“Twenty-four Facts on Baptism.”
THE above is the heading of a tract of four pages, number 306, published by the Tract Society, 200 Mulberry St., New York. As this tract has been benevolently published, and liberally circulated among the people where we have been holding meetings, to assist in enlightening them on baptism, we propose copying and noticing its “facts.” We take it that this tract is one of the best efforts, in a small space, the Society could procure. Let us, then, look at its facts: “1. It is a fact that the word baptizo does not mean to dip only. No lexicographer or commentator in the world will risk his reputation in giving such an exclusive rendering to the word.” This is a curious “fact,” as a first, second, or any other kind of a “fact”! It runs backward. It is but for one reason a negative fact, and that one reason is, that it is not a fact at all. How adroitly some men manage to occupy, as often as possible, a negative position. Is it so convenient to tell what baptizo does not mean? What is it that it does not mean? Is it not that it does not mean dip? No, for every authority in the world deposes that it does mean dip. Nobody denies this, except those too reckless to deserve attention. What, then, is it that it does not mean? How sly and convenient to talk negatively! But among people of common intelligence, this is no fact at all, or anything more than a simple denial, a mere negative assertion. But what is this negative assertion; that baptizo does not mean dip? No; that is not it. What then? That it does not mean dip only? Or, to put this negative asserter where he belongs, in this case, in the affirmative, baptizo has other meanings, or, at least, some other meaning besides dip! But what if the lexicographers do give baptizo some other meaning, or meanings? Do they give sprinkle or pour as a meaning at all? It is simply what every man who has access to the lexicons can know for himself to be so, that the lexicons in use in the schools, colleges, and universities, of the country, do not give sprinkle or pour as a meaning of baptizo at all. If a man were weak and stupid enough to maintain that every definition given by the lexicons, either primary or secondary, literal or tropical, is a mode of baptism, then sprinkle or pour has nothing in the world to do with it; for neither sprinkle nor pour is given as a definition at all, either primary or secondary. If sprinkle or pour is to be sustained as a mode of baptism, it must be done on some other ground than any definition of baptizo. “2. It is a fact that baptizo means to sprinkle, to pour, to stain, to paint, to cleanse, to purify, etc., as well as to dip. No one can deny it. We have as legitimate a right to assert that sprinkling and pouring are the only modes of baptism as our Baptist brethren have to maintain exclusive immersion, so far as mere definition is concerned.” This is not only not fact second, but not a fact at all, nor even a truth. It is a group of most reckless statements, without the shadow of a foundation. Let us number the false statements here called “a fact”: 1. That baptizo means sprinkle. 2. That baptizo means pour. 3. That baptizo means stain. 4. That baptizo means to paint. 5. That baptizo means to cleanse. 6. That baptizo means to purify. 7. That no one can deny that baptizo thus means. 8. That Pedobaptists have as legitimate a right to assert that sprinkling and pouring are the only modes of baptism as our Baptist brethren have to maintain exclusive immersion, so far as mere definition is concerned. There is not a fact here, or even a true statement. Instead, there are eight false statements. But why does our writer select sprinkling and pouring from his list of definitions? Why does not he advocate the staining mode? why not put in a plea for the painting mode? why not give the cleansing mode a place? why not put in the purifying mode also? why not come out, with John Wesley, and maintain that the mode is not revealed? Can any man fail to see that this is simply an effort to throw dust in the eyes of the people? What does this “legitimate right,” to make sprinkling or pouring the exclusive mode, rest on? The lexicons in the schools, colleges, and universities, of the country, give, as the primary meaning of the word baptizo, to immerse. They do not give sprinkle or pour as a meaning of the word at all. So far as the definition is concerned, the Baptists take the first one, the primary meaning, as the learning of the world admits, and practice accordingly. How any man, claiming any honor or veracity, can affirm that he has as legitimate a right to take that which is not given by the lexicons as a meaning of baptizo at all, and practice according to it, is more than we can understand. There is divine authority for what the word baptizo means, but none for what it does not mean. “3. It is a fact that in the Scripture, the classics, and the ancient fathers, SPRINKLING and POURING are called baptism. Heb 9:10; Acts 11:16; Isa. 52:15 (a direct prophetical reference to baptism, and also the verse from which Philip enlightened the eunuch on baptism), and Num. 8:7 (expressing the manner in which Christ fulfilled all righteousness). So both our Saviour and the eunuch were baptized by sprinkling.” This “fact” turns out, like its predecessors, to be not only not a fact at all, nor a truth, but a mere false assertion. This assertion is as completely without a shadow of foundation as any false assertion ever uttered. Not an instance is found in Scripture, or in the classics, where sprinkling is called baptism. The Greeks had their word for sprinkle, their word for pour, and their word for immerse. The Greek words for sprinkle, pour, and immerse, are used as distinctly as our three English words for these three actions. These three Greek words are never used interchangeably, and cannot be, any more than our three English words, sprinkle, pour, and immerse. These three words are all found in the New Testament. The proper Greek word for sprinkle is found several times in the New Testament, and rightly translated sprinkle in every place. But it is never applied to the ordinance or rite in question. It is always applied to something else. The same is true of the Greek word for pour. It is found in several places in the New Testament, and translated pour in every instance. But it is never applied to the ordinance in question. Nor is the word baptismos ever applied to the ordinance, but baptizo. Bapto is found in the New Testament three times, and translated dip in the common version in each case where it occurs. But it is never applied to the ordinance. Touching the words of the prophet, Isa. 52:15, “So shall he sprinkle many nations,” though the precious word “sprinkle” is found, the usual, original word for sprinkle is not found there, nor baptizo, nor anything about baptism in the entire chapter. Dr. Clarke reads it, “So shall he astonish many nations.” Not only so, but this is not the chapter the treasurer of Queen Candace was reading, not the same “scripture at which Philip began to preach to him Jesus, to enlighten him on baptism,” or any other subject, but it was the next chapter. Paul said nothing about “divers washings,” but the King James version is responsible for the “washings.” It is simply “divers immersions.”—Church Advocate.