4.
Meaning of the Words
SECOND
EVENING
W.-- "EXCUSE me for making my appearance so early, but my curiosity has
not abated. I saw Mr. R., and told him of my interview with you. He made a
suggestion to me, which I had thought of before, and of which I had before
spoken to my wife. I ask you for your opinion, and hope, in giving it, you
will lay aside all prejudice, remembering that the religious interests of
myself and wife are involved in it; remember that it is a matter that should
rise above denominational preferences. I will say nothing more to my wife
about it unless you agree with me that it is proper. It is this, that it would
require less sacrifice on the part of my wife to go with me to the Baptist
church, than for me to become a Presbyterian, especially as you refuse to
immerse me."
P.--
"I am glad you came so early, and equally glad that your interest is not
abated. The suggestion of Mr. R. affords an opportunity of showing how
inexcusably blind some people choose to be. I thank you for your confidence in
my ability to express an opinion in the light of those interests which are
immeasurably above denominational preferences. I will answer you as I believe
my Master would have me answer. You believe your wife to be an honest,
intelligent Christian woman?"
W.--
"Without a superior in all these respects."
P.--
"As an intelligent member of the Presbyterian Church, she believes that
she has been baptized according to the command of Christ. Let me put a case in
many respects analogous, that will serve as an illustration. Some twelve years
ago Mr. L, a nominal Catholic, was united in marriage to Miss D., a member of
the Presbyterian Church. The ceremony was performed by a Presbyterian
minister. Matters went on smoothly for some three or four years, till Mr. L.
became a very zealous Catholic. After he came entirely under the control of
the priest, the latter told him that he was not lawfully married, and that he
was committing a great sin to continue in that state. The poor man was in
great trouble. The priest insisted that he should be married according to the
laws of the church. The wife was informed of the trouble, and asked to assent
to the arrangement. Her answer was prompt and emphatic. It was, 'NO, NEVER!'
She saw that it would, in a most aggravating manner, cast contempt on the
claims of her own church. It would be acknowledging that it was an apostate
church, and its ministers impostors, without any authority to solemnize a
marriage. It would be a confession that she had, for these years, been living
in adultery. What think you of her conclusions and her answer?"
W.--
"She was a noble, honest, Christian woman."
P.--
"And what would be the confession of your wife, should she heed the
suggestion of Mr. R., and apply to the Baptist Church for admission, and by
him be immersed? It would be a confession of one or the other of these things:
1st, That her church is no church, and its ministers without any authority to
administer the sacraments, and thus pour contempt on those she was leaving; or
2nd, If she held no such views as these, she would, by her act, pour contempt
on the sacrament of baptism, regarding it as a thing so common, of so little
worth, that it could be prostituted to the low work of ministering to the
whims of a man she loved."
W.--
"I see how I was blinded. I see how grievous would be my wife's offence
to take that step I so desire her to take. I would not give my consent for her
to make the change, unless her views on the subject of baptism should undergo
a radical change."
P.--
"I am rejoiced to hear you so express yourself. Before proceeding to the
task before us, let us have a clear understanding of the work to be done.
Allow me to ask what you understand by baptism, or immersion?"
W.--
"It is very simple. It is putting the person down into the water, and
taking him up out of the water, all in the name of the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Ghost."
P.--
"Very good. Another question. Would it meet the requirement if a quantity
of water sufficient to cover the person should be poured upon him?"
W.--
"Not at all. The action would be wanting. There would be no immersion; no
putting down into, and taking up out of."
P.--
"Of course your answer is correct. The whole difference between us and
immersionists is not in the element to be employed; in this we agree; nor in
the quantity to be employed, but in the action or in the use or application of
the element. With immersionists it is, the individual must be put into the
element; with us it is, the element must be applied to the individual. The
difference is radical. Both cannot be right, because they are logical
contraries. Now, I suppose, we can enter upon the consideration of the
question?"
W.--
"Yes, sir; with the distinct understanding that the Bible only is to be
brought forward as a witness. No Greek, no commentaries, no doubtful
historical tomes. But I suppose this is your understanding, as I see you are
provided with a single volume, and that, I presume, is the Bible."
P.--
"Pardon me, sir, but I fear you have misinterpreted my statement. I said
nothing about the Greek. I proposed to confine myself exclusively to the
Bible. A portion of the Scriptures was written in the Greek language, and the
whole Bible was in that language when the Savior was on earth, and received
His sanction. The meaning of the word employed to designate the rite is to be
determined by its use in the Bible, and that cannot be done without some
reference to the original text."
W.--
"My meaning was that you would not bother me with learned citations from
classic Greek authors, and long disquisitions on Greek prepositions."
P.--
"And that was my meaning also. The only proper way to ascertain the
meaning of a word of frequent occurrence in any volume is to note carefully
how it is used in the several places where it occurs."
W.--
"I do not believe I understand you. It seems to me that the best way to
ascertain the meaning of a word in any language is to appeal to the
dictionaries of acknowledged authority in that language. Or, if a derivative,
to take advantage of this to get at its meaning."
P.--
"By the latter method we might be led into error. Our word 'prevent' will
serve as an illustration. It is derived from the Latin preposition 'prae,'
meaning 'before,' and 'venire,' 'to come.' The word then should mean 'to come
before.' But in this sense it has long been obsolete. Words undergo very
material changes in their meaning. The word 'telegraph' may be cited as an
example of such changes. Its meaning now is distinctly understood by all. To
use it as it was understood forty years ago, very few would understand it.
Then it meant to communicate at considerable distances by beacons. As to
dictionaries, allow me to ask you how their compilers obtain their
information? Take any standard dictionary of our own language; examine and see
by what means the definitions are obtained. Here is Webster's Unabridged;
examine any important word."
W.--
"I see an illustration of your meaning in the definition given to the
word 'presence.' Definitions are given, and following each are quotations from
Milton, Shakespeare, Bacon, Dryden, and Collier. I see the same in many other
definitions. I had often noticed such quotations, but their peculiar use had
never struck me."
P.--
"If you would take the trouble to examine a dictionary of any dead
language, you would find a still greater use of this method. The lexicographer
assigns a particular meaning to a word. In proof that such is its meaning, he
quotes from some standard author a passage in which the word occurs. That the
author so employed the word, is to be ascertained from the context and
circumstantial evidence."
W.--
"That certainly is a legitimate conclusion; confine yourself to that, and
prove that the disputed word does not mean immerse, and I am satisfied."
P.--
"In such an investigation, of course, we need examine only those passages
where the context, or attending circumstances will throw some light on the
meaning of the word as used by the writer. Thus, in the commission, 'Go ye
therefore and teach all nations, BAPTIZING them in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,' though the word occurs, yet the context
affords no clue to its meaning. Again, there are many passages where the word
occurs from which no conclusion can be drawn without involving a long and
tedious discussion as to the signification of certain Greek prepositions. A
few examples will suffice, 'John verily baptized WITH water.' The meaning of
the word, as here used, depends on the signification of the preposition
translated 'with.' The inference from the English would be that the water was
applied to them. Again, 'Jesus was baptized of John in Jordan.' The simple
fact here stated determines nothing as to the meaning of the word. They may
have gone into the water, and then performed the rite either by dipping or
sprinkling. Such passages must be examined under another head."
W.--
"Do not the circumstances attending the baptism of Jesus -- a part of
which you quoted -- and the passage giving an account of the baptism of the
Eunuch, all point to immersion?"
P.--
"After we have considered the meaning of the word, we propose to examine
the most important cases of its administration, reaching a conclusion as to
the mode from the attending circumstances. Our present object is to look for
passages where the use of the word clearly indicates its meaning. Will you
turn to Daniel, iv. 25?"
W.--
"It says that Nebuchadnezzar shall be wet with the dew of heaven."
P.--
"The word translated wet is similar to the word used to designate the
rite of baptism. Here, as the context will show you, Nebuchadnezzar was in the
field, eating grass as a beast, making the open field his abiding -- his
lodging place, as did the cattle. Yet here he was to be baptized; and the
method is given; it should be by the dew of heaven.
"Another
passage is Mark, vii. 4: 'And when they come from the market, except they
baptize, they eat not. And many other things there be which they have received
to hold, as the baptism of cups and pots, and brazen vessels and tables.' Here
the very word used to designate the rite of baptism is employed -- 1st, In
reference to the Jews themselves; 2nd, In reference to articles of house-hold
furniture, tables or couches. In the first case it is declared, every time
they came from the market they baptized. It is conceivable that they might
have immersed themselves, but it requires an effort of the imagination to
regard it as probable. Manifestly, what they desired to accomplish was to
purify, cleanse themselves. This we know they were in the habit of
doing."
W.--
"You acknowledge that it is conceivable that they may have immersed
themselves. Then I do not see how the word, as it occurs, can serve your
purpose."
P.--
"If you will turn to John ii. 6, you will find an account of the
provision they made for these purifications. We have here a detailed account
of Christ's miracle, turning water into wine, at the marriage in Cana. In the
6th verse we read, 'and there were set there six water-pots of stone, after
the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins
apiece.' According to some, these water-pots held about ten gallons each. The
very highest is twenty-seven gallons each. According to the first, Christ made
about one hogshead of wine; according to the largest estimate, he made nearly
three hogsheads. If we take the largest estimate, i.e., twenty-seven gallons
each, such a vessel could not by any means have met the requirements for
immersion."
W.-- "I will take a
note of this. I confess the comparison of these passages presents a point to
which my attention has never before been called."
P.--
"The case of the 'tables' or 'couches' is very conclusive; for it would
require a power of imagination possessed by a few to conceive that they were
immersed. Two facts render it certain that they were not immersed: 1st, Their
size. It matters not whether we understand the word to refer to tables on
which food was placed, or to couches on which they reclined when eating. In
either case they were so cumbersome as to render it morally certain that
housewives were not in the habit of immersing them. 2nd, No sensible reason
can be assigned why they would want to immerse them. Simple immersion is not a
method of cleansing anything. True, housewives do sometimes immerse 'cups' and
'pots' in the process of cleansing; but such immersion is a mere accidental
circumstance; the method commonly employed is the free application of water
and rubbing them, or by partial dipping; but in cleansing chairs, or benches,
or tables, who ever heard of immersing them?"
W.--
"I freely admit that in the case of Nebuchadnezzar, and in the example
quoted from Mark's Gospel, there was no immersion proper. I do not suppose any
one would for a moment contend there was. But I certainly lose nothing by such
a concession, for I know your good sense and honesty will compel you to make a
concession that will fully counterbalance mine."
P.--
"I thank you for your expressions of confidence in me."
W.--
"Admitting that these were not cases of literal, real immersion; yet was
not Nebuchadnezzar, so to speak, enveloped in or with the moisture? And were
not the tables or couches, being washed all over, in a like manner enveloped?
And might not this, in a figurative sense, be denominated a baptism or
immersion? The end was attained, at least figuratively, that is, their
envelopment."
P.--
"I will readily make the concession you desire, on one condition, that
is, that we regard this as one point fixed, agreed upon, and to which we may
both refer as established."
W.--
"The condition is a fair one, and I accept it."
P.--
"Allow me to call your attention to one of your definitions. I urged you
to define immersion, as without such definition all discussion would be
useless."
W.--
"I intended my definition to apply to the administration of the rite, or
to real immersion."
P.--
"And our object now is to find out the meaning of the word used to
designate the rite. It would seem, then, that the word is used in the Bible to
designate an action very different from putting down in and taking up out
of."
W.--
"You make a point that I will have to think about. I am not now prepared
to express an opinion."
P.--
"Well, think about it, and let me make another point, which you may
perhaps associate with it for company. Allow me to apply to you the
expressions of honesty and good sense by which you honored me. If the dew of
heaven could baptize Nebuchadnezzar, and the application of water to tables
could baptize them, as you say, figuratively, then you will acknowledge that
should I take a hyssop branch, or my hand, and sprinkle a bountiful supply of
water over an individual, so that he would, so to speak, be enveloped thereby,
this would also be figurative immersion or baptism."
W.--
"This, verily, looks like a fit companion to the other point. Perhaps I
was hasty in that agreement."
P.--
"You are at liberty to regard it as null and void."
W.--
"But I do not see that I would gain anything thereby."
P.--
"Why not?"
W.-- "Because I would then be driven to the necessity of acknowledging
that real baptism, according to the Bible use of the word, could be performed
when there is no immersion, but only the application of water to the person or
thing to be baptized."
P.--
"I am glad you see the point so clearly, and thank you for saving me the
trouble of pressing it. I could not have made it better."
W.--
"I confess, sir, that I am greatly perplexed. From my early boyhood I
have taken a deep interest in this question : I have discussed it, heard it
discussed, read about it, and my mind was so fixed that I did not think it
possible that anything that could be advanced could cause any hesitation or
wavering on my part. I scarcely know why I sought these interviews with you.
It was not certainly from any thought that you could convince me that my views
are erroneous. I rather secretly indulged the hope that I could convince you
of error, and at least induce you to immerse me. But why is it that I have
never seen these points presented as they have been by you?"
P.--
"I suppose it is because your reading has all been on one side of the
question, or because you would not attend to anything on the opposite
side."
W.--
"Do not understand me as acknowledging for one moment that my views on
this subject are erroneous. Whatever may be true of the occasional use of the
word in a figurative sense, yet the cases of immersion recorded in the New
Testament, and the fact that it is called a burial, are sufficient to settle
the question with me."
P.--
"Those cases of its administration are yet to be considered; also the
passages which you claim as a warrant for believing it to symbolize a burial.
But let us consider one thing at a time. We are now considering the use of the
word in passages that clearly indicate its signification."
W.--
"I am satisfied it is sometimes used in a figurative sense, as you have
shown, and other examples will not make that more apparent; and besides, I am
impatient to hear what you have to say of baptism as a burial."
P.--
"We will examine that to your satisfaction in its proper place and time.
As to the use of the word, it is true one clear example is as conclusive as a
score. But I want you to see that we are not confined to a single obscure
passage to ascertain the Bible use of the word. In Matt. xx. 22, Jesus, in
answer to the request of two of his disciples, to sit the one on his right
hand and the other on his left in his kingdom, asked, 'Are ye able to drink of
the cup that I drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that 1 am
baptized with? And when they said they were able, he said, 'Ye shall be
baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with.' "
W.--
"Another figurative use of the word."
P.--
"Very true. But it shows how the sacred writers were accustomed to use
the word. To what, think you, did the Savior refer by this baptism?"
W.--
"Manifestly to his sufferings."
P.--
"And is there an immersion here ?"
W.--
"I think you are unfortunate in the selection of this passage for your
purpose, for I have often heard of the expression 'immersed in business,
immersed in trouble.' I think it a very proper use of the term as referring to
the troubles about to come upon him. Jesus was, so to speak, overwhelmed with
trouble."
P.--
"I think I understand you. You mean that trouble did not come on him in
drops, but in a shower, or rather in a torrent."
W.--
"That last word expresses the idea."
P.--
"Then we are more nearly agreed in our views than we seemed to be at
first. We do not differ as to the mode of baptism, but simply as to the
quantity of the element that is to be employed."
W.--
"I see you will give me no rest about my definition of immersion."
P.--
"At the outset we were agreed as to the element, and I wanted to know
just wherein we differed; whether it was in reference to the quantity to be
applied, or in the action. Will you now amend your answer?"
W.--
"I would prefer to go to the consideration of the significance of the
rite, and hear what you have to say about baptism as a burial."
P.--
"As you seem so anxious for the consideration of that subject, I will now
forewarn you that I will not leave a four-penny nail to hold your scaffolding
together when we come to consider the significance of the rite. I will not
insist on an answer to my question, because I know you can give no definition
of baptism by which you can stand.
"It
has always been the practice of immersionists, in their interpretations of
those passages where the word occurs, to swing backwards and forwards from
action to quantity, and from quantity to action, just as it suited them. In
the passages to which I have called your attention, they very clearly see
immersion -- that is, envelopment; that is, an extra quantity descending upon,
but no action. If they would stick to this, we might make some compromise, and
agree to the use of a greater quantity of the element, enough to represent an
envelopment. But no sooner do we make a suggestion of such compromise than
they tell us it is not quantity, but action; there must be a putting down
into, and a taking up out of -- a burial. Allow me to trouble you with another
passage, found in Luke xi. 38. Will you please read it?"
W.--
"And when the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that He had not first washed (baptized)
before dinner."
P.--
"The word here used is the very same applied to the rite of baptism. I
will not trouble you to compare it with Mark vii. 2, 3, although a strong
argument might easily be drawn from such comparison. In all candor ask
yourself what could have been meant by the statement you have just read."
W.--
"Candor compels me to admit that it could not have been used to indicate
immersion. There could have been no use in it, and I imagine that it would
have been practically impossible."
P.--
"You take a common-sense view of it. We keep up the same practice in
reference to the first meal of the day. Except we baptize, we eat not our
morning meal. I would like also to call your attention to a use of the word as
found in Heb. ix. 10, from which a similar conclusion could be drawn. Also I
Cor. x. 1, 2, where baptism is used to designate simply consecration, and no
immersion can be found. But as you seem satisfied on this point, we will
dismiss it, and pass to the consideration of that in which you seem to
manifest so much interest; that is, the significance of the rite. But we must
adjourn to another evening for the consideration of this."
Next
Section
William
the Baptist (index)
