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 A living being, put under water without intending to drown him, is of course to be immediately withdrawn from it; and this is to be understood, whenever the word is used with reference to such a case.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.