Page images
PDF
EPUB

immersionists ought not to complain of the translation. True, it is fatal to their cause as it stands, but it would have been much more so, had not the translators been under the influence of trine immersion.

A thought or two more before closing. Is it not somewhat remarkable, after all we have heard about following Christ into the water, and then straightway up out of the water, that the Baptist Bible, so called, which was the cause of much trouble to the Baptist Bible Society in New York, has from the water, not out of the water, as found in our version? Is this not a strange affair? Nor is this all. Hear the water-loving Ripley, whose spirit clung to immersion: "The preposition here, Matthew iii, 16, translated out of, has the more general signification of the word from, and would be suitable, whether the sacred writer meant to say that Jesus came out from the water-that is, from the river to the shore, or that he came from the water. This preposition, then, in itself, furnishes no decision in respect to the meaning of the ordinance." Carson on baptism, page 126, speaks thus: "It is said that Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway from the water. I admit that the proper translation of apo is from, not out of." This is a great and frank admission, for one so wedded to water as Carson.

Do not these views look like coming over to our side of the question in part, giving hope of a more general approximation to the whole truth?

From every consideration presented in this chapter, we see that immersionists can gain nothing by finding fault with our English translation, which finely agrees with those above named, which also present wash as a true meaning of baptizo in the Scriptures, which we have proved signifies to sprinkle, when speaking through its noun form of acts recorded in the Old Testament.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

In the previous chapter we were compelled to follow up the assertion of the immersionist respecting our translation, which we found to be very incorrect. In this, we shall take up his idea of a specific term, bearing on a positive ordinance, which he assures us baptizo is. If we understand the immersionist here, he would have us to know that a positive ordinance requires a specific term to denote the exact manner of its execution.

We pronounce this statement, without ceremony, to be a most positive error, and in the course of this chapter we shall prove it so. Is not the Lord's supper, as well as baptism, a positive ordinance of the most solemn character? Certainly. And was not circumcision a positive ordinance, highly significant to the house of Israel? Most assuredly. Is there a word in the Scriptures to express the exact manner of procedure at the Lord's supper? There is not. Is there a word in the volume of inspiration to set forth the exact mode of circumcision? There is not. And so we answer, as it regards baptism.

The Lord's Supper. We can turn to a word by which this supper is named or pointed out; but this word does not express the manner by which we ought to attend to it, nor imply any form whatever, nor mode. So far then as the word is concerned, we may, without doing any violence to its sense, commune sitting, standing, or kneeling. The word is deipnon.

Now, the people who spoke the Greek language, not only used this term to express a full meal, but the principal one. Let the reader here bear in

mind that deipnon, the word that designates a positive ordinance, was originally used to express a full meal, and then he will be prepared to see, and to feel, the inconsistency of the immersionist. Do not immersionists think that they commune at the Lord's table when they take a little bread and wine, even fully and properly? Certainly. Now, deipnon stands in the same relation to this ordinance that baptizo does to the ordinance of baptism. This view of the case will at once lead us to this conclusion, that according to the hypothesis of the immersionist on baptizo, bearing on a positive ordinance, not one of them has ever properly communed yet; for the primary meaning of deipnon, which designates a positive ordinance, requires a full meal.

Well, if deipnon requires a full meal to meet the demands of its grand meaning, and a little bread and wine will do at present when communing, surely a little water poured on the head may safely be allowed to pass for a baptism!

But why talk so, since we proved in the sixth chapter that baptizo was used by Paul to denominate acts of sprinkling? We only do so to show the immersionist his errors, and the consequences that march out from his views on positive ordi

nances.

We see that the Lord's supper is a positive ordinance; still it has no word of a specific nature to express it; therefore, why contend that baptism has?

Circumcision. We can point out a term by which this ordinance was understood, but this term did not, of itself, give any definite idea of the procedure, apart from necessary instructions. The ordinance was positive, but the word that expressed it was not specific.

The truth is, that neither Abraham, Isaac, nor

Jacob could have known exactly what to have done by the word. The word was peritomee.

The Jews, it is true, circumcised their male children at eight days old, and proselytes at any age; but neither they nor their proselytes knew the exact process by the light of the term peritomee.

Three positive ordinances are now before us, circumcision, the Lord's supper, and baptism: but can any man determine from the words used to denominate them, the precise formulas?

cannot.

He

Take up a lexicon, and turn to baptize, and you will find sink a primary signification. With only this light before us, we would remain in ignorance as it regards the ordinance of baptism in the New Testament, and the manner of its execution. Sink, that is, to go to the bottom like a stone. You would be as likely to go to work on this principle, were it not in contravention to humanity, as any other, the meaning of the term being respected.

Take up a lexicon, and turn to deipnon, and you will find a full meal the proper meaning of the term; hence you would not know, regarding this meaning, how to proceed with the ordinance of the Lord's supper, nor know the quantity of the elements to be used. Full meal; that is, you would say, to use an abundance, and would act accordingly the signification of the term being obeyed.

And take up a lexicon, and turn to peritomee, and you will be put in possession of an idea of cutting; but as it regards the minuteness of the operation, you will be found profoundly ignorant.

These reflections, without another comment, are sufficient to convince every immersionist that his idea of positive ordinances fearfully militates against the cause he would advocate, and ruips, by consequence, his own theory.

Deipnon, peritomee, and baptizo, when thus viewed,

and carefully studied, will force upon us this conclusion, that they do not determine precisely the modes of the ordinances they designate, nor limit to given amounts in the action.

If we had, in view of these facts, no better argument than this, that a little bread and wine are regarded as sufficient, in the Lord's supper, for a proper communion, when the word that expresses it requires a full meal, it would be sufficient, of itself, to repel every advocacy of the immersionist, and justify the doctrine of affusion in baptism.

So much, then, for Baptist views on a specific word, and a positive ordinance. Here, too, we find the cause of dipping a sinking business. Affusion, however, meets with favor at this point, as well as at every other point examined.

CHAPTER IX.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

HAVING traced bapto through the lexicons, the classics, and the Scriptures, and found that it signifies to sprinkle, and having also traced baptizo through the lexicons, and partially through the Scriptures and the translations, and found that it means to wash, a word that signifies to sprinkle in the Scriptures, as clearly proved in another chapter; moreover, having considered baptizo as applied to a positive ordinance by immersionists, and found it at war, by consequence, with the point it was intended to establish, we are now ready to take a general view of the prepositions en and eis, in connection with baptism, knowing that immersionists make them out-posts of defense.

Useful rules are necessary here, in order to fix

« PreviousContinue »