ARTICLE III.

BAPTISM: THE IMPORT OF Barril.

By Rev. Edward Beecher, President of Illinois College, Jacksonville, Illinois.

To engage anew in the discussion of the subject of Baptism, may seem to need an apology. Mine is, that it is a point in which Christians are not as yet agreed, and therefore all truth is not seen. For I cannot think that God has of design hidden the truth, or that he has revealed it doubtfully on a point which has proved to be of such magnitude by its practical results. Hence I believe that when all truth is seen on this subject, which may be seen, all true Christians will so far agree that no obstacle to their perfect union in feeling and action will remain.

But the truth on this, as on all other subjects, is not to be elicited by the action of any one mind, but by the united contributions of many.

When in the dark ages, in the midnight of Papal gloom, all truth was lost or obscured, and the social fabric erected on principles radically corrupt, it pleased God to make no new revelation, nor to raise up and illumine any one gigantic mind, of power to grasp all truth and to restore it at once to its systematic proportion, or to erect in all its harmony a model of the social system in its perfect state.

Of the universal system different individuals grasped different parts, yet still mingled with much error, and thus God accomplished that which no single mind was capacious enough to do. He grasped, through many minds, the great outlines of the system of universal truth, so that none might be lost. Yet as in individual minds it was still limited and mingled with much error, divisions and sects arose, each holding important truth, which God was not willing to lose ; and yet not so unmingled or in such proportions that all could unite as one.

But this mixture of error with truth is not destined always to last. The movement of the mind of the universal church is destined still to be upward; for she is taught of God.

And in completing the fabric which he is about to erect,

shall contribute his portion of truth to the grand result, whilst the errors of each shall disappear and dic away. Then shall all finite minds be harmonized in one by the allpervading mind of God. As if to prepare the way for this result, the public mind has of late been directed with new interest to this subject. It has been brought up by certain. great questions in evangelizing the world, and has excited much attention.

It has elicited works of much talent and extensive research through a wide field of philology. The spirit of the discussion has been much ameliorated, at least in many of the leading writers, though not always in the local and subordinate controversies. Yet union is far from being obtained, nay, in some particulars the prospect is more discouraging than ever. This must be a matter of grief to all who desire the fulfilment of the prayer of Christ. Nor is it in harmony with the convictions of the age on the duty of Christian unity, for however Christians practise, they are more and more convinced that there is something wrong and offensive to God in the present divided state of the Church.

We have reason, then, to suppose that exactly the right ground has not been taken on either side, and we ought to aim at the simple ground of truth for the sake of union and the common good.

To furnish some small share of the materials which God may use in producing this result, is my object in this effort.And at present my remarks will relate entirely to the mode of Baptism.

§ 1. Statement of the case, and of principles of investigation. The case is this: Christ has enjoined the performance of a duty in the command to baptize.

What is the duty enjoined?-or, in other words, what does the word Baptize, in which the command is given, mean? One of two things must be true;

1. Either, it is in its meaning generic, denoting merely the production of an effect, (as purity,) so that the command may be fulfilled in many ways; or, it is so specific, denoting an external act, that it can be fulfilled in but one. To illustrate by an analogous case, Christ said, "Go teach all nations." Here the word go, is so generic as to include all modes of going which any one may choose to adopt.

If a man walks, or runs, or rides, or sails, he equally fulfils the command. On the other hand, some king or ruler, for particular reasons, might command an act by a word entirely specific, as for example, that certain mourners should walk in a funeral procession. Now it is plain that such a command could not be fulfilled by riding, or by running, for though these are modes of going, they are not modes of walking, and the command is not to go in general, but specifically to walk. So when a general says, March, it will not answer for the soldiers to run; for, though this is a mode of going, it is not a mode of marching.

So likewise, when Christ said baptize, he either used a word which had a generic sense, denoting an effect such as purify, cleanse, or a specific sense denoting an act, such as immerse, sprinkle, dip.

2. Whichever way we decide, as it regards the import of the word, we ought to be uniform in its use as applied to the rite of baptism. For though the same word may have diverse meanings when applied to different things and in various circumstances, yet it certainly cannot, when applied to the same thing and in the same circumstances.

Hence, if we adopt the generic meaning, purify or cleanse, we must adhere to it at all times, when speaking of the rite. On the other hand, if we adopt a specific meaning, as immerse, or sprinkle, we must adhere to it in the same way, and not pass from the generic to the specific, or from the specific to the generic, according to exigencies, on the ground that the word Barrie, may in the whole circuit of its use, mean sometimes one thing and sometimes another. Nor must we adopt both, for however numerous the possible meanings of a word may be in its various usages, it has in each particular case but one meaning, and in all similar cases its meaning is the same. Hence the word βαπτίζω, as applied to a given rite, has not two or many meanings, but one, and to that one, we should in all cases adhere.

3. If we adopt a generic meaning, denoting an effect, we are not limited by the command to any specific mode of fulfilling it, and are at liberty to vary the mode according to circumstances. But if we adopt a specific meaning, denoting an external act, we are limited by the very import of the command, to the range of that meaning.

Hence if the command is purify, or cleanse, we are not imited by the command to any one mode, but may choose

that which seems to us most appropriate, whether it be sprinkling, pouring, or immersion.

But if the command is specific, as immerse, then we are limited by the range of that word, and cannot fulfil the command by sprinkling, or pouring, for these are not modes of immersion, any more than riding is a mode of walking, or writing a mode of painting.

It is true that sprinkling and pouring may be modes of purifying, and so is riding a mode of going. But if the command is not purify, but immerse, then all debate as to the mode is at an end, for you can immerse, not by sprinkling, but only by immersion.

§ 2. Causes of the disregard of these principles, and false positions to which this disregard has given rise.

Though the principles stated are simple and obvious, yet the natural operations of the mind on questions of philology have been in this case embarrassed and perplexed by certain influences of a kind peculiar to this word.

At the time of the translation of the Bible, a controversy had arisen as it regards the import of the word, so that, although it was conceded to have an import in the original, yet it was impossible to assign to it in English any meaning without seeming to take sides in the controversy then pending.

Accordingly, in order to take neither side, they did not translate the word at all, but merely transferred it with a slight alteration of termination to our language. The consequence was that it ceased to exhibit its original significancy to the mind of the reader, or indeed any significancy except what was derived from its application to designate an external visible rite.-In short, it became merely the name of a rite, and had a usage strictly technical, and lost to the ear whatever significance it originally had.

The habit of using the word in a technical sense has tended to unfit the mind for the discussion of the question as to the mode of baptism in various ways, of which I shall mention three.

1. It has led to a departure from the principles already stated, that words, when applied to the same subject, and in the same circumstances, cannot have a double sense. This rule, as has been remarked, does not forbid that the same

word in different circumstances should have various senses, accordingly it may be conceded, that the word Barrie has various senses in the wide range of its usage, in scriptural and classical Greek, but out of this variety of usages, there is one strictly of a religious nature, and having direct reference to one of the great revealed facts of Christianity. Now in a case like this, the laws of philology require that some one of the meanings of the word should be fixed on and assigned to it in all cases. But the habit of using the word baptize in a strictly technical sense, as the name of a rite, has led to a disregard of this simple and obvious rule.

Many writers, fixing their minds merely upon the idea of a rite, and finding that the word Barriga means sometimes to wash, sometimes to immerse, and sometimes, as they think, to pour or sprinkle, conclude that the rite of baptism may be performed in either way, entirely forgetting that, although the word should happen, in the wide range of its usage, scriptural and classical, secular and religious, to have all these meanings, it by no means follows that when used as a religious term, it has more than one. Hence, if as a religious term, and in certain circumstances, it means immerse, it does not also in similar circumstances mean to wet or to wash, to sprinkle or to pour, to color or to dye, but simply to immerse. And just as plainly, if in some cases of its religious use, it means to purify, it does not in others of the same kind mean to pour, to sprinkle, or to immerse.

2. The other mode in which the technical use of this word has unfitted the mind for a fair consideration of the question is, it has permitted the introduction of a discussion as to the mode of baptism, after concessions have been made, which ought for ever to exclude it. For example, the question arises, what meaning did the word. Barsi convey to those, who in the age of the New Testament writers read the command, go baptize all nations? Was it to immerse? So our brethren the Baptists maintain, and so many who do not immerse concede. Now after such a concession, with what propriety they can debate any longer as to the mode, I acknowledge that I cannot perceive. Nor do I think, that they would do it were it not for an illusion practised by the technical word Baptize, upon their minds.

After admitting as a point of philology, that the word Barril, in its religious use means immerse, the mind seems to revert to the old habit of using the Anglicised word bap