By
James M. Chaney.
1.
GENERAL
REMARKS
The
Bible is the best work on the subject of baptism. In the early part of my
ministry, when the Presbytery was in session at the church of which I had just
taken charge, a colporteur in attendance introduced me to a gentleman who, as
he thought, ought to unite with the church. After a short conversation with
him, I agreed with the colporteur, and remarked that the Session would meet in
a few minutes, and suggested that he should present himself for admission into
the church. After a moment's pause, he said he was "laboring under a
difficulty that rendered such a step impracticable."
Upon
inquiry I found that he believed that immersion is the proper mode of baptism.
I told him that was no difficulty; in D--- was a Baptist church, where he
would be welcomed.
"But,"
said he, "I prefer the Presbyterian Church."
The
colporteur proposed to sell him some books on the subject of baptism. My reply
was, "Mr. E., let his books alone. If you have immersion in your head, my
first advice to you is, go and unite with the
Baptist
Church
.
If you are not satisfied, take your Bible alone, and examine the subject in
the light of God's Word, praying for the guidance of the Spirit; after such
examination, act according to the conclusion reached."
About
four months after this conversation, he presented himself to the Session of
our church for admission. I asked him if he was satisfied on the question of
baptism. His answer was, "Thoroughly."
He
proved to be one of the most intelligent Bible Christians I ever knew, and
remarkable for the conscientious discharge of duty. As I subsequently learned,
every influence had been exerted on him to convince him that immersion is
baptism.
What
the people want is, not a learned dissertation on the classic meaning of words
in a language of which they know nothing, but a simple exposition of passages
in the Bible with which they are familiar.
In
the following treatise I have confined myself to the Word of God alone,
examining the subject in what I conceive to be an exhaustive method, to wit:
1.
To ascertain the meaning of the word used to designate the rite; to do this by
examining those passages where the word occurs, and, from the context and
attending circumstances, to ascertain in what sense the word is used by the
sacred writers.
2.
To inquire what is the significance of the rite, and see what light this
throws on the question of mode.
3.
To examine the cases of its administration found recorded in the New
Testament; to examine these in the light of circumstantial evidence.
These
methods are independent of each other; and if they unite in bringing us to the
same conclusion, we may be assured that we have the truth.
I
have chosen the conversational method of discussion, because it serves better
than any other to bring to the attention of the reader the particular point to
be impressed on the mind. The only objection to such a method is that it
offers temptations to caricature the views we would assail. I have endeavored
carefully to avoid such a weakness.
It
was not my purpose to introduce anything of the romantic; but this seemed the
only practicable method of introducing the discussion, and bringing out
certain points regarded of great importance: from the place assigned it by
Jesus, as a symbol of the Spirit's work, down to the useless purpose of
symbolizing, in a very awkward manner, an event that had nothing to do with
man's redemption.
The
evil of such perversion is aggravated when we remember it necessitates the
denial, on the part of immersionists, that we form any part of the
church
of
God
.
If
we are in error, let us acknowledge it, and have our practice correspond with
the truth. If our practice is in accordance with the command of the Savior,
let us not hesitate to affirm that immersion is not a scriptural mode of
baptism.
Some
will object to such a view as extreme, and think it as objectionable as the
claims of immersionists on the question of mode. The view of some is that one
mode is as good as another, and that it is a question not worthy of
discussion. But such must remember what is involved in this statement. It
implies that the significance of the rite is of no importance, because the
whole difference centers here. Transubstantiation is no greater perversion of
the Lord's supper than is the burial theory a perversion of baptism. When
immersionists abandon this theory, they will not be slow in conforming their
mode to the simplicity of the gospel.
If
any apology is needed for presenting this discussion to the public, I am happy
to be able to lay a share of the responsibility on many friends who read the
manuscript and urged its publication, and especially among these, the Rev.
Drs. J. L. Yantis, John Montgomery, and N. L. Rice, who, having carefully read
the manuscript, encouraged me to hope that its publication might be attended
with profit to the church of God. With the prayer that God will bless it in
checking, in some measure, the gross perversion of a sacred rite, I bid it go
wherever readers may be found.
Next
Section
William
the Baptist (index)
