Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

derstood the meaning of the word baptizo - and they have testified truly and faithfully. For one, I must receive and abide their testimony.

It may be asked, do these witnesses never testify that baptizo signifies immersion? Suppose they do: (though this supposition may require proof :) but suppose they do use the word baptizo to signify immersion: they never, in a single instance, testify that baptizo means nothing but immersion no-never. On the other hand they testify, by their use of the word, that baptizo, sometimes at least, signifies affusion - that is, the act of pouring upon, and sprinkling.

To the foregoing arguments, I add three interesting facts. The first fact is, the translators of the Bible have not rendered baptizo, to immerse or dip, in a single instance in the New Testament; though the word is used about eighty times. Wherever they have translated it, (as they have done in some instances,) they have translated it wash, or some word that does not necessarily signify a total immersion. Generally they have only transcribed the word, giving it the English form baptize. They have never translated it immerse. And why was this? Did they not know the meaning of baptizo? Then they were unfit for their great undertaking. Did they know the meaning, and not choose to give it? Then they weakly and wickedly shrunk from the duty they undertook. But the translators of the Bible were neither ignorant nor wicked men. They knew, and did their duty. Why then did they not translate baptizo into English? Because there is no word in English that fully, and precisely, and in all cases, answers to it in signification. 'They did not translate it sprinkle, because they knew it does not always signify sprinkle. They did not translate it pour, because they knew it does not always signify pour. They did not translate it immerse, because they knew it does not always signify immerse. They did not translate it wash, because they knew it does not always signify wash. They knew it signifies the application of water or other liquid, either by sprinkling, pouring, washing or immersing, and as no one English word expresses this signification, they judged it best generally, to give it an English form and leave it untranslated; thus, like honest men, submitting it, as the sacred writers do, to every man's conscience to practice that mode ef baptism which should seem most proper, and be most convenient.

The second fact is, that if Christ and the Apostles had intended to confine us to one and the same mode of baptism, they might, and doubtless would have used words of the most definite signification. If they had intended to designate immersion as the only mode, they might have used the word dupto, which signifies unequivocally to dip or dive under. If they had intended to designate sprinkling as the only mode, they might have used the word rantizo, which signifies unequivocally to sprinkle. If they had intended to designate pouring as the only mode, they might have used the word ekcheo, which signifies unequivocally to pour. If they had intended to designate washing as the only mode, they might have used the word louo, which signifies unequivocally to wash. But when they speak of the ordinance of baptism, they do not use either of these words; they uniformly use the word baptizo, which, as we have seen, signifies to sprinkle, to wash, to immerse, to pour; and the irresistible conclusion from this remarkable fact is, that they did not intend to restrict the ordinance to any one mode of applying the water; but that every one might choose that mode which an enlightened conscience should show him to be most proper and significant.

The third fact is, that when dipping is spoken of in the New Testament, the word bapto (not Baptizo) is generally used. Thus: "He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish." Matt. 26:23. "It is one of the twelve that dippeth with me in the dish." Mark 14:20. "Send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water." Luke 16: 24. "He it is, to whom I shall give a sop when I have dipped it." John 13:26. "And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot." John 13:26. "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood." Rev. 19:13. In each of these cases of dipping, the Apostles have used the word bapto, and not baptizo. This is a remarkable fact. If, as the advocates of exclusive immersion assert, the only meaning of baptizo is to dip, why do the Apostles always use another word when they wish to convey the idea of total plunging? The fact that when they speak of dipping they use another word, furnishes conclusive proof that they do not consider the only meaning of baptizo to be immersion.

Let me now briefly recapitulate. On this second head of our discourse, I have shown first, from the testimony of the best Lexicons, and the most renowned Greek scholars, both ancient and modern, that one prominent meaning of baptizo and its derivatives is affusion. I have shown secondly, from a number of Scripture texts, that the writers of the New Testament use the word baptizo and its derivatives to signify affusion; and they use this word in such connection and with such appending circumstances, that no room is left for an unbiased mind to doubt their design thus to use it. I have remarked also, that the translators of the Bible have never rendered the word baptizo, to immerse; - that if Christ and the Apostles had intended to designate immersion as the only mode of baptism, they might, (and doubtless would,) have used a word of most definite signification to that purpose ; - and that when dipping is spoken of in the New Testament, another word (not baptizo) is used. These are deeply interesting facts; and strongly corroborative of the main argument.

So far, then, as the meaning of a word can be settled by lexicons by the testimony of eminent Greek scholars - and by the usage of profane and inspired writers, (and they furnish the highest possible authority,) it is settled that one prominent meaning of the word baptizo and its derivatives is affusion - that is, the act of pouring upon or sprinkling. This conclusion proves that our Pædobaptist views of the mode of baptism, are in agreement with the word of God, and rest on an immovable basis. Amen.

LECTURE II.

MODE OF BAPTISM.

ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCES. - ALLUSIONS AND ECCLESIASTICAL

HISTORY.

MATT. XXVIII. 18, 19,

In proof of our position that affusion is a valid mode of gospel baptism, we urge,

III. The CIRCUMSTANCES attending those cases of Christian baptism which are recorded in the Bible.

On this point, the advocates of immersion are bound to show, that all the attending circumstances of all the cases recorded, prove that immersion and nothing else is baptism. If these circumstances show that sometimes, or even in a single instance, affusion was the mode, then our position is established. If in the sequel, it shall appear that the attending circumstances furnish no positive proof that immersion was the uniform modeand if they furnish a probability that this mode was not practiced in any case-and if especially these circumstances show that affusion was the mode generally, or even occasionally practiced; then our position is established, and that of our opponents overthrown. Now I affirm, and shall show, that the attending circumstances, furnish no positive proof that immersion was the mode practiced in a single instance - while in most of the cases recorded they show clearly that affusion was the mode - and in all the other cases, that this was probably the mode.

I. I begin with the Baptism of John - not because this was Christian baptism, but because the advocates of immersion depend much upon it. The following facts show that John's baptism was not Christian baptism.

1. It was not instituted by Christ.

2. John did not baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

3. Some whom he baptized, afterwards received Christian baptism. See Acts 19.

4. His baptism was not under the Christian dispensation. He says the gospel dispensation was near; but it had not fully come when he was cast into prison.

5. John observed the ordinances of the Jewish dispensation. 6. Christ said the gospel dispensation was near, (not fully come,) both before John was put in prison and afterwards.

7. From the nature of the case, nothing but the death of Christ could set aside the old and introduce the new dispensation, - of course Christian baptism could not be instituted till after the crucifixion-and before that event, John's baptism was over and himself beheaded.

8. Christian baptism was instituted by Christ after his crucifixion and resurrection. See Matt. 28: 18, 19.

9. The Jewish dispensation was in operation till the death of Christ, which appears from the fact, that Christ observed the passover as one of the last acts of his life, before the crucifixion.

Though the gospel plan of salvation began to be unfolded both by John and by Christ previous to the crucifixion, as the day-spring announces the speedy approach of the sun, and appears before the full-orbed day is ushered in yet the legal dispensation was not finished and the Christian dispensation fully introduced till Christ on the cross exclaimed, " It is finished!" and gave up the Ghost. Many commentators and theologians might be cited to this point, but the case is so plain it is unnecessary.

When Christ said, "It is finished," and gave up the ghost, then and not till then, the legal dispensation was closed, and the Christian dispensation commenced. Previous to the death of Christ, the Jewish ordinances were all in force; and John and Christ and believers generally observed them, till that event introduced the Christian dispensation soon after which, our blessed Lord instituted Christian baptism. These are Bible truths : and if any of the advocates of exclusive immersion are unwilling to abide these plain truths, argument with them will have no force.

These facts show beyond all dispute, that John's baptism was not Christian baptism. Of course his baptism furnishes

« AnteriorContinuar »