed to that baptism. It will hereafter appear
that the two phrases, “baptized into Jesus Christ,” and “baptized into
the name of Christ,” are those by which, in the Scriptures, the real
baptism, and the ritual, are discriminated from each other. The one
unites to the very body of Christ, the true, invisible church. The other
unites to the _name_ of Christ, and to that visible body which is named
with his name. That it is of spiritual phenomena, and not of ritual
forms, that Paul speaks, is moreover evident, from the purpose and tenor
of his argument. His object is to repel the suggestion that free grace
gives liberty to sin. His fundamental point in reply to this is, that
God’s people “are dead _by_ sin,” in such a sense that it is impossible
they should “live any longer therein.” To prove this, is the whole
intent of his argument. First, in designating the subjects of his
statements, he uses phraseology which emphasizes the difference between
a mere outward relation to Christ and the church, and that which is
established by the baptism of the spirit. “Know ye not that _so many_ of
us as were baptized _into Jesus Christ_.” It is those who are truly one
with Christ by a real spiritual union, and only those, whom he
describes, and of whom he predicates what follows.
“Baptized into Jesus Christ.” This is the one only baptism of the
passage, the effects and consequences of which the apostle proceeds to
set forth. Or, are we here to recognize three baptisms,—into Jesus
Christ,—into his death,—and into his burial? The first effect of the
baptism into Christ Paul indicates by the phrase, “baptized into his
death.” In the baptism into Christ, “by one Spirit are we all baptized
into one body,” the body of Christ, “and are all made to drink one
Spirit.” But it was by that Spirit that he offered himself without spot
to God, and “died by sin,” it being the meritorious cause of his death;
and that Spirit being in us by virtue of the baptism, will cause the
same hatred of sin, and induce in us a sense of its demerit and
condemnation, so that we can no longer live in it. Such is the meaning
of the apostle’s expression, “baptized into his death,”—so united by the
baptism into Christ, that as he died for sin to destroy it in us, so we
will be dead to it in the same hatred and zeal for its destruction,
inspired by the same Spirit. To intensify this conception, the apostle
pursues the figure yet farther.—“Therefore, we are buried with
him.”—How? By immersion in water? or, By any thing of which such
immersion is a symbol? No. But (_dia_) through, or, by means of the
baptism just spoken of; “the baptism into the death” of Christ. That the
expression can not possibly mean any ritual form of baptism is certain
every way. The illative, “Therefore,” forbids it. It shows the burial to
be, not a physical phenomenon, real or ritual, but a consequence which,
by virtue of the relation of cause and effect, logically results from
something which either precedes or follows. But the boundaries in both
directions are the same.—“_Baptized into his death._ Therefore buried
with him, by the _baptism into the death_.” The baptism into Christ, by
which we are baptized into his death, is thus the instrumental cause of
the burial; a fact which utterly excludes any form of ritual baptism
from the purview of the passage. But what is here meant by being buried
with him? In order to an answer, it will be necessary to ascertain
precisely who it is that dies and is buried with Christ. The answer
comes promptly. “_We_ are buried.” True; but the words are to be taken
in the light of the apostle’s own interpretation. It is not we, in the
entirety of our persons, but our old man, of which this is said.
“Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of
sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.”—Vs. 6.
It is, to signify the utterness of this death and destruction of the old
man,—its obliteration out of our lives, so that we can not “live any
longer therein,” nor “serve sin,” that the apostle represents it as
buried, and hidden away in a resurrectionless grave. The old man buried,
so that the new man may unimpeded “walk in newness of life.” In this
doctrine and these words of the apostle, we have the very baptism which
Dr. Conant admits to be expressed, “by analogy,” by the word
_baptizo_;—“_the coming into a new state of life or experience_.” Into
the conception of the passage, when critically appreciated, it is
impossible to introduce the idea of immersion, in any congruous or
intelligible relation.
The apostle illustrates his subject with another figure, which has been
sometimes pressed into the service of immersion. “For if we have been
planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the
likeness of his resurrection.” It has been assumed that the planting of
a tree is here associated with immersion in water (“buried by baptism”),
as representing the burial of the dead. Thus, “the likeness of his
_death_,” which was by crucifixion, is confounded with the form of
_burial_ of the dead. This is recognized by Dr. Carson, whose exposition
of the figure is essentially correct. Of _sumphutoi_ (“planted
together”) he says,—“It might, I think, be applied to express the
growing together of the graft and the tree; but this would be the effect
or consequence of grafting, and not the operation itself. It denotes, in
short, the closest union, with respect to things indiscriminately. There
is no need, then, to bring either planting or grafting into the passage;
and as neither of them resembles a resurrection, they should be
rejected. When we translate the passage,—‘For, if we have become one
with him,’ or, ‘have been joined with him, in the likeness of his
death,’—we not only suit the connexion, to both death and resurrection,
but we take the word _sumphutoi_, in its most common acceptation.”[107]
This witness is true. The phrase has no reference to the form of ritual
baptism, but to the intimacy of the union which that of the Spirit
establishes. The two expressions,—“Baptized into his death,” and
“Coplanted with him in the likeness of his death,” are coincident,
meaning essentially the same thing. It is, however, a fundamental defect
in Carson’s conception, that while he earnestly insists on the closeness
of the union, by which Christ and his people are one, he fails to
recognize the essential fact that it is effected by the baptism of the
Spirit. In his conception and vocabulary, it is a “_constituted_ union.”
A ray of light entering his mind on this point would have transfigured
his whole system.
Footnote 107:
Carson on Baptism, p. 251.
But what means our being joined with Christ in the likeness of his
death? Here and elsewhere, Paul explains abundantly. “He died by sin,”
our sin, as being the meritorious cause of his death. “He was crucified
through weakness,”—the weakness of his humiliation, under the law and
the curse. (2 Cor. xiii, 4.) He died by the cross, the agonies of which
he voluntarily assumed. And he lives again, by the power of God who
raised him from the dead. So we also, if truly baptized into him, “are
weak (_en autō_) in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God
toward us.”—2 Cor. xiii, 4. We are weak in him, in a realizing sense
imparted by his Spirit in us, of the desert and condemnation of sin, and
of its prevailing power, which renders our emancipation from it a
crucifixion of the flesh, the agonies of which we voluntarily incur. And
we live with him, in the present life of the new man after his image,
created by the baptism of his Spirit in us, as we shall finally live
with him in the life of glory. Thus we are joined with him in the
likeness of his death, and also of his resurrection.
From this analysis, it is evident that the assumption of allusion to a
supposed ritual burial is wholly unnecessary to the exegesis of the
passage. In fact, the supposition of such allusion is altogether
incongruous and confusing to the argument of the place. (1.) The real
baptism and its effects are the alone subjects of the discussion; and
any exegesis which ignores this must lead to error. (2.) The burial of
which the apostle speaks is spiritual, as well as is the baptism. The
two are in no sense identical; but the one is, by the apostle distinctly
and sharply discriminated from the other. The baptism is the primary
cause, of which the burial is _one_, and but one, of the results. The
baptism is the shedding upon us of the Holy Spirit of life in Christ
Jesus. The burial is the putting away, and obliterating of the old man
out of our lives. It follows, that in any parallel figurative or ritual
system, each one of these spiritual realities must have its own
analogue, as distinctly defined and discriminated, each from the other,
as are the realities which they are designed to represent. And, in fact,
such is the figurative system of the Scriptures, which represent the one
by the figure of the outpouring of water, and the other by the burial of
the dead. To interpret, therefore, a ritual _baptism_ as symbolic of the
spiritual _burial_, is as incongruous to the Scriptural conception, as
would be the employment of the burial of the dead to represent the
outpouring upon us of the Spirit of life. And to understand the apostle,
by the expression, “buried by the baptism” to mean directly the
spiritual phenomenon which the phrase designates, and at the same time
to convey an allusion to a ritual _baptism_ as being a symbol of the
_burial_, is an absurdity which does violence to the whole conception,
to the destruction of its propriety and significance. For, not only are
the two thus sharply discriminated by Paul, but he attributes to each
its own relations and predicates, and assigns to each its own place in
the scheme of grace and in the argument which he states. To neglect,
therefore, the distinction, and confound them together, as is done by
the Baptist interpretation, destroys the whole logical force and
sequence of the argument, and dissolves the connection between the
premises and the conclusions.
Moreover, were it even allowable, as it is not, thus to confound things
that differ, there still remains a point of difficulty in the way of the
immersion exegesis which, for its removal, demands something more than
the mere assumption which has heretofore been put in the place of proof.
The apostle speaks, not of immersion, but of burial. “Buried with him.”
That the two ideas are not identical does not need to be proved. Nor is
the difference so slight that the one would readily suggest itself as a
figure of the other. But in order to sustain the Baptist conclusions
which depend on this language, it would be necessary to demonstrate that
the rites of sepulture with which the writers of the Scriptures were
familiar, and in conformity to which the body of Jesus was entombed,
bore a resemblance to immersion in water, so close and manifest, that
the one was a recognized symbol of the other. But there is certainly no
such resemblance as to justify the gratuitous assumption that such a
figure was employed; and of its actual use, the Scriptures contain not a
trace.
Is it still insisted that, nevertheless, there is an allusion to the
rite of immersion? Such an allusion must be supposed to shed light or
beauty upon the presentation of the spiritual theme of the passage; or,
it is an arbitrary impertinence. Let us then view the suggestion
squarely, in the light of the realized observance, thus forced into
critical notice. The theme of the apostle is the calm majesty and power
of the Savior’s three days’ rest in the sepulcher, and of the silent and
unseen mystery of his rising on the third day; and the tranquil energy
of the same mighty power in the believer (Eph. i, 19, 20; ii, 1), by
which he is quickened and raised up to the life of holiness. The figure
which is intruded, to illuminate and adorn this conception, calls up
before us the apprehension and haste of the ritual observance, and the
agitation, the gasping and sputter of the dripping subjects of the rite,
as they struggle up out of the “watery grave.” Is it possible to
conceive that master of rhetoric, the apostle Paul, to have called up
these, the essential and inseparable features of the rite of immersion,
as a means of shedding light or beauty on his exalted theme?
SECTION LXXIX.—“_Buried with Him in Baptism._”
Col. ii, 9-13.—“In Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.
And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and
power. In whom, also, ye are circumcised with the circumcision made
without hands, in putting off the body of the flesh by the circumcision
of Christ (_suntaphentes autō en to baptismati_), _having been buried
with him by the baptism_, wherein also ye were raised up with him,
through the faith of the operation of God, who raised him from the dead.
And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh,
did he quicken together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses.”
Here, in the phrase,—“the body _of the sins_ of the flesh,” which is the
reading of the common version, the critical editors unite in rejecting
(_hamartiōn_) “of the sins,” which was undoubtedly a gloss inserted from
the margin, in careless transcription.
It is evident that the doctrine and argument of the passage just
examined from the epistle to the Romans, and this to the Colossians are
essentially the same. In the former, Paul shows that the child of God
can not live in sin;—in the latter that he ought to walk in Christ. The
controlling motive of the apostle’s argument, here, is, to free his
readers from the bondage of ritual ordinances and human devices of
religion. He begins with the admonition,—“Beware lest any man spoil you
through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after
the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”—vs. 8. To this, he
again recurs as the conclusion of his argument.—“Therefore, if ye _be
dead_ with Christ, from the rudiments of the world, why as though
_living_ in the world are ye subject to ordinances, ... after the
commandments and doctrines of men?”—vs. 20, 21. It is with a view to
these things that the exhortation is written,—“As ye have _received_
Christ Jesus the Lord, so, walk ye in _him_, rooted and built up in
_him_, and established in _the faith_,” as contrasted with these
traditions of men. Thus, as in the parallel plea to the Romans, so here,
the determining idea is union with the Lord Jesus,—that spiritual union
of which the baptism of the Spirit is the efficient and only cause. The
dignity and glory conferred by it are emphasized by the declaration that
“in Him dwelleth all, (_plērōma_) _the fullness_ of the Godhead bodily.”
In the person of Jesus, the Son is incarnate; the Father’s glory and
power invest him, and the Spirit is his and dwells in him. “And ye are
(_peplērōmenoi_) _made full_ in him.” “Made full in him” by virtue of
that mutual relation which Jesus describes;—“You in me, and I in
you.”—John xiv, 20. Thus, made full, with all the graces of his
indwelling Spirit, and so needing no recourse to the rudiments of the
world. With this fullness of grace, the apostle then contrasts the
coincident emptying of the old man. “In whom ye are circumcised with the
circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the flesh,
by the circumcision of Christ.” Circumcision signified the cutting off
and destruction of the corrupt nature derived by generation, the old
man, through the blood and sufferings of the promised Seed of Abraham.
This operation is here called “the circumcision of Christ,” as it is
that spiritual reality of which ritual circumcision was the type. The
apostle holds it up to view, as the substance, in contrast with the
emptiness of the ritual shadow, against dependence on which he dissuades
his Colossian readers. This circumcision of Christ he proceeds to
explain farther. “Putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision
of Christ, (_suntaphentes autō_) _having been buried with him_ in the
baptism.” In the conception and argument of the apostle, emphasis rests
on the definite article, which here, and in the parallel place, already
examined, is ignored in the common English version, and in the Revised
version. Paul’s aim in this place is to hold up the spiritual realities
of the gospel in contrast with the emptiness of ritual forms. He
coordinates “_the_ baptism” with “the circumcision of Christ,” in
producing the spiritual phenomena of which he is speaking. Or, rather,
he postulates the baptism as the ultimate cause of the circumcision and
its results. That, by the phrase, “the baptism,” he designates the same
thing as in Romans vi, 4, is evident, as it is also that as in that
place, so here, the baptism is not the burial, but is related to it, as
the cause to the effect.—“Buried with him _by_ the baptism.” How the
baptism effects the burial, has been shown in that place. The
distinction between the two, which is there so strongly marked, is in
this passage equally clear and important; and the consequences there
traced are here as legitimate and pertinent. The supposition of an
allusion to immersion in water, in either place, is utterly groundless,
and in both alike incongruous and destructive to the apostle’s
conception and argument. Certainly, this place no more than the other
necessitates recourse to the supposed rite of immersion, in order to a
rational interpretation. And it is equally certain that at the touch of
a discriminating exegesis the supposed allusion to such a rite vanishes
utterly away.
SECTION LXXX.—_End of the Baptist Argument._
The Baptist position rests on two assumptions. The _first_ is, that
_baptizo_ means, to dip, to immerse, to submerge,—one or other of these,
as the different advocates of the cause may select,—_and nothing else_.
The _second_ is, that on account of its resemblance to the laying of the
body of Jesus in the sepulchre, the rite of dipping, immersion, or
submersion in water was appointed as a symbol of his entombing. The
first of these assumptions is essential to vindicate the mode in
question, and the second to establish its typical significance. If
_baptizo_ does not mean as defined, or if that is not the only meaning,
the whole immersion fabric falls to the ground. And if the second
proposition is not established, the rite becomes an unmeaning
absurdity.—On these vital points, the following are the results of the
evidence thus far developed in these pages.
1. While the Scriptures everywhere, in the Old Testament and the New,
are full of the doctrine of the baptism of the Spirit,—while the divers
baptisms of the Mosaic ritual were unquestionably typical of it, and the
prophecies abound in references to it under the figure of affusion—the
sprinkling of water, and the outpouring of rain,—the rite of immersion
does not pretend to any better evidence than is found in a definition of
_baptizo_, which is now admitted to be erroneous, and a few expressions
in the New Testament which are at best of questionable interpretation.
Aside from these, it is foreign and uncongenial to the whole tenor of
conception and language of the New Testament as well as of the Old.
2. Not to insist on the special conclusions of Dale,—the admissions of
Dr. Conant, confirmed by the authority of Prof. Kendrick, prove that the
word does not mean, to dip, to put in the water and take out again; but
to put under the water, to submerge. The rite, then, consists in
submerging the subjects. In that action the baptism is completed. There
is therefore in it no symbol nor suggestion of the resurrection.
3. The elaborate researches of Dr. Dale, and the results established by
the investigations of this volume, are confirmed by the distinct
admission of Dr. Conant, that the primary is _not_ the _only_ meaning of
the word. It not only means, to submerge, but also, “the coming into a
new state of life or experience.” Thus, the citadel of the immersion
position is definitely abandoned. The word is _not_ limited to one
meaning. The mere fact, therefore, that it occurs, in any given place,
decides nothing as to the form of action expressed by it; since the
question always arises,—In what sense is the word here used? a question
which, in every instance, must be decided by evidence outside the word.
Until so decided, any inference from the word is mere assumption.
4. To re-establish the crumbling structure of immersion, the
prepositions avail nothing; since they are as congruous to the
supposition that the rite was performed by affusion.
5. The many waters of Enon prove nothing to the purpose; since abundance
of water was necessary to John’s congregations, had he made no ritual
use of it whatever.
6. Equally futile is appeal to Paul’s “buried by the baptism,” as the
imagined allusion is unnecessary to the interpretation, incongruous to
the argument, and destructive of the distinctions which the apostle
draws, and the conclusions which he deduces.
7. As to the remaining argument, from the baptism of the eunuch, we
shall see hereafter, that while the facts recorded decide nothing, they
create a presumption which distinctly indicates affusion.
Thus, the rite in question,—foreign to the whole style of the Old
Testament, its ritual and prophecies, and equally so to the language and
doctrines of the New,—is left without a vestige of evidence, anywhere,
whether as to mode or meaning, even in those particular words and
passages which have been the reliance of its advocates.
PART XIII.
BAPTISMAL REGENERATION.
SECTION LXXXI.—_The Doctrine is Contrary to the Whole Tenor of the Gospel._
Paul was yet in the meridian of his strength, and the most active period
of his ministry, when he wrote to the Thessalonians that “the mystery of
iniquity doth already work,”—the mystery out of which was to be
developed “that Wicked, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of
his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.”—2 Thes.
ii, 7, 8. There is nothing more remarkable, nor more humiliating, in the
history of the church than the rapid defection from the simplicity of
the gospel which is apparent in the early remains of patristic
literature. The transition from the apostles and evangelists in the New
Testament, to the writings of the fathers, is like that from the
splendor of the noonday sun to the deepening twilight of the evening. It
was the precursor of “the black and dark night,” by which the gospel was
obscured for so many ages, and which still enshrouds the churches of
Rome and the East in a mantle of gloom. Of this defection, the
all-powerful cause was a false and mischievous interpretation of the
Scriptures concerning the relation of the covenant of Sinai to the new
covenant. They were interpreted as teaching that the visible church and
its ordinances under the New Testament economy, was the antitype of the
Levitical church and institutions,—that the rites and ceremonies of the
latter were the shadow, of which the ordinances of the Christian church
are the substance. Hence the Christian ministry became a priesthood,
ministering better sacrifices and more effectual purifyings than those
of the Mosaic ritual; for in their hands and by virtue of their
consecrating prayers, the Lord’s supper became a propitiatory sacrifice
of the very body and blood of the Lord Jesus, and baptism administered
by them became a spiritual regeneration,—a purging of the
conscience,—the true baptism foreshadowed by the “type baptism” of the
Old Testament. Thus, Didymus Alexandrinus, having quoted Ezek. xxxvi,
22,—“I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean from
all your sins;” and Psa. li, 7,—“Sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be
clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow;” says,—“For the
sprinkling with hyssop was Judaic purification; which is continued by
them to the present time; but ‘whiter than snow,’ denotes Christian
illumination, which is baptism. And Peter, that he may show in his first
epistle, that if baptism, which was formerly, _in shadow_ (_en skia_)
saved, much more that which was _in reality_ (_en alētheia_)
immortalizes and deifies us, wrote thus;—‘Antitype baptism now saves
us.’”[108] So Ambrose, as already quoted, says of the Psalmist,—“He asks
to be cleansed by hyssop, according to the law. He desires to be washed,
according to the gospel. He who would be cleansed by typical baptism was
sprinkled with the blood of a lamb, by means of a bunch of hyssop.” Of
the doctrine of baptism, as thus conceived, Tertullian says,—“All waters
in virtue of the pristine privilege of their origin,[109] do, after
invocation of God accomplish sanctification; for the Spirit immediately
comes from heaven and rests upon the waters, sanctifying them by his own
power; and they being thus sanctified, therewith acquire the power of
sanctifying.”[110] Derived from this is the modern doctrine of baptismal
regeneration, according to which, it is only in and through the baptism
of water that the renewing grace of the Spirit is imparted to men.
Footnote 108:
Did. Alex. xxxix, 716. In Dale’s Christ. Bapt. p. 342.
Footnote 109:
He alludes to a relation to the Spirit, supposed to be indicated in
Gen. i, 2.
Footnote 110:
Tertullianus, De Bapt., ch. iv.
It is manifest that if this doctrine be true, baptism is the “one thing
needful;” and the church of Rome, and ritualists everywhere are right in
the unanimity with which they reduce the preaching of the word to a
secondary place, and count the progress of the gospel by the numbers who
have been subjected to the life-giving rite. If it be true, then water
baptism should be the theme of the New Testament; and the apostles and
Christian ministry must have been commissioned and sent forth, _not_ to
preach the gospel; but _to baptize_. What says the Word of God on these
points?
1. As to the gospel commission, and the instructions connected
therewith, we have accounts from each of the four evangelists. John
confines himself almost entirely to those, of such supreme interest,
which Jesus uttered at the table, the night of the betrayal. Matthew,
Mark, and Luke record the essential facts which occurred after the
resurrection. The first thing that presents itself in examining these
accounts is, that of baptism, as connected with the last instructions
given the apostles, neither Luke nor John say one word. Thus, if the
doctrine in question be true, these two evangelists are guilty of
leaving out of their record the very heart and essence of the whole
matter. This is the more remarkable, if we consider the character of the
writers who are thus chargeable. Did we forget the Spirit which guided
their pens, it is yet impossible to imagine that Luke, “the beloved
physician,” disciple, and companion of Paul, can have been unaware of
the just proportion to be preserved in his narrative; so as to ignore a
matter important as this. Or, John, the kinsman of Jesus, the beloved
disciple, who in the privilege of a perfect confidence and love, lay on
his bosom, and who received from the cross the legacy of the stricken
mother,—John was not ignorant of the mind of his Master, on a subject
like this, upon which depend the whole results of the work of
redemption. The silence of these writers was not inadvertent, and it is
fatal to the theory in question. What they do not report can have no
place among the essentials of the plan of salvation. It still, however,
remains to account for their silence respecting the ritual ordinance of
baptism; which, apart from the unwarranted theory in question, all agree
to be of divine authority. To this point we will return hereafter.
If, now, we turn to the other evangelists, the record of Matthew is as
follows: Matt. xxviii, 16-20. “Then the eleven disciples went away into
Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they
saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake
unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go
ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them (_eis to honoma_),
_into the name_ of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost;
teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and
lo! I am with you alway even unto the end of the world.” Here, it can
not be pretended that there is any thing to countenance the idea of
baptismal regeneration. The administering of the rite is enjoined on the
apostles. But no hint is given of its being necessary to salvation; and
no such stress is laid upon it as to imply such necessity.
Mark records the language of Jesus on another occasion. Mark xvi,
14-16,—“He appeared to the eleven, as they sat at meat, and upbraided
them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed
not them which had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto them,
Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not
shall he damned.” Here, is no more of baptismal regeneration than we
have found in Matthew. Emphasis is, indeed, given to baptism, by the
connection in which it is introduced. But at the very point on which all
depends the evidence gives way. “He that believeth and is baptized shall
be saved; but he that believeth not—shall be damned.” Thus explicitly
Jesus utters sentence of perdition against unbelief. But he as
explicitly omits baptism from mention on that side of the alternative,
and thus expressly limits the condemning sentence to unbelief. Either
this language is designed to represent baptism as important but _not_
essential; or, it is a snare which must take men at unawares, and
involve them in danger of destruction from ignorance of the necessity of
the rite. Here then is no baptismal regeneration. The same inference
follows from the silence of the other evangelists on this point. The
eleven were all present and heard these words. If they were meant to
imply baptismal regeneration, they were of the very highest moment. They
could not, therefore, be ignored, but must have been the very center and
controlling principle of all their writings and teachings. And yet, the
other gospels ignore them; and the epistles are equally silent. It is,
therefore, certain that the apostles did not understand the expressions,
in the supposed sense. The true principle of harmony for the
interpretation of all these facts will be presented in another place.
2. If now we examine the position of the great apostle of the Gentiles,
we shall find him give place by subjection to this doctrine,—no, not for
an hour. His is an independent testimony; for he was not with the eleven
under the personal ministry of Christ. It is also fuller than any other;
running through his thirteen epistles. First, we find that it was not
his habit to baptize the converts of his own ministry; and that, upon
principle. He says to the Corinthians,—“I thank God that I baptized none
of you but Crispus and Gaius; lest any should say that I had baptized in
my own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas. Besides, I
know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me, not to
baptize, but to preach the gospel.”—1 Cor. i, 14-17. He moreover states
the reason of his special devotion thus to the preaching of the
gospel,—because “it pleased God by the foolishness of _preaching_ to
save them that _believe_.”—v. 21. Here be it observed, the apostle
speaks of preaching, not abstractly considered, but in immediate
contrast with baptism. He does not baptize; but preaches, because
_preaching_ is the means which God has chosen for the salvation of men
_through faith_. Thus, baptism is, in the plainest terms denied the
place assigned it by the theory in question. But the evidence is even
more direct and conclusive. To these same Corinthians whom Paul thus
reminded that he had not baptized them, he addressed a second epistle,
in which he distinctly asserts that through his personal ministry the
Spirit of God had been given them and new life wrought within them. “Ye
are our epistle written in _your_ hearts,[111] known and read of all
men; forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ
ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the
living God; not in tables of stone, but in the fleshly tables of the
heart.” He goes on to assert his ministry to be “of the new covenant;
not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter killeth; but the
spirit giveth life.”—2 Cor. iii, 2, 3, 6. It needs no words, here, to
show that thus the apostle overturns the very foundations of the theory
of baptismal regeneration. Paul did not baptize the Corinthians. But he
ministered to them the Holy Spirit of life and grace,—the true baptism
of which he speaks so largely in his epistles.
Footnote 111:
That ἡμων, the reading of the Textus Receptus, should be ὑμῶν, “_your_
hearts,” is testified by a number of MSS., among which is the
Sinaiticus, and is imperatively demanded by the connection.
It is not necessary to go farther in tracing the doctrine of Paul on the
subject. He is everywhere consistent with himself as thus presented. It
is however worthy of express notice that in his three epistles to
Timothy and Titus, in which he sets forth the qualifications and duties
of “the man of God,” he does not once name or allude to the ordinance of
baptism. Had the apostle believed the doctrine of baptismal
regeneration, it is not possible that he could have been thus silent.
But what need is there of thus inferring the sentiments of Paul? His
favorite doctrine, excludes and condemns this theory as an intrusive
heresy. “Being justified _by faith_, we have peace with God, through our
Lord Jesus Christ.”—Rom. v, 1. “By grace ye are saved, _through faith_,
and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.”—Eph. ii, 8. “O
foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you?... This only would I learn of
you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law or by the _hearing
of faith_?”—Gal. iii, 1, 2. How is it that by no accident does he ever
say,—“by the hearing of faith, and _by baptism_?” It is almost needless
to add that the other apostles in their writings are in perfect accord
with Paul. In fact, ritual or water baptism is not once named in their
epistles. The word, itself, occurs in them all only once,—in the
statement of Peter respecting “antitype baptism,” which has been already
examined. If the apostles and evangelists are true witnesses as to the
mind of Christ, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is contrary to
his teachings and subversive of the gospel.
This heresy is to be regarded with peculiar detestation and abhorrence
because of the disparagement which it does to the sovereignty and glory
of Christ’s baptizing scepter. In any and every form of it, it divides
the work of grace between Christ and the human administrators of the
empty sign. It subordinates and limits the sovereign exercise of his
saving power to the discretion of their wisdom and will, to the measure
of their fidelity and ardor of their zeal. Whom they baptize,—upon them
his grace may be bestowed, and upon them only.
We shall not examine in detail all the Scriptures which are appealed to
in support of this theory. There are two which are the chief reliance of
its advocates, an examination of which will be sufficient. If not in
them, the doctrine is not to be found in the Bible. They are, John iii,
5, and Eph. v, 25-27.
SECTION LXXXII.—“_Born of Water and of the Spirit._”
Said Jesus to Nicodemus,—“Except a man be born of water and of the
Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God.”—John iii, 5. Dr.
Pusey asserts that “The Christian church uniformly for fifteen centuries
interpreted these words of baptism; on the ground of this text alone,
they urged the necessity of baptism; upon it they identified
regeneration with baptism.” If the position thus maintained by the
churches of Rome and the east for so many centuries be the truth, it
presents the Savior, the apostles and evangelists, and the Scriptures
written by them, in a most extraordinary light. In the very beginning of
his ministry, in a private interview with the Jewish ruler, Jesus
imparts to him this doctrine, on which confessedly the salvation of
every man depends. But, from that hour, neither he nor his apostles ever
name it. In his public instructions to the people,—in his private
interviews with his disciples,—in those particular and assiduous
teachings by which, as his own ministry drew to a close, he put them in
possession of his whole mind concerning their ministry and the world’s
salvation (John xv, 15), he is persistently and entirely silent on this
vital point. “Still,” says Dr. Pusey, “the truth in holy Scripture is
not less God’s truth, because contained in one passage only.” The
principle is sound; but its application here is a mere begging of the
question. That question is, What mean these words? And the above axiom
is no more true, and much less pertinent to the present occasion than is
the rule of interpretation laid down by Paul. “Having then gifts
differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy,
let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith.”—Rom. xii, 6. An
_interpretation_ which takes a passage out of all congruous relation to
the rest of the Scriptures, and overturns the very foundations of the
faith therein set forth, is false. And such is the interpretation in
question. The circumstances and connection indicate the true meaning of
the passage.
That Nicodemus, although perhaps lacking in courage, was an honest
inquirer after the truth, is evinced by the circumstances of this
interview and by his subsequent history. He came by night, for fear of
the Jews. He came not to cavil but to be taught, as appears alike from
his own language and the manner of Christ’s dealing with him. John had
been for some time causing the land to ring with his warning cry; and
men’s hearts were in expectation because of it and his baptism. After
this interview of Nicodemus with Jesus, we incidentally learn that in
connection with Christ’s preaching his disciples also baptized. And
their baptism was assuredly of the same intent as that of John,—to
prefigure the office of the Baptizer with the Holy Ghost. We may,
therefore, conclude that their baptism was from the beginning associated
with Christ’s ministry. Of these facts, a man of the rank and
intelligence of Nicodemus, and in his state of mind, could not be
ignorant. He therefore comes for instruction as to the way of salvation.
At the beginning of the interview, he places himself definitely at the
feet of Jesus, as a disciple to be taught of him. “Rabbi, we _know_ that
thou art a _teacher_ come from God; for no man can do these miracles
that thou doest except God be with him.” To an application thus so
precisely in accord with Christ’s own testimonies as to himself and his
miracles (John v, 36; x, 25; xiv, 10, 11), he responds by entering
directly upon the question which was agitating the ruler’s heart,—that
great question,—How to be saved? “Jesus answered and said unto him,
Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he can not
see the kingdom of God,”—that kingdom of which the cry then was, “The
kingdom of heaven is at hand.” The figure of the new birth was strange
to Nicodemus; for, while the doctrine of renewing by the Holy Spirit is
familiar to the Old Testament writers,—the figure of a new birth is not
found in them. He therefore asks,—“How can a man be born when he is old”
Here evidently the ruler views the matter as of practical and present
interest to him personally. “How can I, Nicodemus, at my age, be born
again?” The purpose of Jesus, in using this new illustration was thus
accomplished. Old truths in new forms often develop a power which
otherwise they lack. Jesus therefore, now answers, by a figure, familiar
to his hearer, in the Old Testament Scriptures, and in the baptisms of
John and of Christ’s disciples, “Except a man be born of water and of
the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God.”
From this view of the connection and circumstances, it is evident that
the passage is to be interpreted in the light of the Old Testament, and
of the baptisms administered at the time of this interview, several
years before the ascension and day of Pentecost; and not by any thing
peculiar to the time subsequent to that event. But it is an essential
feature of the theory of baptismal regeneration, that it holds the New
Testament church to have this eminent advantage over that of the Old
Testament, that the grace of regeneration is peculiar to the former, and
to the ordinance of baptism as administered subsequent to the ascension
of Christ. But the words of Christ to Nicodemus were no abstract setting
forth of phenomena of grace to be enjoyed by the church in a coming
time, but an explanation of the way in which the ruler must be saved,
then and there, under the old economy. Viewing it in this light the
following are the facts essential to the exposition of the passage.
1. The figure of metaphor was especially congenial to the Hebrew mind.
To its abundant use, the Scriptures are largely indebted for the energy
and clearness with which the profoundest thoughts are there presented.
“Lord, thou hast been our _dwelling place_ in all generations.”—Ps. xc,
1. “Moab is my _wash pot_.”—Ps. lx, 8. “In the hand of the Lord, there
is _a cup_, and the _wine_ is _red_; it is full of _mixture_; and he
poureth out of the same; but the _dregs_ thereof, all the wicked of the
earth shall wring them out and drink them.”—Ps. lxxv, 8. “Unto you that
fear my name shall _the sun of righteousness_ arise with healing in his
wings.”—Mal. iv, 2. Who would imagine the necessity of pausing to
explain that these expressions are not to be understood literally?
2. Among these metaphors, no one was more familiar to the Jews than that
of water, signifying the Holy Spirit. “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.”—Isa. xliv, 3. This
figure has been already illustrated abundantly in these pages. It is
only here important to emphasize the fact that upon it the whole
significance of John’s and the Old Testament baptisms depended,—which
were, at that precise time, so earnestly pressed upon the attention of
the Jews.
3. This very figure was repeatedly used by our Saviour in the course of
his ministry. To the woman of Samaria he says, “thou wouldst have asked
of him, and he would have given thee _living water_.... Whosoever
drinketh of _the water_ that I shall give him, shall never thirst; but
_the water_ that I shall give him, shall be in him _a well of water_
springing up into everlasting life.”—John iv, 10, 14. Again, “In the
last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If
any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. He that believeth on me,
as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of
_living water_.”—Ib. vii, 37, 38. It is, moreover, to be remarked that
both of these places occur in the same gospel of John in which is found
the interview with Nicodemus. Nor is it without significant bearing on
the present point, that in the Revelation, by the pen of this same
writer, the metaphor of water is conspicuous, in this same sense. “The
Lamb ... shall lead them unto living fountains of waters.”—Rev. vii, 17.
The Lord Jesus says,—“I will give to him that is athirst of the fountain
of the water of life freely;”—Ib. xxi, 6. John sees the “pure river of
water of life clear as crystal proceeding out of the throne of God and
the Lamb;”—Ib. xxii, 1. And the volume of revelation closes with the
invitation,—”Let him that is athirst come, and whosoever will, let him
take of the water of life, freely.”—Ib. 17.
4. The Greek conjunction, _kai_, (“and,”) does not always express
addition; but sometimes indicates an expository relation between two
members of a sentence, and is equivalent to, _even_, _to wit_, _namely_.
Thus,—“For blasphemy, _even_ because that thou being a man makest
thyself God.”—John x, 33. “Hath made us kings and priests unto God,
_even_ his Father.”—Rev. i, 6. “A golden cup, full of abominations,
_even_ the filthiness of her fornications.”—Ib. xvii, 4. “But ourselves,
_even_ we ourselves, groan.”—Rom. viii, 23. “God, _even_ our
Father.”—Phil. iv, 20. Three of these examples being from the writings
of John again illustrate his style. It is evident that the phrase in
question may be translated thus;—“Except a man be born of water, _even_
of the Spirit.” In fact, such must have been the sense in which it was
understood by Nicodemus. (1.) The phrase is professedly _explanatory_.
It is in reply to the perplexity of Nicodemus, at the primary statement
of Jesus,—“Except a man be born again,”—an expression the meaning of
which is abundantly illustrated, in all parts of the New Testament. (2.)
The explanatory clause thus introduced, having performed its office,
immediately drops out of the discourse, which subsequently dwells upon
the new birth of the Spirit alone. “Except a man be born of water, even
of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God. That which is
born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born _of the Spirit_ is
spirit. The wind bloweth where it listeth, ... so is every one that is
born _of the Spirit_.” It is impossible to account for the manner in
which, after the one explanatory phrase, the water is thus ignored and
excluded, upon any other supposition than that by which it is viewed as
an interpretation of the previous expression, a metaphor for the Spirit.
(3.) The fact that in the circumstances, it was impossible for the ruler
to have understood the language in question as referring to a water
baptism, which, upon the theory of baptismal regeneration, was not to be
administered until after the day of Pentecost; and that he was therefore
shut up to regard it as a metaphor, rendered explanation necessary, if
that theory is true. The absence of any explanation makes it certain
that such was not the meaning of Jesus.
5. The author of this narrative had, already, in the beginning of his
gospel given an account of the manner of regeneration, which must be
accepted as governing the whole of his subsequent record on the subject.
“As many as received Him to them gave He power to become” (_exousian
genesthai_, “gave He _the prerogative of being_”) “the sons of God, even
to them that believe on His name; which were born, not of blood, nor of
the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”—John i, 12,
13. Here, it is not sufficient to say that baptismal regeneration is
ignored. It is absolutely excluded. The born of God are described in
terms both exclusive and inclusive, by the phrase, “_As many as_
received him, ... that believed on his name.” These, all of these, and
none but these, were born of God. The addition of baptism makes this no
more sure; nor does its absence affect the result. As many as receive
Christ,—As many as believe on his name, to them it is given to be the
sons of God.
It is evident that the record of the interview with Nicodemus, all of
which may be read in two or three minutes, is a mere abstract of leading
points of our Savior’s discourse. The intent of the words in question
may be thus expressed. “You do not understand how a man can be born
again. But you are familiar with the rite of baptism, and you are
acquainted with the Scriptures of the prophets, and the interpretation
which they give to that rite as a symbol of the renewing work of the
Holy Spirit. It is that of which I speak. Except a man be born of water,
even of the Holy Spirit, who is the true water of life, he can not enter
into the kingdom of God.”
SECTION LXXXIII.—“_The Washing of Water by the Word._”
To the Ephesians, Paul thus writes. Eph. v, 25-27. “Husbands love your
wives, even as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it;
that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the
word; that he might present it to himself, a glorious church, not having
spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and
without blemish.” It is asserted that here baptism with water, and its
effects are described. The “washing of water” is the baptism, “the
word,” is the formula of the ordinance and unblemished holiness, the
effect. But
1. The subject of Paul’s discussion is the relation of husband and wife,
and the reference to the church is incidental, and by reason of the
analogy of the subjects. The conception which runs through and controls
the passage is that of a bridal, and each particular of the language is
suggested by this conception. Thus, in the phrase, “a glorious church,”
rather “a church gloriously adorned” (compare Luke vii, 25, “gorgeously
apparelled,”) the apostle seems to have had in his mind (Psa. xlv,
3),—“The king’s daughter is all glorious, within; her clothing is of
wrought gold.” So, the washing of water is expressly stated to be in
order to his presenting her to himself “not having spot or wrinkle.” The
immediate reference, therefore, of the language is to the washing and
decking of the bride, before marriage; and the original of the whole
conception is to be found in Ezekiel xvi, 9-14. “Then washed I thee with
water; yea, I thoroughly washed away thy blood from thee, and I anointed
thee with oil. I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee
with badger’s skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I
covered thee with silk. I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put
bracelets on thy hands and a chain on thy neck.” It will hardly be
pretended that in this language of the prophet, the washing with water
implies any mixture of the natural element with that process of grace
which is there described. And that the prophet and the apostle refer to
the same thing is manifest. There is no direct allusion in the passage
to ritual baptism. The water is the familiar metaphor of the Spirit, and
the washing is the expression for his renewing and sanctifying
influences on the soul.
2. The assertion that (_rēma_) “the word,” here means the formula of
baptism, is an assumption, wholly indefensible. In the first place,
there is no formula of baptism ordained by Jesus, or recognized or used
by the sacred writers. Of this, the evidence will hereafter appear.
Moreover, in the New Testament, and especially in the writings of Paul,
the word in question, _rēma,_ is invariably used in the sense of the
testimonies,—the doctrines,—_the word_ of God,—the gospel. Thus, the
angel said to the apostles,—“Go, stand and speak in the temple, to the
people, all (_ta rēmata_) _the words_ of this life.”—Acts v, 20. Peter
tells the house of Cornelius,—“That _word_ (_rēma_) ye know ... how God
anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power,” etc.—Ib.
x, 37, 38. Paul, in this very same epistle, tells the Ephesians (vi, 17)
that “the sword of the Spirit” “is the _word_ (_rēma_) of God.” And
Peter declares that “the _word_ (_rēma_) of the Lord endureth forever;
and this is the _word_ (_rēma_) which by the gospel is preached unto
you.”—1 Peter i, 25. No word in the Scriptures is of a more unequivocal
meaning than this.
3. The interpretation of _rēma_ as meaning the baptismal formula, is a
recognition of the unquestionable fact that “the word” is made by the
apostle the instrumental cause of the sanctifying. Literally translated
the passage reads,—“That he might sanctify it,—having purified it by the
washing of water,—by the word.” Thus, the word is the instrument of the
sanctifying, and the parenthetic clause states the figure by which the
analogy of the bride is sustained. The sanctifying and the purifying are
the same spiritual phenomenon, the one phrase being conformed to the
idea of the church, the other to that of the bride. And, whether the
common English version be accepted, or the construction of the original
be literally followed, as above, the result remains the same, that “the
word” is distinctly stated to be the instrument of the process described
by the two words, “sanctify” and “cleanse.” In what sense the word is
sanctifying, let Jesus testify. “The words (_ta rēmata_) that I speak
unto you” (_literally_, “that I have spoken unto you,” that is, in his
preceding discourse), “they are spirit, and they are life.”—John vi, 63.
“Now ye are clean, through (_tou logou_) _the word_ that I have spoken
unto you.”—Ib. xv, 3. “Sanctify them through thy truth, thy word
(_logos_) is truth.... And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they
also may be sanctified through the truth.”—Ib. xvii, 17, 19. “Chosen
unto salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the
truth.”—2 Thes. ii, 13. The word is the means and the Spirit the
efficient author of grace.
Part XIV.
THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH.
SECTION LXXXIV.—_The Ritual Law was not Repealed._
In the entrance of the church upon her new commission, her constitution
was unchanged. But the ordinances of testimony with which she was
entrusted received an essential modification. The nature and the manner
of this were alike remarkable; and as the subject has not received the
attention due to its importance, it requires here the more careful
consideration. In the course thereof, it will appear that the Hebrew
Christian church remained with its institutions all unaltered, as they
were received from Moses, and the ceremonial law in full authority and
operation, down to the close of the New Testament canon. But the Gentile
element, which was by the preaching of the gospel gathered in and
incorporated with the church, was, by express statute, exempted from the
obligation of that law.
1. The Lord Jesus was “a minister of the circumcision for the truth of
God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers; and that the
Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy.”—Rom. xv, 8, 9. He lived and
died in the full communion of the church of Israel, in so far as his own
action or will was concerned; although he was in the end excommunicated
and betrayed by the rulers of that church. He assured his disciples that
he came not to destroy the law but to fulfill. (Matt. v, 17.) Neither by
example nor by precept did he set aside or abrogate it; but, on the
contrary, having himself obeyed every precept and observed every
ordinance, he left it, at his ascension, in full and unimpaired
authority.
2. The apostles and the church over which they presided in Jerusalem
were not only zealous in their observance of the law; but were not
altogether exempt from the influence of some of the most obnoxious of
the traditions of the elders. Of this, the case of Peter’s visit to the
house of Cornelius presents a signal illustration. To prepare him to
listen to the message from the Roman centurion, a miraculous vision was
shown him. And, when the disciples in Jerusalem heard of the matter,
they accused him, for having gone in to men uncircumcised and eaten with
them. And yet there was not a syllable in the laws of Moses to justify
such extreme reserve. It was wholly based upon the traditions of the
elders. So powerful and prevalent was the sentiment among Jewish
Christians, on this subject, that it subsequently became the occasion of
a very singular dereliction on the part of Peter. Says Paul,—“When Peter
was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be
blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the
Gentiles; but when they were come, he withdrew, and separated himself,
fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews
dissembled likewise with him, insomuch that Barnabas also was carried
away with their dissimulation.”—Gal. ii, 11-13. Respecting this it is
not enough to say that Peter and the Judaizers were all wrong. True. But
such a state of things could not have existed, had the church or the
apostles understood the law of Moses to be, in any manner, abrogated or
set aside.
3. The calling and decree of the council of Jerusalem are very important
facts, as bearing on this subject. The occasion of the council was the
attempt of Judaizing teachers to impose circumcision and the ritual law
upon the Gentile converts. (Acts xv, 1-5.) Hereupon, “the apostles and
elders came together to consider of this matter.”—v. 6. Here, at once,
it is impossible that such a question could have arisen, had the
abrogation of the Mosaic law been a fact known to the church in
Jerusalem; and assuredly in that case, there would have been no room for
the apostles and elders to “consider” such a question, the very raising
of which would have been the erection of a standard of open rebellion
against Christ. The discussions and decree of the council were equally
conclusive. No doubt was suggested, in any quarter as to the continued
authority of the law. No one hinted at the idea of its repeal. The
discussion turned entirely on the privilege of the Gentiles to be
specially exempt from its requirements. The evidence of such exemption
was found in the fact that God had, in a special manner, shown his
acceptance of them, outside the law. Upon this point, the whole issue
turned; and the proof respecting it was formally given by Peter, in a
rehearsal of the facts concerning the house of Cornelius (vs. 7, 8); and
by Paul and Barnabas, in an account of “the miracles and wonders which
God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.”—vs. 12. Moreover, the
conclusion reached (vs. 14-19), and the decree issued, had express
relation, to the Gentiles, only, and not to the whole body of the
church. In a word, it was a decree recognizing and proclaiming the
exemption of the Gentiles from the obligation of the existing law.—“The
apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which
are _of the Gentiles_, in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia. Forasmuch as
we have heard, that certain which went out from us, have troubled you
with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised and
keep the law, to whom we gave no such commandment.... It seemed good to
the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these
necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from
blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which, if
ye keep yourselves ye shall do well. Fare ye well.”—vs. 23-29. Such is
the only rule or decree found in the New Testament, respecting the
ritual law. It exempts the Gentiles from its obligations; but otherwise
leaves it in unimpaired authority.
4. With this view, the whole subsequent history of the apostolic church
agrees. Paul was the great apostle of the Gentiles. He was prompt and
decided in asserting and vindicating their liberty from the obligations
of the law; but was himself conscientious in the observance of all its
requirements, and fully recognized their obligation upon himself and his
brethren of Israel. These facts were brought into question, and publicly
established in the most signal manner. When he came to Jerusalem after
his third missionary tour, in an interview with James and the elders of
the church, they said to him “Thou seest, brother, how many thousands
(_muriades_, how many tens of thousands,) of Jews there are which
believe; and they are all zealous of the law. And they are informed of
thee that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to
forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children,
neither to walk after the customs. What is it therefore? The multitude
must needs come together; for they will hear that thou art come. Do,
therefore, this that we say to thee. We have four men which have a vow
on them. Them take and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with
them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those
things whereof they have been informed concerning thee are nothing, but
that thou thyself also walkest orderly and keepest the law. As touching
the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they
observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things
offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from
fornication.”—Acts xxi, 20-25. To this suggestion Paul agreed, and was
in the temple in fulfillment of it, awaiting the time when “an offering
should be offered for every one of them,” when a tumult was raised by
the unbelieving Jews, and his imprisonment took place, which resulted in
his being sent, in chains, to Cesarea, and to Rome. (Acts xxi, 26, 27.)