of our investigation. What was the mode of our Saviour's baptism? Some say it was by immersion. And a powerful argument they have for it too. He came "up out of the water." Query: Does coming up out of the water, mean, that he came up from under it? If it could be proved that no one ever came "up out of the water, without first going under it, then this circumstance would be a solid argument in favor of immersion. But that will not be attempted by the most strenuous advocates for immersion. Why then will men who have any claim to learning and candor, lay so much stress upon this circumstance? which certainly cannot prove that Christ went under the water-themselves being judges. Besides, if this circumstance does prove that Christ went under the water, it will prove too much,-but that which proves too much is good for nothing. If the phrase "up out of," proves that Christ from under the water, then I can prove that the Israelites came up from under the land of Egypt! Because the same mode of expression is often used in reference to their coming up from Egypt. "I am the Lord that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt." "Let our friends look at the horns of the dilemma." If the phrase "up out of," proves that Christ came up from under the water; then verily, we have proved by the same mode of argument; that the Israelites came up from under the land of Egypt. "As if Pharaoh, in addition to his other acts of tyrannous proceedings, had came up actually buried the children of Israel under the sod" !! It is said, that the argument to prove that the children of Israel came up from under the land of Egypt, is both absurd and silly? We grant it, because in the same breath, the same will be said of the argument in favor of the immersion of our Saviour, inasmuch as they are both of the same kind, and rest upon the same phrase. For if "up out of" means from under in the one case, it will mean the same in the other, as absurd as the idea of their coming up from under the land of Egypt, may appear. It is truly a no small grievance, that we should be esteemed as absurd and silly, by our Baptist brethren, when we adopt their own arguments to prove a position of our own!! There is, however, an instance wherein no charge of absurdity can be offered against us. "Where is he that brought them up out of the sea, with the shepherd of his flock." Hence again, if up out of, proves that our Saviour came up from under the water, this expression in Isaiah also proves that Israel came up from under the sea. For the same argument must and will prove as much in one place as the other. Thus we see that the argument proves too much; for, Israel did not come up from under the sea. Hence the argument is good for nothing. It affords no proof for the immersion of our Saviour. a leaiah Iziii, 11. And he who, after all, will maintain, from this circumstance, that Christ did come up from under the water, must stand charged with an obstinate inconsistency. The sentence of "absurd and silly” is gone forth from his own mouth against himself. Is it asked why our Saviour went into the water? I reply,-questions prove nothing. He might very easily have stepped into the brink of the water without going under it. But it cannot be proved that he did even put his foot into the water; because the Greek proposition (a) here rendered out of is more accurately rendered "from," and is so rendered in other places, which every person who knows any thing of the Greek will confess. "Come down (a) from the cross." "He is risen (aTO) from the dead.” And returned (aro) from the sepulchre." "And cometh down (ano) from the Father of Lights." "And I saw another angel ascending (a) from the east." Many other examples might be adduced, but the above are sufficient to show how this preposition is rendered in other places of the scriptures. And indeed every Greek scholar knows that from is the proper and radical meaning of απο. Hence the passage under con sideration might be more accurately rendered thus: "And Jesus, when he was baptized, came straightway up from the water." No Greek scholar will a Matth. xxvii, 40. Matth. xxviii, 7. c Luke xxiv, 8. d James i, 17. e Rev. vii, 2. dispute this rendering. Hence it cannot be proved that Christ even stepped into the water. It may be asserted for the cause of immersion; but the proof is wanting. Lastly, from the fact that Christ was baptized for the priestly office, it is certain that he was not immersed; because no such thing was ever practised in consecrating priests to their office. And no good reason can be assigned, why our Saviour should adopt a new mode of consecration in his own case. Sufficient reason has been given why he did not go to the door of the tabernacle. But why he should deviate from his own appointed mode, no reason can be assigned. As to the meaning of the term baptism, that affords neither reason nor argument, as will be shown in its proper place. Having thus illustrated the subject of our Saviour's baptism, I shall conclude with the following remark. To urge our Saviour's baptism as an example for us to follow, appears to be more with a design to gain proselytes among an uninformed and unthinking populace, than from conviction of its truth. CHAPTER III. OF THE MEANING OF THE TERM BAPTISM. This is purely a Greek word, and is from Barriga, a derivative from Barr, which is frequently used in a sense different from immersion. "He that (subaas) dippeth his hand with me in the dish." a Now, no one would affirm that our Saviour immersed his hands in the gravy or sop that was in the dish. Yet this dipping is expressed by that very word from which baptism is derived. Again, "that he may (Ban) dip the tip of his finger in cold water. Further, (Barw) is also used for sprinkling. It is no less than twice used in this sense in reference to Nebuchadnezzar. "And his body was (ap) wet with the dew of heaven." How was his body wet? Surely not by a burial under water; but by the sprinkling of the dew as it distilled upon him in the night. But Βαπτίζω is a derivative from Βαπτω, and therefore is less in its signification, and consequently does not signify a total immersion. Nor does it appear that it is ever used in that sense exclusively by the Holy Spirit. It is a diminutive, which words are very common in Greek and Latin. Thus Filius in Latin signifies a son, but its dimunitive, Filiolus, signifies a little son. So also in English, Blackish is a dimunitive from Black, and signifies something not quite black. The same is true of Barrig. It is a dimunitive from Barr, which, as might be shown, is frequently used for a partial dipping of the thing dipped. "And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop a Matth. xxvi, 23. b Luke xvi, 24. Dan. iv, 33, in the English, but 30th verse in the Septuagent. Also ch. v, 21. |