by Pastor Peter Edwards
THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
It appears to me, from the following circumstance, that the Baptists are not so tenacious of the mode as of the subject of baptism. I had been convinced more than four years ago, in reading Dr. Williams’ book, that immersion was not essential to baptism; and though I preached since that period several baptizing sermons without a word about the mode, I never heard of any of our Baptist friends that ever observed that omission; whereas, on the contrary, had I insisted on the mode, and omitted the subject, I have not a doubt but they would have noticed it in the first sermon. And I remember some years back to have heard a Baptist minister say, that the mode of baptism, by immersion only, did not appear equally plain as the subject. Indeed I am persuaded that if it can be made plain to the Baptists that it is wrong to reject an infant, they will soon give up the idea of immersion only; and it is for this reason that I have been the more diffuse on the subject, and shall now be short on the mode.
All our knowledge of the manner of baptizing must, at this distance of
time from the first institution, be collected from the word “baptize,” the
circumstances of baptism, and the allusions of Scripture to that ordinance. These three I will endeavour to examine
impartially, confining myself to Scripture, and the word made use of in the
institution. The question, on which this
examinati
There is a word commonly introduced into this debate, viz. bapto, though it is never used in Scripture, respecting this ordinance; and this being the fact, I see no great propriety in bringing it into the debate at all; for let it mean what it may, it can signify nothing to the question in hand unless it had been used by the inspired writers to express this ordinance. I do not, however, shun this term because it would be unfavourable to my sentiment, but because I judge it best to examine that word, and that only, which the Holy Ghost, when speaking of this ordinance, has thought proper to adopt.
Nevertheless, that I may not omit it altogether, I would say thus much of the term bapto, that it is a term of such latitude, that he who shall attempt to prove, from its use in various authors, an absolute and total immersion, will find he has undertaken that which he can never fairly perform. Of the truth of this assertion I would give the plain reader a taste in the following instance. The term bapto then is used to express:
1. The throwing of a person into the mire. Job ix. 31. “Thou shalt plunge, (baptize) or make me foul in the mire.”
2. A partial dipping. Matt. xxvi. 23. “He that dippeth (baptizeth) his hand with me in the dish.”
3. A stained garment. Rev. xix. 23. “A vesture dipped (baptized) stained with blood.”
4. A human body wet with the dew. Dan. Iv. 33. “His body was wet (baptized) by or from the dew of heaven.”
5. The colouring a lake with the blood of a frog. Homer, “The lake was baptized, coloured, or stained with blood.”
6. The smearing of the face with colours or washes. Aristophanes, “He baptized, smeared [his face] with tawney washes;” speaking of Magnes, the comedian, who used to colour his face instead of using a mask.
7. The staining of the hand by pressing a substance; Aristotle, “Being pressed, it baptizes, stains the hand.”
So various is the use of the term bapto, that we can only view it as meaning to wet or stain, and that by whatever mode the nature of the thing to be wetted or stained may require. And I can truly say I have often been heartily sick and sorry when I have observed persons of eminence for learning, especially Dr. Gale, labouring, in opposition to the very instances which they themselves had produced, to prove that this term intended immersion, total immersion, and nothing else. But as this word is never used with respect to the ordinance in question, and can therefore give us no information concerning the mode of it, I shall immediately dismiss it without further notice.
I come now to consider the term baptizo, which is the only term made use of to express this ordinance, and this I shall do by setting down those places where it is used as a verb or a noun when the ordinance is not intended. These places are as follow: Heb. ix. 10, “Which stood in meats and drinks and divers washings—divers baptisms.” Mark vii. 4. “And when they come from the market, except they wash (except they baptize) they eat not. And many other things there be which they have received to hold, as the washing, (baptisms) of cups and pots, brazen vessels and of tables.” Luke xi. 38. “And when the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that he had not first washed, (baptized) before dinner.” The word in these instances, is used,
1. For those various ablutions among the Jews, by sprinkling, pouring, &C.
2. For a custom among the Pharisees of washing before meals.
3. For a superstitious washing of household furniture, cups, pots, &c.
With these instances in view, I would propose to the reader two questions:
1. The Apostle speaks of the Jewish service, and says it stood in “divers baptisms.” I ask whether immersion of the whole body was any part of that service? It is clear that the Apostle, by the word “baptisms,” intended sprinkling and pouring; but I believe it is not clear from any part of the Jewish service, that any one was ordered to immerse himself, or to be immersed by another. If this, however, can be proved, it must then be granted that the Apostle uses the word “baptisms” to denote immersion as well as pouring and sprinkling; but if this cannot be proved, it will then be evident that no immersion at all is intended by the word baptisms.
2. I will apply the question to the second case—the baptizing before meals. It is said, “that when they come from market, except they baptize they eat not;” and the “Pharisee marvelled that our Lord did not baptize (that is, himself) before dinner.” I ask, Is there any immersion at all here? The Pharisee marvelled that our Lord did not baptize himself before dinner—did he marvel that he did not immerse himself? The Pharisees, when they come from market, except they baptize [themselves] they eat not—did they too immerse themselves they came from a market? I know it is not an impossible case; but I am asking whether it is at all a probable thing? And if it be not, then it is improbable that the word baptize in these places should intend any immersion at all. Perhaps some one will say that nothing more is intended than the washing of hands, as this is agreeable to the tradition of the elders mentioned in Matt. xv. 2.; and it is well known that we dip our hands in order to wash them. Supposing this to be the fact, I reply, that if we dip our hands in order to baptize [wash] them, then it is certain, that dipping and baptizing [washing] are different things;—that baptizing [washing] is the end, and dipping a mean to that end;—that we only dip so much of our hands as may be necessary to baptize [wash] them;—and that our dipping the hands in order to baptize them depends entirely on circumstances: e.g. If I baptize [wash] my hands in a basin, I dip so much of them as may be necessary to baptize them; but if I baptize [wash] them at a spout, I do not dip them at all—I only recive the water as it falls, and baptize [wash] them without dipping. And it signifies nothing to us how they baptized [washed] their hands, whether in a basin or at a spout; for the word “baptize” does not express the manner of doing, whether by immersion or affusion, but only the thing done, namely, “washing.”
3. I now carry the question to the third case—the superstitious baptizing [washing] of household furniture, cups, pots, brazen vessels, and tables. Cups; these, it appears from the name, were drinking vessels; pots; those vessels out of which wine or water was poured, pitchers or flagons. Brazen vessels, were, it is probable, for culinary uses, for boiling. Tables, some take this word as it is here rendered, others think it means those seats or benches on which they sat at meals; and these are sometimes called “lecti” beds, perhaps from the leaning posture then in use. The Jews, our Lord observes, held and practised the baptizing of these; now we ask, Does the word baptize in this place express any immersion?
These things, it is plain, were baptized [washed;] but how they were baptized, no creature living can determine. One thing, however, may be remarked, which is, that all these articles might very conveniently be baptized [washed] by pouring, &c. while, on the contrary, it would have been very inconvenient, and even improper, to baptize [wash] others, viz. the brazen vessels and tables, by immersion. It is, I believe, a general opinion that some of these things were baptized by dipping—as the cups and pots, and that others were baptized [washed] by pouring, sprinkling, &c. And hence many learned men have considered the word baptize as expressing all these modes. In this, however, they appear to me to have been mistaken; for the word baptize, [wash] though it has been applied to all modes of washing, is not properly expressive of any mode, but intends only the washing itself, which may be done by either.
The conclusion, therefore, from these instances, is this: it is evident that the word baptize does not intend immersion only; the various sprinklings, pourings, &c. among the Jews are plainly called “baptism.” Nay, further, it is not certain that there was any immersion at all in either of the baptisms [washings] before us; and it is very certain that whether these persons and things were baptized by immersion, aspersion, or affusion, the word baptize does not express either of the modes by which any person or thing was washed, but only the washing itself. And though there has been much dispute about the word “baptize,” some affirming it to mean immersion only, others aspersion and affusion as well as immersion, yet, properly speaking, it means neither of them. It has indeed been used for all the modes of washing—sprinkling, pouring, and immersing; whereas it does not express the one nor the other, but washing only; and this may be done in either of the modes; and, therefore, when we read of any person or thing being baptized, we cannot conclude from the word itself whether it was done by affusion, aspersion, or immersion.
As the word “baptize,” which means simply to wash, does not determine the mode in which persons should receive baptism, I will attend in the next place, to the circumstances of that ordinance. Those I mean to consider are, first, the places where baptism was administered, and, secondly, the preparations for baptism.
1. The places chosen for this ordinance were, among others, the river Jordan, and Enon near Salim, where, it is said, there were many waters. This is a circumstance that appears to weigh on the side of immersion; and if we give it that weight in the scale of reason, for which the Baptists contend, it will amount to this—it is a presumptive, but not a certain, proof of immersion. That it is a presumptive proof appears by this—that here was, as far as we know, a fair opportunity for immersion; that it is no more than a presumptive proof is evident from hence—that all this might be, and yet no immersion. If we say they baptized in or at a river, therefore they baptized by immersion, this would be a good consequence if it were impossible to baptize at or in a river in any other way; but since a person can baptize in or at a river by affusion as well as immersion, we can only draw a conclusion in favour of immersion by an act of the fancy. However, let it be a proof of the presumptive kind, and it cannot possibly be any thing more.
Now, as it is the nature of presumptive proof to admit of increase or diminuition, this, like all proof of the same kind, may be increased or diminished. That, on the one hand, which serves to increase the presumption on the side of immersion, is this: that of all who administer baptism, there are none at this time (as far as I know) that baptize in or at a river, but such as use immersion. It may indeed be said that all this may be accounted for. The case of John differed very much from ours; he had vast congregations and many to baptize, and no house fit to contain them: so that his choosing a river, though he had baptized by affusion, would, in his case, have been, on the whole, the wisest plan. And although persons who baptize by affusion, do not now go to a river, yet were they circumstanced, with respect to their congregations and accommodations, as John was, they would in their choice of place, act in the same manner he did. Something like this, I suppose, might be said, but I was willing to give the presumption all its force.
On the other hand, the presumption may be diminished by observing, first,
that there were many baptizings which do not appear to have taken place at or
in any river—as that of Paul, of the jailer, of Cornelius, of those of Samaria,
and of the three thousand. And,
secondly, there is another thing: it cannot be proved with certainty that even
those who were baptized in or at
2. The other circumstance relates to a preparation for the ordinance. Every one who has been accustomed to baptize by immersion, must certainly know, that it is necessary, with respect to decency and safety, to change the dresses, and to have separate apartments for men and women. This is evidently necessary, whether we baptize in a river, or in a baptistry. Now it is certain, that although we read of many baptizings, there is not the least intimation given either of changing the dress, or of any suitable accommodation for the different sexes. This, though a circumstance that weighs against immersion, I consider as being, like the other, only of the presumptive kind. For, no doubt it would be very illogical to say, we read of no change of dress, or separate apartments for baptizing, therefore there was no immersion.
This presumption, like the other, may be made stronger or weaker. It may be made weaker in this way; that though we read of no changing of garments, or any separate apartments, yet there might have been both; as many things might have been done of which the Scriptures take no notice. On the other side, the presumption may be made stronger, by observing that there are other cases in which mention is made of garments, where there could be no more necessity of mentioning them, than in the case of baptism; supposing baptism to have been performed by immersion. To instance only in two cases; when our Lord washed his disciples’ feet, it is said, he laid aside his garments. And Luke, speaking of those who stoned Stephen, says, “they laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul.” Now if the Scriptures take notice of the putting off of garments for the purpose of washing feet, and stoning a man to death; how comes it to pass, that as thousands, upon supposition they were baptized by immersion, must entirely have changed their garments, or have done worse, the Scriptures should not drop a single hint about it? Both these presumptions may be tossed and turned, and strengthened and weakened, just as fancy may dictate; whereas, when all is said and done, they are no more than presumptions still. And when we have only presumption in the premises, we can have nothing more than presumption in the conclusion.
To conclude this part respecting the circumstances of baptism, I will only say, we have here a goodly combat; presumption contending with presumption. One presumption says, that as they sometimes made use of a river for baptizing, it is likely they baptized by immersion. The other presumption answers, that since it does not appear, that the sexes were decently accommodated for immersion, or that there was any changing of garments, it is therefore likely they did not immerse. That presumption replies, that the sexes might be very decently accommodated with change of dress, and separate apartments, though the Scriptures should notice neither. This presumption affirms, that persons might be baptized in or at a river, and yet no immersion after all.
Now instead of determining which of these presumptions is the stronger; we may learn thus much from the circumstances of baptism, and indeed it is all we can learn, and that is, that it is utterly impossible to determine, from any information they give, whether baptized persons were immersed or not. Nay, so far are circumstances from settling this point, that we cannot be certain there was a single person of all the baptized, who went into the water even ankle deep. This is the true state of facts as the strike me, and all beyond this is the flight of fancy.
Since neither the term “baptize,” nor yet the circumstances of baptism, determine any thing concerning the mode, whether it is immersion or affusion; I shall in the next place consider the allusions to that ordinance. I know not whether I speak accurately when I call them allusions; but the consequence either way is not material, as every one will easily understand what I intend. Now these allusions being of two kinds, I will, for the sake of distinction, and without any design of offence, call one the “Baptist allusion,” and the other the “Paedobaptist allusion.” I begin with:
I.
The Baptist allusion. The reader
will find this in Rom. vi. 4. “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into
death,” &c. A similar phrase occurs
in
1. I observe that these words are an inference from the third verse, in which the apostle says, “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 baptism.” We have here three things; 1. a baptizing into Jesus Christ; 2. into his death; 3. into his burial: and the last is made the consequence of the first. Therefore we are buried with him, because we were baptized into him. To form the antithesis, we must distinguish between the life and death of Christ; and then it will be, We are baptized first into the life of Christ, then into the death of Christ, and last of all into his burial. We are brought by baptism into his life, into his death, and into his burial. Now, if baptism bring us into each of these, and one of them, as the Baptists say, is an allusion to the mode of baptizing, then, for the same reason, so must the other two. That is, his life must allude to the mode, so must his death, and so must his burial; and the reason is, because baptism unites us to him in each of these. And if all these are to allude to the mode, I should be glad to know, what kind of mode it must at last be, which is to bear a resemblance to every one. The life of Christ was action, his death was a crucifixion, his burial was the inclosing of his body in a cavity of the rock. The mode, therefore, must be threefold; it must represent action, crucifixion, and inclosing in a rock; because, to pursue the notion of the Baptists, his life, death, and burial must all have an allusion to the mode of baptism.
There is no sect, I should suppose, that uses a mode of baptism to which all these will agree. The Romanists use salt, oil, and spittle; but whether they intend an allusion to the life of Christ, I cannot take upon me to affirm. Yet, as they must have some allusion, the salt may allude to his life of teaching; the spittle to his life of miracles; and the oil to his life of munificence. The clergy of the church of England use the sign of the cross; and this is to allude to the crucifixion of Christ. The Baptists use immersion; and this is to allude to the burial of Christ. Now, if we could unite all these in one, we should have a tolerable allusion to our Lord’s life, death, and burial; but when each is taken separately, there is a deficiency in point of allusion. The English clergy are deficient in alluding only to the crucifixion; but not to the life and burial. The Romanists are deficient in alluding only to the life and crucifixion; but not to the burial. The Baptists too are deficient in alluding to the burial only; but not to the life and crucifixion. I know not whether these different communities take their document from this part of holy writ; but certainly they have the same ground if they choose to reason in the same way. But as the Baptists avowedly do this, and are at the same time so deficient in the business of allusion, it would become them to set about a reform in the mode of their baptism; it being at present wanting in two articles, viz. the life and crucifixion, i.e. the sign of the cross, and salt, &c.
That the absurdity of supposing an allusion in this place to the mode of baptism may appear in a still stronger light, I would observe, that what the apostle calls, in ver. 3, a being baptized into the death of Christ, he expresses in ver. 5, by being planted together in the likeness of his death. This will be evident to any one who examines the place. Now if any man is disposed, after the method of the Baptists, to pick up allusions to the mode of baptism, here are two topics ready at hand, and he may take both, or either, as he pleases. It is usual with the Baptists, when contending for the mode of baptism, to affirm that the apostle calls baptism a burial; and hence they infer that immersion must be the mode. This, however, is affirming what is not true; for the apostle never ,in any of his writings, calls “baptism a burial.” But on the contrary, he does in this verse evidently speak of it under the notion of planting; and says, We are planted in the likeness of his death. Here then, upon the Baptist plan, are two allusions—planting, and crucifixion. There are none, I believe, who make planting an allusion to the mode of baptism; but should this be attempted by any, they will have this one advantage which the Baptists are destitute of; and that is, that whereas baptism is no where called a burial, it is in this place plainly called a planting. Now, if we suppose a person reasoning upon the plan of the Baptists, he will say, that as the apostle calls baptism a planting, he must allude to the mode in which that ordinance was administered; and every one, who is at all acquainted with the art of planting, will easily guess what kind of mode that must be, to which it alludes. Were this only adopted, and it may be adopted with greater advantage than the Baptist plan, we should probably hear of some contention about the mode of baptism, between those who immerse and those who only plant; and in this case I can clearly see that victory will crown the planters.
There is in the same way another allusion in this verse to the mode of baptism; I have mentioned it before, but do it again on account of its superior evidence to that allusion of the Baptists. The apostle says, we are planted, that is, baptized, in the likeness of his death. Now, taking this for an allusion to the mode of baptism, the argument for the sign of the cross will be incomparably stronger; for whereas it is only said in the fourth verse, We are buried with him by baptism; it is said in this verse, We are planted [baptized] in the likeness of his death: there is nothing about similitude mentioned in their allusion; but here the word “likeness” is actually used. The argument, therefore, in favour of the sign of the cross, will, in the Baptist way of arguing, far outweigh that in favour of immersion. And how much soever the Baptists may despise that ceremony, it is evidently better founded in this contest than their own. So that if their argument from this place be good for immersion, the other is far better for the sign of the cross. Upon the whole, the examination of this place convinces me of nothing so much as this, that both the Baptists in general, and myself in particular, have been carried away with the mere sound of a word, even to the neglect of the sense and scope of the truth of God.
2. Leaving, therefore, the whimsical interpretation of the Baptists to itself, it may be observed, in order that we may the better enter into the apostle’s design, that when he says, “we are buried with him, by baptism,” he makes baptism to be the instrumental cause of burial. This will appear plain by asking this question; By what are we buried with him? The answer is, By baptism. And indeed baptism is made the instrumental cause in each case. If we ask, How are we brought into Jesus Chris? Answer—By baptism: “baptized into his death.” How are we brought into his burial? Answer—By baptism: “buried with him by baptism.” If, therefore, the union in life, death, and burial, be brought about by baptism, then baptism is the instrumental cause of this union; and then the very idea of allusion is entirely lost, and they present themselves to our view under the notion of cause and effect. Baptism is made the cause, and union in the life, death, and burial, the effect.
Now this being the case, instead of hunting after allusions, by which baptism will be any thing or nothing, we must attend to that adequacy or proportion in the cause, by virtue of which this effect is to be produced. This adequacy is not formally in outward baptism, which is an emblem, and no more than an emblem, of the baptism of the Holy Spirit; but merely in the baptism of the Holy Spirit, of which the other is an emblem. 1 Cor. xii. 13. It is, indeed, the nature and design of both to bring persons into union with Jesus Christ; but then, the union will be only of the same kind with the baptism. If the baptism be that of the Holy Spirit, it brings about an internal, vital union with Jesus Christ; but if it be only an outward baptism, the union will only be visible and external. But as the outward baptism is an emblem of the inward and vital, the judgment of charity presumes, unless there be good proof to the contrary, that they who voluntarily receive the former, are also possessed of the later. It is according to this judgment of charity, the apostle addresses the Romans: he supposes baptized persons to be really baptized into Jesus Christ; and then, by virtue of that union, they live, they died, they are buried, they are raised again, and walk with Christ in newness of life. All which the apostle expresses in these emphatic words:—our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin—Dead indeed to sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord—Like as Christ was raised from the dead, by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. The scope of the apostle is to show the vital influence of union with Christ, of which baptism is the emblem. And as soon as any one enters fairly into the apostle’s scope, the insignificant idea of allusion to the mode of baptism disappears, and, to use Mr. Booth’s phrase, hides its impertinent head.—Thus much for the Baptist allusion. I shall next notice:
II. The Paedobaptist allusion. According to this, the mode of communicating the grace of the Holy Spirit to the soul, and that of applying the baptismal water to the body, are viewed as corresponding with each other. The considerations which lead to this, are such as follow:—1. They both agree in name. The influences of the Holy Spirit on the soul are called “baptism,” and so likewise is the external application of water. The term baptism, when used to express the influences of the Holy Spirit, takes in both his extraordinary and saving influences, Acts i. 5; 1 Cor. xii. 13. And as these have sometimes taken place in the same persons, the term “baptize” has been used to express both, Acts x. 44—46, compared with Acts xi. 16—18. 2. They are often associated in Scripture. How commonly do we read such words as these, “I indeed have baptized you with water; but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.” The reader will find this form of speech in the following places: Matt. iii. 11. Mark i. 8. Luke iii. 16. John i. 33. Acts i. 5; xi. 16. 3. Their mode of communication is expressed in the same way: “I baptize you with water, but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.” And this is done in all the places, only with this difference, that Luke omits the preposition in one member, and there it is understood. 4. Baptism with water, is an emblem of baptism with the Holy Ghost. The application of water to the body, as noting the putting away the filth of the flesh, shadows forth the influence of the Holy Spirit, which, being imparted to the soul, produces the answer of a good conscience towards God.
Now, if these two pass under the same name; if both are frequently united in Scripture; if the one be an emblem of the other; and if the mode of communication in each baptism be expressed in the same way; then, the way to arrive at a clear view of the mode of outward baptism, is to observe in what manner the baptism of the Holy Spirit is described. This will lead us to consult a lexicon of a very superior kind, a lexicon worth more than five hundred; and, what is more, it is the plain, unlettered man’s lexicon, and its title is, “The lively oracles of God.” The article we are to seek for, is the term baptize. How does this lexicon define baptizare, to baptize? Answer—Baptizare est supervenire, illabi, effundere—plainly, to baptize is—to come upon, Acts i. 5.—to shed forth, Acts ii. 33.—to fall upon, Acts xi. 15.—to pour out, Acts ii. 17.—x. 45. That is, in this baptism, the grace of the Holy Spirit comes upon—falls upon—is shed forth—is poured out, namely, on the soul. This is the account this lexicon gives of the word “baptize.”
Mr. Booth instead of paying a due attention to this lexicon, has adopted a method which, when properly adverted to, will do no credit to him or his book. His professed design is to prove that the term “baptize” means immersion, immersion only, and nothing else. But how does he do it? Why, he quotes a number of authors, who, as he himself says, understood the term to mean immersion, pouring, and sprinkling; and these quotations he calls concessions. Concessions of what? That the word meant immersion only? If so, he made them concede what they never did concede, and what they had no thought of conceding. If they made no concession, as he acknowledges they did not, that the term baptize signified immersion only, what honesty could there be in producing them at all? Mr. Booth’s talent is quotation, and therefore he must quote; but, at the same time, it is a shame to abuse the living or the dead, and it is a bad cause that requires it; for what else is it but abusing an author, when he is introduced as granting that which in fact he never did grant?
But had Mr. Booth consulted the lexicon I am speaking of, it might have freed him from the necessity of using that little art which one cannot observe in a disputant with any degree of pleasure. The authors he has consulted, if they had all been on his side, (and I question whether any one was beside the Quakers) could only have told him how men understood the word; but this lexicon would have showed him how God himself uses it; and if we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater. I ask, What does God witness concerning the term baptize? Answer—From the passages before cited it is evident he witnesses this—that the term strictly and properly means to wash, to purify. What does God witness concerning the mode of applying the purifying water? Answer—It comes upon, falls upon, is shed forth, is poured out.—Why then, as water baptism is an emblem of this, and as the mode of application in both cases is expressed in the same way, we have a witness on the side of pouring and sprinkling in baptism infinitely more certain than that of all the lexicographers and critics in the world. What are Mr. Booth’s eighty abused critics, even supposing they had all been on his side, though I doubt whether he had one out of the eighty; and even suppose he had eight hundred more, what, I say, are all these when compared to the all-wise God expounding and defining of his own words? Mr. Booth has a Talmud of his own, in which he studies circumcision, and ill-treated critics, with whom he imposes on the public in the article of baptism; and though perhaps he may not yet be ashamed of his Talmud, or his treatment, I believe the time will come when he will be ashamed of both.
Notwithstanding the Scriptures, when speaking of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, make use of the phrases—come upon—fall upon—shed forth—poured out, Mr. Booth, to evade the force of this as it respects the mode of baptizing, has recourse to two miserable shifts. In one case he would set aside the allusion to the mode, and in the other he would make it agree with immersion; and as these are somewhat curious, I cannot very well close the subject without taking notice of them.
1. To set aside the allusion, he takes the following course in his answer to Dr. Williams. Page 341, he says,
“Dr. Williams argues in favour of pouring and of sprinkling from the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Thus he speaks: I scruple not to assert it, there is no object whatever in all the New Testament so frequently and so explicitly signified by baptism as these divine influences;”
referring to Matt. iii. 11.; Mark i. 8,9.; Luke iii. 16. 21, 22; and several other places. Mr. Booth, in answer, says, p. 342,
“But those passages of Scripture to which he refers, regard that copious and extraordinary effusion (effusion, i.e. pouring out) of the Holy Spirit which was received by the Apostles and first disciples of our Lord soon after his ascension into heaven.”
The truth is, the term “baptize,” when applied to the Holy Spirit, is used to denote both his extraordinary influences, even those by which the mind is renewed and united to Christ; and so baptism by affusion is the most expressive emblem of the communication of these influences, more especially as the mode of application is expressed in the same way, and the one is fairly an emblem of the other.
But Mr. Booth does not seem willing to admit that one baptism is an emblem of the other—I say, “seem willing,” for I protest I do not know, though I have his book before my eyes, and have looked at it half an hour, whether he means to admit or deny it. That which seems the most evident is, he wishes, by any means, to get rid of it, lose it, put it out of sight, forget it himself, and make his reader do so too; but then how is this to be done? Done! why, by the assistance of his old impartial friends the Quakers. He suggests that our viewing water baptism as an emblem of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, will operate against its perpetuity. To evince this he introduces the Quakers as reasoning in the following manner:
“water baptism was divinely appointed, and continued in force till the death of Christ; but as that rite had for its object the descent of the Holy Spirit and his divine influences, no sooner was the promised Spirit vouchsafed to our Lord’s disciples, that the obligation to regard water baptism entirely ceased. For baptism in water being only an emblem of the promised baptism in the Holy Spirit, why should the former be continued after the latter has taken place?”
This, he says, or something like it, if he mistakes not, is the Quakers’ principal argument; and, for aught he perceives, it is equally forcible with that of his opponent.
I confess I am not sufficiently versed in the Quakers’ mode of reasoning to know whether Mr. Booth has done them justice. He first makes them say that baptism continued till the death of Christ, and then that the obligation to regard it ceased when the promised Spirit was vouchsafed. So there are two periods for the expiration of baptism. But I have no dispute with the Quakers; I know they are only brought in here as a blind, that Mr. Booth, by getting behind them, might withdraw more easily. I am persuaded he does not approve of their argument—he only wanted to get rid of the allusion, and he has got rid of it; but it is in the same way as the Quakers get rid of the two ordinances. Nay, far worse; for they do this by arguments which they deem good, but Mr. Booth has done it by such reasoning as he himself would be ashamed to adopt. This is Mr. Booth’s miserable way of getting rid of the allusion, viz. by giving the reader a Quaker’s argument. I will now advert to his other shift, by which:
2. He attempts to make the allusion agree with immersion. The mode, as I have before said, of communicating the influence of the Holy Spirit, is in Scripture expressed by coming upon—falling upon—shedding forth—pouring out, and this mode of communication is expressly called baptizing. Now, while most persons have considered the baptism of the Holy Spirit favouring affusion, Mr. Booth will undertake to show that it is expressive of that idea for which he contends, namely, immersion. This is an attempt in which I could wish him more success; for if he can make it appear that pouring out, and immersing into, are the same thing, then neither will he have any reason to complain of those that pour, nor will those who pour have any reason to complain of him. I fear it will prove a hard task; let us hear him, however.
In vol. i. p. 101, he speaks of “an electrical bath, so called, because the electrical fluid surrounds the patient.” Well, and what then?
“This philosophical document reminds me of the sacred historian’s language, where, narrating the fact under consideration, thus he speaks: ‘And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost.’ Now, says he, if the language of medical electricity be just, it cannot be absurd, nay, it seems highly rational, to understand this language of inspiriation, as expressive of that idea [immersion?] for which we contend. Was the Holy Spirit poured out? Did the Holy Spirit fall upon the apostles and others at that memorable time? It was in such a manner and to such a degree, that they were, like a patient in the electric bath, as if immersed in it.
This electric bath is a pretty fancy, a happy invention for Mr. Booth; it is well he did not live before it was found out, for then what a fine thought would have been lost! Though the Holy Spirit fell upon, was poured out, yet, says he, it was in such a manner and to such a degree, that they were, like a patient in the electric bath, as if immersed in it, that is, immersed in the Holy Spirit. Most persons, I supposes, when they read of the Holy Spirit falling upon any one, understand it to mean the influence of that Spirit coming upon the soul; but Mr. Booth speaks as if the Holy Ghost, or his influence, fell on the outside of the apostles, and so surrounded their bodies like an electric bath. And to show he intended this, he has put these words in large capitals, it “filled all the house where they were sitting.” Then they were immersed in something which filled the house; I ask, what was that something? In English it is expressed by the pronoun “it”—it filled the house; the Greek has no pronoun. Well, what is the antecedent to “it?” I answer, the word “sound.” The sound, which was as a rushing mighty wind, filled all the house where they were sitting. The word in the Greek is, eechos, an echo, a reverberating sound. Mr. Booth’s electric bath was, after all, nothing more than an echo. He has been very silent about this electric fluid; either he did not know what it was, or he was not complaisant enough to tell us. The loss, however, is not great; we have found it out without him. It was an echo, then, that filled all the house; and the apostles, being immersed in sound, were surrounded by the echo, like a patient in an electric bath. This is the beauty of sticking close to the primary meaning of the term, as Mr. Booth calls it; and so tenacious is he of his primary meaning, that he does not care in what people are immersed, so they are but immersed in something.
To be baptized by the Holy Spirit is to receive his influence on the heart and mind; but this baptism, according to Mr. Booth, is to have the body surrounded by an echo. Is then the influence of the Spirit falling upon the heart, and a reverberating sound surrounding the body, the same thing? Mr. Booth is a dreadful confounder of things that differ! He said once that an obedient subject of the civil government and a complete church member were the same thing; does he think too that the influence of the Holy Ghost is nothing more than an echo?—So much for the electric bath and the Quaker’s argument? These are Mr. Booth’s two miserable shifts, by which he would evade the argument from the Holy Spirit’s baptism in favour of affusion; and miserable ones they are as ever made their appearance in public.
I shall now close what I mean to say on the mode, by collecting the
particulars, and placing them in one view.
The word baptizo, used for
this ordinance, means washing only, but not any mode of washing: it means neither dipping, pouring, nor
sprinkling; for these are only different ways of washing, i.e. baptizing. They,
therefore, who say that the word rantism [sprinkling] is not the same as baptism,
say nothing but what is very right; for rantize differs from baptize, as the
manner of doing differs from the thing done; and the same is true of immersion
and pouring. Yet, at the same time, it
must be observed that the word baptism is used in Scripture where pouring and
sprinkling are evidently intended; while it cannot be proved that it is ever
used either in the New Testament or in the Septuagint where immersion took
place. The New Testament I have
examined; I will here just notice the two places where it occurs in the
Septuagint. 2 Kings, v. 14. And Naaman
went down and baptized in
Click here to return to the Bible Lighthouse homepage.
Click here for a printer friendly copy of this article.