Kitabı oku: «A Bible History of Baptism», sayfa 28

Section LXXX. —End of the Baptist Argument

The Baptist position rests on two assumptions. The first is, that baptizo means, to dip, to immerse, to submerge, – one or other of these, as the different advocates of the cause may select, —and nothing else. The second is, that on account of its resemblance to the laying of the body of Jesus in the sepulchre, the rite of dipping, immersion, or submersion in water was appointed as a symbol of his entombing. The first of these assumptions is essential to vindicate the mode in question, and the second to establish its typical significance. If baptizo does not mean as defined, or if that is not the only meaning, the whole immersion fabric falls to the ground. And if the second proposition is not established, the rite becomes an unmeaning absurdity. – On these vital points, the following are the results of the evidence thus far developed in these pages.

1. While the Scriptures everywhere, in the Old Testament and the New, are full of the doctrine of the baptism of the Spirit, – while the divers baptisms of the Mosaic ritual were unquestionably typical of it, and the prophecies abound in references to it under the figure of affusion – the sprinkling of water, and the outpouring of rain, – the rite of immersion does not pretend to any better evidence than is found in a definition of baptizo, which is now admitted to be erroneous, and a few expressions in the New Testament which are at best of questionable interpretation. Aside from these, it is foreign and uncongenial to the whole tenor of conception and language of the New Testament as well as of the Old.

2. Not to insist on the special conclusions of Dale, – the admissions of Dr. Conant, confirmed by the authority of Prof. Kendrick, prove that the word does not mean, to dip, to put in the water and take out again; but to put under the water, to submerge. The rite, then, consists in submerging the subjects. In that action the baptism is completed. There is therefore in it no symbol nor suggestion of the resurrection.

3. The elaborate researches of Dr. Dale, and the results established by the investigations of this volume, are confirmed by the distinct admission of Dr. Conant, that the primary is not the only meaning of the word. It not only means, to submerge, but also, “the coming into a new state of life or experience.” Thus, the citadel of the immersion position is definitely abandoned. The word is not limited to one meaning. The mere fact, therefore, that it occurs, in any given place, decides nothing as to the form of action expressed by it; since the question always arises, – In what sense is the word here used? a question which, in every instance, must be decided by evidence outside the word. Until so decided, any inference from the word is mere assumption.

4. To re-establish the crumbling structure of immersion, the prepositions avail nothing; since they are as congruous to the supposition that the rite was performed by affusion.

5. The many waters of Enon prove nothing to the purpose; since abundance of water was necessary to John’s congregations, had he made no ritual use of it whatever.

6. Equally futile is appeal to Paul’s “buried by the baptism,” as the imagined allusion is unnecessary to the interpretation, incongruous to the argument, and destructive of the distinctions which the apostle draws, and the conclusions which he deduces.

7. As to the remaining argument, from the baptism of the eunuch, we shall see hereafter, that while the facts recorded decide nothing, they create a presumption which distinctly indicates affusion.

Thus, the rite in question, – foreign to the whole style of the Old Testament, its ritual and prophecies, and equally so to the language and doctrines of the New, – is left without a vestige of evidence, anywhere, whether as to mode or meaning, even in those particular words and passages which have been the reliance of its advocates.

Part XIII.
BAPTISMAL REGENERATION

Section LXXXI. —The Doctrine is Contrary to the Whole Tenor of the Gospel

Paul was yet in the meridian of his strength, and the most active period of his ministry, when he wrote to the Thessalonians that “the mystery of iniquity doth already work,” – the mystery out of which was to be developed “that Wicked, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.” – 2 Thes. ii, 7, 8. There is nothing more remarkable, nor more humiliating, in the history of the church than the rapid defection from the simplicity of the gospel which is apparent in the early remains of patristic literature. The transition from the apostles and evangelists in the New Testament, to the writings of the fathers, is like that from the splendor of the noonday sun to the deepening twilight of the evening. It was the precursor of “the black and dark night,” by which the gospel was obscured for so many ages, and which still enshrouds the churches of Rome and the East in a mantle of gloom. Of this defection, the all-powerful cause was a false and mischievous interpretation of the Scriptures concerning the relation of the covenant of Sinai to the new covenant. They were interpreted as teaching that the visible church and its ordinances under the New Testament economy, was the antitype of the Levitical church and institutions, – that the rites and ceremonies of the latter were the shadow, of which the ordinances of the Christian church are the substance. Hence the Christian ministry became a priesthood, ministering better sacrifices and more effectual purifyings than those of the Mosaic ritual; for in their hands and by virtue of their consecrating prayers, the Lord’s supper became a propitiatory sacrifice of the very body and blood of the Lord Jesus, and baptism administered by them became a spiritual regeneration, – a purging of the conscience, – the true baptism foreshadowed by the “type baptism” of the Old Testament. Thus, Didymus Alexandrinus, having quoted Ezek. xxxvi, 22, – “I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean from all your sins;” and Psa. li, 7, – “Sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow;” says, – “For the sprinkling with hyssop was Judaic purification; which is continued by them to the present time; but ‘whiter than snow,’ denotes Christian illumination, which is baptism. And Peter, that he may show in his first epistle, that if baptism, which was formerly, in shadow (en skia) saved, much more that which was in reality (en alētheia) immortalizes and deifies us, wrote thus; – ‘Antitype baptism now saves us.’”¹⁰⁸ So Ambrose, as already quoted, says of the Psalmist, – “He asks to be cleansed by hyssop, according to the law. He desires to be washed, according to the gospel. He who would be cleansed by typical baptism was sprinkled with the blood of a lamb, by means of a bunch of hyssop.” Of the doctrine of baptism, as thus conceived, Tertullian says, – “All waters in virtue of the pristine privilege of their origin,¹⁰⁹ do, after invocation of God accomplish sanctification; for the Spirit immediately comes from heaven and rests upon the waters, sanctifying them by his own power; and they being thus sanctified, therewith acquire the power of sanctifying.”¹¹⁰ Derived from this is the modern doctrine of baptismal regeneration, according to which, it is only in and through the baptism of water that the renewing grace of the Spirit is imparted to men.

It is manifest that if this doctrine be true, baptism is the “one thing needful;” and the church of Rome, and ritualists everywhere are right in the unanimity with which they reduce the preaching of the word to a secondary place, and count the progress of the gospel by the numbers who have been subjected to the life-giving rite. If it be true, then water baptism should be the theme of the New Testament; and the apostles and Christian ministry must have been commissioned and sent forth, not to preach the gospel; but to baptize. What says the Word of God on these points?

1. As to the gospel commission, and the instructions connected therewith, we have accounts from each of the four evangelists. John confines himself almost entirely to those, of such supreme interest, which Jesus uttered at the table, the night of the betrayal. Matthew, Mark, and Luke record the essential facts which occurred after the resurrection. The first thing that presents itself in examining these accounts is, that of baptism, as connected with the last instructions given the apostles, neither Luke nor John say one word. Thus, if the doctrine in question be true, these two evangelists are guilty of leaving out of their record the very heart and essence of the whole matter. This is the more remarkable, if we consider the character of the writers who are thus chargeable. Did we forget the Spirit which guided their pens, it is yet impossible to imagine that Luke, “the beloved physician,” disciple, and companion of Paul, can have been unaware of the just proportion to be preserved in his narrative; so as to ignore a matter important as this. Or, John, the kinsman of Jesus, the beloved disciple, who in the privilege of a perfect confidence and love, lay on his bosom, and who received from the cross the legacy of the stricken mother, – John was not ignorant of the mind of his Master, on a subject like this, upon which depend the whole results of the work of redemption. The silence of these writers was not inadvertent, and it is fatal to the theory in question. What they do not report can have no place among the essentials of the plan of salvation. It still, however, remains to account for their silence respecting the ritual ordinance of baptism; which, apart from the unwarranted theory in question, all agree to be of divine authority. To this point we will return hereafter.

If, now, we turn to the other evangelists, the record of Matthew is as follows: Matt. xxviii, 16-20. “Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them (eis to honoma), into the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo! I am with you alway even unto the end of the world.” Here, it can not be pretended that there is any thing to countenance the idea of baptismal regeneration. The administering of the rite is enjoined on the apostles. But no hint is given of its being necessary to salvation; and no such stress is laid upon it as to imply such necessity.

Mark records the language of Jesus on another occasion. Mark xvi, 14-16, – “He appeared to the eleven, as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall he damned.” Here, is no more of baptismal regeneration than we have found in Matthew. Emphasis is, indeed, given to baptism, by the connection in which it is introduced. But at the very point on which all depends the evidence gives way. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not – shall be damned.” Thus explicitly Jesus utters sentence of perdition against unbelief. But he as explicitly omits baptism from mention on that side of the alternative, and thus expressly limits the condemning sentence to unbelief. Either this language is designed to represent baptism as important but not essential; or, it is a snare which must take men at unawares, and involve them in danger of destruction from ignorance of the necessity of the rite. Here then is no baptismal regeneration. The same inference follows from the silence of the other evangelists on this point. The eleven were all present and heard these words. If they were meant to imply baptismal regeneration, they were of the very highest moment. They could not, therefore, be ignored, but must have been the very center and controlling principle of all their writings and teachings. And yet, the other gospels ignore them; and the epistles are equally silent. It is, therefore, certain that the apostles did not understand the expressions, in the supposed sense. The true principle of harmony for the interpretation of all these facts will be presented in another place.

2. If now we examine the position of the great apostle of the Gentiles, we shall find him give place by subjection to this doctrine, – no, not for an hour. His is an independent testimony; for he was not with the eleven under the personal ministry of Christ. It is also fuller than any other; running through his thirteen epistles. First, we find that it was not his habit to baptize the converts of his own ministry; and that, upon principle. He says to the Corinthians, – “I thank God that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius; lest any should say that I had baptized in my own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas. Besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me, not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” – 1 Cor. i, 14-17. He moreover states the reason of his special devotion thus to the preaching of the gospel, – because “it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” – v. 21. Here be it observed, the apostle speaks of preaching, not abstractly considered, but in immediate contrast with baptism. He does not baptize; but preaches, because preaching is the means which God has chosen for the salvation of men through faith. Thus, baptism is, in the plainest terms denied the place assigned it by the theory in question. But the evidence is even more direct and conclusive. To these same Corinthians whom Paul thus reminded that he had not baptized them, he addressed a second epistle, in which he distinctly asserts that through his personal ministry the Spirit of God had been given them and new life wrought within them. “Ye are our epistle written in your hearts,¹¹¹ known and read of all men; forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in the fleshly tables of the heart.” He goes on to assert his ministry to be “of the new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter killeth; but the spirit giveth life.” – 2 Cor. iii, 2, 3, 6. It needs no words, here, to show that thus the apostle overturns the very foundations of the theory of baptismal regeneration. Paul did not baptize the Corinthians. But he ministered to them the Holy Spirit of life and grace, – the true baptism of which he speaks so largely in his epistles.

It is not necessary to go farther in tracing the doctrine of Paul on the subject. He is everywhere consistent with himself as thus presented. It is however worthy of express notice that in his three epistles to Timothy and Titus, in which he sets forth the qualifications and duties of “the man of God,” he does not once name or allude to the ordinance of baptism. Had the apostle believed the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, it is not possible that he could have been thus silent. But what need is there of thus inferring the sentiments of Paul? His favorite doctrine, excludes and condemns this theory as an intrusive heresy. “Being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ.” – Rom. v, 1. “By grace ye are saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.” – Eph. ii, 8. “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you?.. This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith?” – Gal. iii, 1, 2. How is it that by no accident does he ever say, – “by the hearing of faith, and by baptism?” It is almost needless to add that the other apostles in their writings are in perfect accord with Paul. In fact, ritual or water baptism is not once named in their epistles. The word, itself, occurs in them all only once, – in the statement of Peter respecting “antitype baptism,” which has been already examined. If the apostles and evangelists are true witnesses as to the mind of Christ, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is contrary to his teachings and subversive of the gospel.

This heresy is to be regarded with peculiar detestation and abhorrence because of the disparagement which it does to the sovereignty and glory of Christ’s baptizing scepter. In any and every form of it, it divides the work of grace between Christ and the human administrators of the empty sign. It subordinates and limits the sovereign exercise of his saving power to the discretion of their wisdom and will, to the measure of their fidelity and ardor of their zeal. Whom they baptize, – upon them his grace may be bestowed, and upon them only.

We shall not examine in detail all the Scriptures which are appealed to in support of this theory. There are two which are the chief reliance of its advocates, an examination of which will be sufficient. If not in them, the doctrine is not to be found in the Bible. They are, John iii, 5, and Eph. v, 25-27.

Section LXXXII. – “Born of Water and of the Spirit.”

Said Jesus to Nicodemus, – “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God.” – John iii, 5. Dr. Pusey asserts that “The Christian church uniformly for fifteen centuries interpreted these words of baptism; on the ground of this text alone, they urged the necessity of baptism; upon it they identified regeneration with baptism.” If the position thus maintained by the churches of Rome and the east for so many centuries be the truth, it presents the Savior, the apostles and evangelists, and the Scriptures written by them, in a most extraordinary light. In the very beginning of his ministry, in a private interview with the Jewish ruler, Jesus imparts to him this doctrine, on which confessedly the salvation of every man depends. But, from that hour, neither he nor his apostles ever name it. In his public instructions to the people, – in his private interviews with his disciples, – in those particular and assiduous teachings by which, as his own ministry drew to a close, he put them in possession of his whole mind concerning their ministry and the world’s salvation (John xv, 15), he is persistently and entirely silent on this vital point. “Still,” says Dr. Pusey, “the truth in holy Scripture is not less God’s truth, because contained in one passage only.” The principle is sound; but its application here is a mere begging of the question. That question is, What mean these words? And the above axiom is no more true, and much less pertinent to the present occasion than is the rule of interpretation laid down by Paul. “Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith.” – Rom. xii, 6. An interpretation which takes a passage out of all congruous relation to the rest of the Scriptures, and overturns the very foundations of the faith therein set forth, is false. And such is the interpretation in question. The circumstances and connection indicate the true meaning of the passage.

That Nicodemus, although perhaps lacking in courage, was an honest inquirer after the truth, is evinced by the circumstances of this interview and by his subsequent history. He came by night, for fear of the Jews. He came not to cavil but to be taught, as appears alike from his own language and the manner of Christ’s dealing with him. John had been for some time causing the land to ring with his warning cry; and men’s hearts were in expectation because of it and his baptism. After this interview of Nicodemus with Jesus, we incidentally learn that in connection with Christ’s preaching his disciples also baptized. And their baptism was assuredly of the same intent as that of John, – to prefigure the office of the Baptizer with the Holy Ghost. We may, therefore, conclude that their baptism was from the beginning associated with Christ’s ministry. Of these facts, a man of the rank and intelligence of Nicodemus, and in his state of mind, could not be ignorant. He therefore comes for instruction as to the way of salvation. At the beginning of the interview, he places himself definitely at the feet of Jesus, as a disciple to be taught of him. “Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God; for no man can do these miracles that thou doest except God be with him.” To an application thus so precisely in accord with Christ’s own testimonies as to himself and his miracles (John v, 36; x, 25; xiv, 10, 11), he responds by entering directly upon the question which was agitating the ruler’s heart, – that great question, – How to be saved? “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he can not see the kingdom of God,” – that kingdom of which the cry then was, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand.” The figure of the new birth was strange to Nicodemus; for, while the doctrine of renewing by the Holy Spirit is familiar to the Old Testament writers, – the figure of a new birth is not found in them. He therefore asks, – “How can a man be born when he is old” Here evidently the ruler views the matter as of practical and present interest to him personally. “How can I, Nicodemus, at my age, be born again?” The purpose of Jesus, in using this new illustration was thus accomplished. Old truths in new forms often develop a power which otherwise they lack. Jesus therefore, now answers, by a figure, familiar to his hearer, in the Old Testament Scriptures, and in the baptisms of John and of Christ’s disciples, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God.”

From this view of the connection and circumstances, it is evident that the passage is to be interpreted in the light of the Old Testament, and of the baptisms administered at the time of this interview, several years before the ascension and day of Pentecost; and not by any thing peculiar to the time subsequent to that event. But it is an essential feature of the theory of baptismal regeneration, that it holds the New Testament church to have this eminent advantage over that of the Old Testament, that the grace of regeneration is peculiar to the former, and to the ordinance of baptism as administered subsequent to the ascension of Christ. But the words of Christ to Nicodemus were no abstract setting forth of phenomena of grace to be enjoyed by the church in a coming time, but an explanation of the way in which the ruler must be saved, then and there, under the old economy. Viewing it in this light the following are the facts essential to the exposition of the passage.

1. The figure of metaphor was especially congenial to the Hebrew mind. To its abundant use, the Scriptures are largely indebted for the energy and clearness with which the profoundest thoughts are there presented. “Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations.” – Ps. xc, 1. “Moab is my wash pot.” – Ps. lx, 8. “In the hand of the Lord, there is a cup, and the wine is red; it is full of mixture; and he poureth out of the same; but the dregs thereof, all the wicked of the earth shall wring them out and drink them.” – Ps. lxxv, 8. “Unto you that fear my name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings.” – Mal. iv, 2. Who would imagine the necessity of pausing to explain that these expressions are not to be understood literally?

2. Among these metaphors, no one was more familiar to the Jews than that of water, signifying the Holy Spirit. “I will pour water upon him that is thirsty and floods upon the dry ground. I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed and my blessing upon thine offspring.” – Isa. xliv, 3. This figure has been already illustrated abundantly in these pages. It is only here important to emphasize the fact that upon it the whole significance of John’s and the Old Testament baptisms depended, – which were, at that precise time, so earnestly pressed upon the attention of the Jews.

3. This very figure was repeatedly used by our Saviour in the course of his ministry. To the woman of Samaria he says, “thou wouldst have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water… Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him, shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him, shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.” – John iv, 10, 14. Again, “In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.” – Ib. vii, 37, 38. It is, moreover, to be remarked that both of these places occur in the same gospel of John in which is found the interview with Nicodemus. Nor is it without significant bearing on the present point, that in the Revelation, by the pen of this same writer, the metaphor of water is conspicuous, in this same sense. “The Lamb … shall lead them unto living fountains of waters.” – Rev. vii, 17. The Lord Jesus says, – “I will give to him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely;” – Ib. xxi, 6. John sees the “pure river of water of life clear as crystal proceeding out of the throne of God and the Lamb;” – Ib. xxii, 1. And the volume of revelation closes with the invitation, – ”Let him that is athirst come, and whosoever will, let him take of the water of life, freely.” – Ib. 17.

4. The Greek conjunction, kai, (“and,”) does not always express addition; but sometimes indicates an expository relation between two members of a sentence, and is equivalent to, even, to wit, namely. Thus, – “For blasphemy, even because that thou being a man makest thyself God.” – John x, 33. “Hath made us kings and priests unto God, even his Father.” – Rev. i, 6. “A golden cup, full of abominations, even the filthiness of her fornications.” – Ib. xvii, 4. “But ourselves, even we ourselves, groan.” – Rom. viii, 23. “God, even our Father.” – Phil. iv, 20. Three of these examples being from the writings of John again illustrate his style. It is evident that the phrase in question may be translated thus; – “Except a man be born of water, even of the Spirit.” In fact, such must have been the sense in which it was understood by Nicodemus. (1.) The phrase is professedly explanatory. It is in reply to the perplexity of Nicodemus, at the primary statement of Jesus, – “Except a man be born again,” – an expression the meaning of which is abundantly illustrated, in all parts of the New Testament. (2.) The explanatory clause thus introduced, having performed its office, immediately drops out of the discourse, which subsequently dwells upon the new birth of the Spirit alone. “Except a man be born of water, even of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. The wind bloweth where it listeth, … so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” It is impossible to account for the manner in which, after the one explanatory phrase, the water is thus ignored and excluded, upon any other supposition than that by which it is viewed as an interpretation of the previous expression, a metaphor for the Spirit. (3.) The fact that in the circumstances, it was impossible for the ruler to have understood the language in question as referring to a water baptism, which, upon the theory of baptismal regeneration, was not to be administered until after the day of Pentecost; and that he was therefore shut up to regard it as a metaphor, rendered explanation necessary, if that theory is true. The absence of any explanation makes it certain that such was not the meaning of Jesus.

5. The author of this narrative had, already, in the beginning of his gospel given an account of the manner of regeneration, which must be accepted as governing the whole of his subsequent record on the subject. “As many as received Him to them gave He power to become” (exousian genesthai, “gave He the prerogative of being”) “the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name; which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” – John i, 12, 13. Here, it is not sufficient to say that baptismal regeneration is ignored. It is absolutely excluded. The born of God are described in terms both exclusive and inclusive, by the phrase, “As many as received him, … that believed on his name.” These, all of these, and none but these, were born of God. The addition of baptism makes this no more sure; nor does its absence affect the result. As many as receive Christ, – As many as believe on his name, to them it is given to be the sons of God.

It is evident that the record of the interview with Nicodemus, all of which may be read in two or three minutes, is a mere abstract of leading points of our Savior’s discourse. The intent of the words in question may be thus expressed. “You do not understand how a man can be born again. But you are familiar with the rite of baptism, and you are acquainted with the Scriptures of the prophets, and the interpretation which they give to that rite as a symbol of the renewing work of the Holy Spirit. It is that of which I speak. Except a man be born of water, even of the Holy Spirit, who is the true water of life, he can not enter into the kingdom of God.”