SECTION X. ON EVIDENCE FROM THE SPECIFIC AND DISTINCT IMPORT OF IMMERSE, D. FRASER. "It must remain an impossibility to reconcile such opposite modes of application as dipping and sprinkling."-Bap., p. 70, Prof. WILSON.-"The absurdity of attaching opposite meanings to the same term." "The false principle that the verb denotes the two distinct acts of sprinkling and bathing. Such a double sense would be utterly incompatible with the universally-admitted laws of language." 'Never, even in a solitary instance, have we encountered it [baptizo] in the sense of purification. That meaning, as it appears to us, cannot be extracted from the verb, without recourse to questionable analogies and reasonings, which betray a larger measure of theological ingenuity than of philological acumen.' "The usage of the Greek language appears to be strictly harmonious" (pp. 184, 185). THAT immersion, pouring, and sprinkling, are distinct actions, to describe which we have in English distinct and definite terms, is undeniable. That this was equally the case with regard to the Greek language,—a language, so far as we know, the most copious and definite ever spoken; the language chosen by the Founder of Christianity in which to reveal the way of life to all nations,—will be admitted by every Greek scholar. If it be a matter of perfect indifference, if it can accord equally with the import of the original word describing the Christian ordinance, whether water be sprinkled on the face, poured into the mouth, or applied to the hands, the feet, or some other part of the body, or whether the whole body be immersed in water, it is not because the Institutor of baptism could not, but because He would not, determinately fix the use of water. We also maintain that the selected word, signifying to immerse, does not and cannot also signify to pour and to sprinkle. We deny not that a copious sprinkling may approximate to pouring; yea, that a sprinkling might be so abundant that one person would call it pouring, and another would call it sprinkling. Nor do we deny that in any language there is a word which may not sometimes be used in the sense of pouring, and sometimes in the sense of sprinkling. Our belief is that in no cultivated language under heaven does one word mean definitely to immerse, and also to pour and to sprinkle. The distinction betwixt immersion and pouring or sprinkling, is greater than that betwixt pouring and sprinkling. Between immersion and either of the other two there is an impassable gulf. We do not deny that water might, in certain circumstances, be poured on a person until he was immersed. Yea, we can suppose, for instance, a person in a large tub or vat, and we can see the possibility of pouring water into this vessel, even without its being poured upon the individual, until he is immersed. As soon as the water has reached such a height as entirely to cover him, he is immersed. But immersion and pouring in this supposed case are two perfectly distinct things; whilst the immersion in this instance is effected by means of the pouring. Immersion, sprinkling, and pouring, are words of import as distinct as walking, running, and flying. In the instance supposed there is immersion otherwise effected than by a putting into the water; nor, as we maintain, is it a use of the English word in a loose, improper, or unauthorized manner, although submersion in such a case may by some be deemed a preferable word. The explicit testimony of lexicons that baptizo signifies to immerse, we regard as evidence that it does not signify to pour or to sprinkle; the unequivocal and unvarying testimony from use that its import is to immerse, we maintain to be evidence that it does not mean to sprinkle or to pour. So in regard to evidence from ancient versions, from the practice of the Greeks and the Greek church, from the proselyte baptism of the Jews, from the concessions of the most eminent Pædobaptists, from the figurative use of the word, and from the words with which baptism is construed; in regard to evidence from all these, and from all other sources, that baptism is immersion, we maintain that there is evidence that it is not pouring or sprinkling. We admit that if the Greeks had been an uncultivated people, they would have had both fewer ideas and fewer words. "But the Greeks were the most philosophical, the most shrewd, captious, inquisitive, religious, and eloquent nation that ever existed. Forty thousand gods were acknowledged at one time in Greece." How many ideas would the acknowledgment of so many divinities introduce! To how many disputes, sects, and opinions would they give rise! Concerning the Greek language, our present object requires that we speak more particularly, although we hesitate not to appeal to any man to find a word which definitely signifies to immerse in the English or Latin, Greek or Hebrew language, and which also signifies to pour and to sprinkle. We might now leave this subject, as to demand proof from ourselves in vindication of this appeal would be to require us to prove a negative. It may, however, be prudent to illustrate and enlarge a little more, and to avail ourselves of some of the investigations of others on the occurrences of words in the Bible signifying to dip, to pour, and to sprinkle. Dr. A. CAMPBELL, in his Debate with Mr. Maccalla, says: "In the Old (English) and New Testament the word sprinkle occurs sixty-two times. The word pour, and its derivatives, one hundred and fifty-two times. To wash, and its derivatives, one hundred and thirty-nine times. To dip, with its derivations, twenty-two times. To plunge, once. Now, the question that determines the point is, Did the translators, in one instance, translate the same word to sprinkle and to dip? We positively say No. Another question may be asked as conclusive as the former, namely, Did they ever, in one instance, translate the same word as signifying to dip and to pour? We positively answer No. Bapto and baptizo are never translated either to sprinkle or to pour. Again, rhaino and rhantizo are never once translated to dip, immerse, or plunge. This shows that in the judgment of the translators these words were so definitely expressive of certain actions, that they never could be translated into our language by one and the same word. To sprinkle is one action, to dip is another action. Sprinkling and pouring are actions so nigh to each other, and in effect so much the same, that rhaino, and the compounds of cheo, are both translated sprinkle. But so impassable the gulf between either pouring or sprinkling and dipping, that never once is either rhaino or cheo, louo or nipto, or pluno, translated dip, immerse, or plunge" (pp. 141, 142). In further illustration of the clear distinction made in English and Greek betwixt dipping, pouring, and sprinkling, let us examine the Septuagint and the English translation of the Hebrew in one or two places. In Lev. xiv. 6-8, we read: "As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and (bapsei) shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water: and (perirranei) he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose into the open field. And he that is to be cleansed (plunei) shall wash his clothes, and shave off all his hair, and (lousetai) wash himself in water," &c. Four actions are here denoted by four different words. In the next verse we have the command that the leper, after seven days (plunei), shall wash his clothes, and (lousetai) shall wash [or bathe] his flesh in water. In vers. 15, 16, we read of each of the three distinct actions of pouring, dipping, and sprinkling. "And the priest shall take some of the log of oil, and (epicheei) pour it into the palm of his own left hand. And the priest (bapsei) shall dip his right finger in the oil that is in his left hand, and (rhanei) shall sprinkle," &c. (See also vers. 26, 27, 41, 51.) Thus also, in Lev. iv. 6, 7, we read: "And the priest (bapsei) shall dip his finger in the blood, and (prosrhanei) sprinkle of the blood seven times before the Lord, before the vail of the sanctuary. And the priest shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord, which is in the tabernacle of the congregation; and (encheei) shall pour," &c. The three distinct actions in these verses are represented by three distinct words in the English and Greek, as well as in the Hebrew. We might similarly examine Num. xix. 18, 19, and other places, all of which testify to the representing of distinct and specific actions by distinct and specific words. Whilst we maintain that if the Saviour had used cheo instead of baptizo, He would have enjoined pouring, and that if He had used rhaino or rhantizo He would have commanded sprinkling, and that His choice of baptizo teaches His approval and command of immersion, we do not maintain that He could not have expressed himself so as to leave it with His people to apply water in any manner according to their choice. We maintain that He has not thus left it. He might have used agnizo, to purify, or kathairo, to cleanse, in connexion with hudor, water, leaving the manner of its application or use to the choice of His disciples; but in using baptizo, which signifies undoubtedly to immerse, He has, as we maintain, prohibited pouring and sprinkling. Our Saviour might have chosen louo, to wash, which, though used generally in reference to the whole body, and frequently in the sense of bathing, is less definite than baptizo. The original of God's Word, both in the Hebrew and the Greek, is much more definite than the English translation. Thus it is said, by Dr. A. Campbell, that the term wash, and its derivatives, occurs one hundred and thirty-nine times in the English authorized translation. It is found in connexion with the hands, feet, face, body, clothes, &c. Not so, however, is the Greek of the New Testament and of the Septuagint. Instead of one word in Greek for these one hundred and thirty-nine occurrences of wash in the English Bible, it is nipto thirty-eight times, louo forty-nine times, and pluno forty-four times. Nipto is generally applied to the hands, feet, or face; pluno to polluted clothes, or garments, or other polluted substances; louo to the whole body; and of the five times in which baptizo, or a derivative from it, is translated wash or washing, it is as the effect of dipping. Were it necessary to illustrate the greater precision of the Greek Scriptures than of the English translation, we might refer to many passages. We shall only now refer to two. In John xiii. 10, we read: "(Ho leloumenos) He that is washed, needed not save (podas nipsasthai) to wash his feet," &c. The same word wash is given for the Greek words louo and nipto. Again, in Mark vii. 3, 4, we read: "For the Pharisees and all the Jews (ean me pugme nipsontai tas keiras, &c.), except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market (ean me baptisontai), except they wash," &c. Here, although the Greek uses another word to describe another action in other circumstances, the English uses the same word, wash, for nipto and baptizo. Again, availing ourselves of the labours of Dr. C., we observe: Sprinkle, and its derivatives, occur sixty-two times in the Old and New Testament; thirty-one times it is rhaino, twenty-three times the compounds of cheo; eight times other words, but not once bapto or baptizo. To pour, with its derivatives, occurs one hundred and fifty-two times; ninety-four times it is cheo and its compounds; fifty-eight times, other words and phrases. Of these there are twenty-seven varieties, but not once bapto or baptizo. To wash, occurs one hundred and thirty-nine times-eighteen times nipto, face, hands, or feet. Forty-nine times louo, the body; forty-four times pluno, garments, or such like. Five times baptizo; three times cheo and chruzo, metaphorically. Once it is To dip, occurs, with its derivatives, twenty-two times. moluno, to stain, in application to Joseph's coat. It is twenty-one times bapto and baptizo. Never once rhaino, cheo, nipto, louo, pluno, or any of their compounds or derivatives. To plunge, occurs but once, and there it is bapto. Tabal, in the Hebrew Old Testament, occurs seventeen times. In the Septuagint it is sixteen times translated by bapto or baptizo, and once by moluno. Junius and Tremmelius translate it sixteen times by tingo, immergo, and demergo; and it is translated sixteen times in English by dip and plunge, once by dyed. Mr. BоoтH says: "If it be lawful to administer the ordinance before us by pouring or sprinkling, equally as by immersion, it must be because that diversity of administration is warranted, either by the command of our Divine Lawgiver, or by the practice of His apostles. But if so, is it not very surprising that the sacred penmen of the New Testament, when recording precepts and facts for our direction in this affair, have never used a term the natural and primary meaning of which is pouring or sprinkling? This is the more surprising as, in other cases, apparently of much less consequence to the purity of Divine worship, they frequently employ such words as are adapted to express those ideas without any ambiguity. If pouring, for instance, be a legitimate way of performing the rite, what can be the reason that ballo, encheo, epicheo, ekchuno, katacheo, proscheo, or proschusis (all of which are found in the apostolic writings), is never found in the New Testament, respecting the administration of baptism? Or, if sprinkling be a proper mode of proceeding, how comes it that rhantizo, rhantismos, or some other term of the same signification, does not appear in any command or precedent relating to the subject of this controversy? Why should those Greek words I have just mentioned, and all others of a similar meaning (whether used by pagan classics or the Septuagint translators), be excluded from all precepts and examples of the institution before us, while baptizo, baptisma, and baptismos, are appropriated to that service, if pouring or sprinkling had been at all intended by our Lord, or practised by His apostles? It must not be supposed, as Jos. Placæus has justly observed in another case, that this was done by inspired writers without design (Opera, tom. ii., p. 267); and, on our principles, the reason is plain. The great Legislator intended that His followers should be IMMERSED, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. In pursuance, therefore, of this design, such words are used concerning the ordinance as naturally and properly signify that idea. We have, I think, as much reason to conclude that baptizo and rhantizo are terms of opposite significations, as that baptisterion and perirranterion denote things for opposite uses. The former of these names, it is well known, was applied by ancient Christians to the baptismal font; because candidates for communion were immersed in it: the latter, it is equally clear, was appropriated by pagan Greeks to the vessel which contained their holy water; because thence the idolatrous priests sprinkled the consecrated element upon each worshipper (Suiceri Thesau. Eccle., tom. i., p. 659. Potter's Antiq. of Greece, vol. i., c. iv.). What, then, would the learned say, were any one, pretending to an acquaintance with Christian and Greek antiquities, designedly to confound the two latter expressions, as if they were convertible terms? Be the just censure what it might, I cannot help thinking it is due to those who confound the two former, by labouring to prove them equivalent with regard to the ordinance before us. Though our brethren maintain the lawfulness of pouring and sprinkling, they cannot produce one instance from the Divine rubric of this institution, of any word being used which primarily and plainly expresses either of those actions" (vol. iii., pp. 125-127). The result of this investigation is, that as the Divine Spirit has selected a word of the most definite character by which to express the Divine will, as the meaning of that word is to immerse, it is the Divine will that Christians be immersed, and not sprinkled, or poured upon. Indeed, so explicit and definite is the import of baptizo, and so clear and vast the distinction between immersing and pouring or sprinkling, that "one baptism with three modes" has been denominated “a grand ecclesiastical hoax" which needs only a translation in order to an exposure of the sophistry. To these words the writer does not object on condition that they be not understood to imply a wilful perversion of truth. We are taught in Scripture that there is "one baptism." The absurdity of saying one immersion by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling, is seen by any one. Nor would it be less absurd to speak of one pouring, or of one sprinkling, by pouring, sprinkling, or immersion. Thus we maintain that baptizo is a word of mode, as meaning to immerse, in distinction from to pour, to sprinkle, &c.; but, that the mode of immersing is contained in the word, we do not maintain. In other words, we maintain that baptizo is a specific term, not one that is vague, indefinite, generic. It indicates a definite, a specific action. The difference between verbs indicating a definite and an indefinite action will be understood by considering the following. In the words cleanse, wash, purify, sanctify, go, come, &c., there is nothing specific, nor in the word travel; but there is in the words ride, walk, swim, sail. There is nothing specific in the word move; but there is in creep, run, hop, leap, fly, &c. Also, the specific as well as the explicit character of the term is, as we think, what night have been expected to distinguish a positive institution. But, to conclude on this head, since baptizo denotes a specific action, whether applied to water, wine, oil, blood, sand, debt, grief, &c., and since this action, according to the admission of the whole learned world, is to immerse, we maintain that pouring or sprinkling can no more be one meaning of this word than that one word can denote both the specific actions of walking and riding. If we are correct in what has now been advanced, how absurd is the issuing of volume after volume, with apparent candour admitting what is undeniable, that immerse is the meaning of baptizo, and then endeavouring to persuade that sprinkling, pouring, or any application of water, is baptism! |