meaning one and the same act, that act is to pour out, to shed forth, as the word of God is true. If it be a generic term, signifying the thing done-as to purify-without reference to the manner of doing it, then the mode is fixed by other terms: as, to pour out, to send forth, to send upon, &c. Whether it be specific or generic, the doctrine of immersion utterly fails. Mr. Campbell, however, has begged the question, and put immersion in the text; has altered the law to suit the case, and set his heart at rest, and, we suppose, the hearts of his admirers. But we cannot cheat ourselves and the Church of God, by bartering the comprehensive term baptism for the meagre term immersion-a term not found in the authorized version of God's book, and perfectly excluded, so far as the ordinance of baptism is concerned by various other terms that fix the practice beyond the possibility of an honest mistake. "It is with no small degree of presumptuous daring that men set up their notions of immersion in opposition to the plainly revealed scenes of the Pentecost. He that can say Christ did not baptize with the Holy Ghost, or that the act of the administrator was not to shed forth, to pour out, to send upon, can deny any other fact revealed in the Scriptures. And he that says Christ did baptize with the Holy Ghost, and that, too, by shedding forth the Holy Ghost, by pouring out the Holy Ghost, by sending the Holy Ghost upon them, according to God's express revelation, and yet can stand up and say that pouring out, shedding forth, or sending upon, is no baptism, mocks his Saviour, contradicts himself, and is worthy of no confidence. It is time we should use strong language touching this subject; all parties have been in fault in making it a subject of doubtful disputation when God has taken such pains to reveal it, and to set the pattern before us in proper form." 66 "He did not immerse his servants in the Spirit." Soon said. But suppose we were to say, "He did not pour out his Spirit," would not that be as good as the assertion, He did not immerse in the Spirit?" If it be answered that Joel and Peter use the words "pour out," or their Greek synonyms, we say in return that the Lord himself used the word immerse, or its Greek equivalent, and promised that they should be immersed in the Spirit not many days after his ascension, and consequently that either they were immersed in the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, or the promised immersion was granted to them "not many days from that time," for the Lord could not deceive them. Does an enquirer say, " But how can 66 it be ascertained that BAPTIZO signifies to immerse, or to dip, and never any thing else unless used metonymically?" Let another question be put-How can it be ascertained that EKKEO, translated plunge? The answer is ready in a pour out," does not mean to dip or moment-the history of the word supplies the proof all lexicons give pour out as its meaning-not one gives dip or plunge. No instance can be found in which the word is used to denote dipping. This answer is deemed satisfactory, but the same reply may be given to the former question -- Every lexicographer gives immerse as the meaning of baptizo--pour and sprinkle are not in any ancient lexicon given as meanings-in the entire history of the word, not an instance can be found in which it should be translated sprinkle or pour. Thus we know the meaning of both ekkeo and baptizo, and, as Peter said the Holy Spirit was poured out, we believe Peter-and as the Lord said they should be immersed in the Holy Spirit, we believe the Lord—and when the Nashville Advocate says that pouring is not immersion, we believe the Nashville Advocate. But when the same paper says they were not immersed, we say the Lord is true, and the Advocate false. We claim both pouring out and immersion. 66 Our Nashville friend insists that the possibility of mistake is precluded by the use in Acts ii. of " several terms to demonstrate the mode of administration." Now in the whole chapter not one word is used with such intent. any Demonstrate the mode"! What nonsense!! Mode of what? Of immersion? Pouring is not a mode of immersion. But what are these several terms?" "Shed forth, send upon, pour upon, fell upon, sat upon." May we enquire who informed our friend that those terms were given to demonstrate the mode of administration"? O, that is not in evidence-it is an unsupported assertion, and consequently all that is implied in shedding, sending, falling, &c. may not include the prominent immersion in the Spirit, but precede it, as the pouring of water into a bath, may precede the plunging of a person into the water. Having spread out this sand stratum for a foundation, our Advocate adds, "When Christ baptized, he sent the Holy Ghost upon them; the Holy Ghost fell on. When John did the same thing with waterwhen he baptized he shed forth the water, he poured out the water, he sent the water on them, the water fell on them." But why did not Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John tell us this? Could they not? Luke could have used the same words in the Gospel which are found in the Acts, but he did not, because he told the truth, which our Advocate does not. The inspired word says they were immersed IN the Jordan-our friend makes it that THE JORDAN was poured upon them. That would have been a washing — rather a drowning. Our friend returns to his position and says, "When God said I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh,' did he mean that he would immerse all flesh in his Spirit?" Let us put it the other way. When John said," He shall immerse you in the Holy Spirit," did he mean that he would pour the Holy Spirit upon them? Literally there was neither pouring nor immersing. The Spirit is not a fluid, that it could be poured, or that persons could be plunged into it, but figuratively, like affliction, punishment, &c. it can be said to be poured upon, and we may be said to be immersed in it, and both phrases may be used even in the same instance. For illustration-the people revolt against their governor-he proclaims that unless they return, he will in twenty-four hours pour out upon them affliction unparalleled. When the time has partly elapsed, he announces that unless they surrender he will immerse them in suffering, punishment, or affliction. Here pouring and immersing do not become words of the same meaning. In the first instance the announcement indicates that the punishment will come upon them from the governor in the second, the extent, the fulness, the overwhelming nature of it is intimated. It may be added, that the Holy Spirit is represented as poured out, on the same principle on which God is said to have come down from heaven, or to look down from heaven, or to have hands and arms. It is in accommodation to our ways of thinking and speaking, and not as expressive of reality. The Holy Spirit is also said to be as dew. Does this imply that there is a likeness to the falling of dew in the manner of the communication of the Holy Ghost? Our Lord represents the Spirit as a well, the waters of which spring up (John iv. 14.) Is there also a likeness in the manner of the communication of the Spirit to water rising up out of the ground, as well as to water poured out from above? The Spirit, in every figure, takes the manner of the resembling object, but the resembling object never takes the manner of the Spirit, because nothing is known of that manner. Of this there must not be cannot be any likeness. If the manner of the communication of the Spirit could be represented, one only of these modes must be employed. If his manner is pouring, it cannot be like dew, nor like rain, nor like a river, nor like a spring-well. But if the likeness be merely between the effects of the Spirit and the effects of water, then the Spirit may be represented as dew, or rain, or a river, or a spring well, just as the water is supposed to be applied. It is absurd to suppose an ordinance to be appointed to represent the mode of the Spirit's communication; and as it is spoken of under all these modes, each of them might claim an ordinance as well as pouring. Baptism might as well represent water rising out of the earth, distilling in dew, running in a stream, or falling in rain as pouring out of a cup. Each of these represents the blessings (or fulness) of the Spirit, by conforming the language about the operations of the Spirit to a particular state of the water none of them represent the mode of these operations. Holy Spirit is said to fall-why, then, should not baptism represent falling? The Holy Spirit is represented as wind --why, then, is there no blowing in baptism? The But though the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a figurative baptism, to which there cannot be a likeness in literal baptism; yet, as respects the day of Pentecost, the disciples were completely covered by the emblems of the Spirit. Now, though there was no dipping of them, yet, as they were completely surrounded by the wind and fire, by the catachrestic* mode of speech, they are said to be immersed. This is a process *Catachresis signifies excess. "A catachresis words too far doth strain." This figure is often found in the Bible. Two exemplified with respect to innumerable words, and the principle is quite obvious, as well as of daily application. The shepherd, when his sheep are covered with snow in a glen, says they are buried in the snow. When a house falls upon the inhabitants, we say that they are buried in its ruins. A general will threaten to bury the inhabitants in the ruins of their city. The word bury, with us, strictly conveys the notion of digging into the earth, as well as of covering over the dead. Yet here it is extended to a case in which the former does not take place. Burial is usually performed by both operations, but here the thing is performed by one; and therefore the word that designates both, is elegantly assigned to that which serves the purpose of both. Just so with respect to being covered with a fluid. Immersion denotes that the thing immersed is put into the immersing substance; yet when the same effect is produced without the manner of the operation, the usual name of the operation is catachrestically given to the result. Virgil's expression," Pocula sunt fontes liquidi," (Georg. iii. p. 529) is an exact parallel "The liquid fountains are their cups," &c. Now fountains are not cups, more than the thing referred to is immersion, yet they are called cups, because in the instance referred to they serve the purpose of cups. There is another grand fallacy in this argument. It confounds things that are different. Water is poured out into a vessel in order to have things put into it. But the pouring out of the water, and the application of the water so poured out, are different things. Water is poured into a bath, in order to immerse the feet or body, but the immersion is not the pouring. Now, our opponents confound these two things. Because the Spirit is said to be poured out in order to the baptism of the Spirit, they groundlessly conclude that the pouring is the baptism. A foreigner might as well contend that, when it is said in the English language, "Water was poured into a bath, and they immersed themselves," it is implied that pouring and immersing are the same thing." as Take another assertion from the Advocate. "If to baptize be a specific term, always meaning the same act, that act is to pour out, to shed forth. If it be a generic term, signifying the thing done as to purify-without reference to the manner of doing it, then the mode is fixed by other terms to pour out, to send forth." Baptizo is a specific term, and yet no instance in all its history can be produced of its meaning to pour; this, then, is mere assertion, shameless impudence, or shameful ignorance. It cannot, on the other hand, be a generic term, meaning to purify, or to wash, because it is frequently used in connection with things which not only do not purify or cleanse, but which contaminate and defile. It is used, as ALL admit, to signify immersion, and being specific, cannot represent any other action. We are told that the term immersion does not occur in the authorised version of God's Book. True, baptizo, in that version, is never translated immerse, sprinkle, or pour-and why not? Because the translators did not dare to give either of the two latter words, and their practice and their master would not permit them to translate it by the first. Though charged with presumption, we thus set up the dictates of common sense against the nonsense of the Advocate. We do not say that Christ did not baptize in the Holy Spirit, but that he did, and that that act of the administrator's which is called immersion was not pouring-and that pouring is never called baptism; and thus we leave the Advocate, with its profound discovery that pouring is the only immersion, for if it has proved anything it has proved nothing less. NEW CHURCH VALOR AND THE WIGAN DISCUSSION. THE REV. T. Smithson and the Rev. W. Woodman, though members of the church of Swedenborg, which claims to be the crown of all churches, will certainly not gain a crown in regard to the recent discussion, if it be required that those who strive shall do so fairly. These gentlemen, we regret to say, act as do those who fear to trust their cause in fair and equal conflict. deemed it unnecessary to insert Mr. King's one moderate letter in answer to some fourteen columns, and therefore invited his Rev. Brother to reply to it, meaning, perhaps, such parts of it as he might think manageable, which Mr. Woodman did in part, promising to return to his task next month. Would it not be better to devote the Repository to reprints of Swedenborg's " Memorable Relations," so that it might avoid every approach to controversy, as it dares not print an explanatory and defensive letter from a person whom it has attacked, or, as it fears to print the very letter it sets itself to reply to? THE STOCK IN TRADE OF Some of our readers know that a pub lic discussion on baptism came off in Wigan last December, in consequence of the New Church party having pursued Mr. David King with that end in view. The Rev. W. Woodman was chosen their representative, and the debate, which lasted three evenings, was concluded by warm expressions of satisfaction on both sides, in regard to the Christian deportment of the disputants. Neither party published any report of the debate, and thus it was supposed to have terminated. After some months, however, Mr. King, by mere accident, discovered that Mr. Woodman had been re-doing the discussion in the pages of the Intellectual Repository, edited by Mr. Smithson-commercial aspect? Certainly we may, that in this good work he had been and perhaps the only proper view is aided by another, who did not give his that of another "British-bank" comname-and that they had placed to Mr. pany, trading with capital not its own, King's account that which he had not and upholding certain directors whose presented, and omitted the very pith of hands are pretty deep in the till. HowSome of the arguments they were pleased ever this may be, its dire poverty is fully to insert. For several months part of known to those who have audited its the Repository was devoted to this re- accounts-its prizes are all blanks—in discussion, the one party of course sup-regard to a future life, blank-in relaplying both sides, without sending a copy to Mr. King, or in any way informing him of their labor of love." AND may we view secularism in a tion to morals, blank (making shew of samples purloined from Christianity)---in knowledge, in science, intellect, and About the middle of March that gen- true secular good, blank-nothing of tleman wrote to the Repository, com- good does secularism bring-it finds plaining of the course taken, and cor- upon the door-step of Christianity a recting some of the statements, &c. but few crumbs, and throws them as bait, neither attempting nor proposing to re- having nothing else, save its own poidiscuss the subject. The May issue in- soned hook, which the unwary may timated that Mr. King's letter was too grasp to their present and future deslate for that number. The June num-truction. One of its priests (secularber did not, however, contain it, but intimated that a reply was in the hands of the printer, and Mr. King received an invitation from Mr. W. Woodman to re-discuss the subject of baptism by private letters, which both parties might do what they pleased with after the correspondence had closed. Mr. King considered it proper not to answer this communication until it should be known whether his letter would ever get so far as "the hands of the printer." The Repository for July came Mr. King's paper inserted? No! but, the first part of Mr. Woodman's reply to it was there. Mr. Smithson, it seems, ism has priests, - Papal and Pagan priestisms furnish not worse samples) recently said at a meeting, "Friends, there are many of you so circumstanced in business that you cannot announce your principles, what you are must not be known-some of us, on the other hand, have devoted ourselves to the open advocacy of our cause, the least you can do is to help us from your purse let me call upon you then to pay in advance for my paper, which is worthy of your support. Not one exhortation to moral heroism-conceal your principles, act the coward, pay for my paper and be first class secularists. In regard to the blank prizes of secularism, we cannot do better than reproduce the recently penned words of an excellent contemporary. 66 66 'The word secularism may be understood in either of two senses; and according as it is understood in the one sense or in the other, it is a very good thing or a very bad thing. It may be understood, in the first place, as the sum total of our temporal interests, and as therefore inclusive of all comfort and happiness appropriate to this present state of being. Now, this is a kind of secularism which the system called Secularism" in no respect brings us; for Christianity has brought us all this already, of the purest quality and to the utmost extent which the nature and circumstances of man will permit. The very quintessence of earthly happiness, for example, is to be found within the sanctuary of home. And this throughout all its relationships-this, which the system of Socialism attempts to overthrow-Christianity has fenced round with its most sacred sanctions, and blessed with its sweetest, richest, and largest benedictions. Name the benignant relationship which Christianity does not sanction, the comfort or true pleasure which it does not permit. It only forbids the excess,--the point where pleasure ends and pain begins. The most Christian home, other things being equal, is ever the happiest home. The most Christian husband, wife, parent, brother, sister, or child, is always, other things being equal, the happiest and the best. The Christian tradesman, too, or mechanic, or professional man, is always, other things being equal, the most useful and successful. Secularists refer to our social wrongs, forgetting that our asylums, infirmaries, hospitals, and innumerable other charitable institutions, were unknown in the world till Christianity, like an angel of mercy, descended and gave them. Secularists plead for the rest of the Sabbath"the poor man's day"--but quietly keep their thumb on the fact that, considered even as a secular blessing, the world owes the Sabbath wholly and solely to the religion of the Bible. Secularists claim the right, when sick, to call in the doctor, instead of the minister, as if Christianity ever stood between them and the doctor; nay, as if Chris tianity did not make it imperative to use the doctor, or the proper means of cure for the body, as well as the minister, or other spiritual help, for the soul. Secularists often speak of the good which Christians and Christian ministers might do if they would only work in the Secularist field, instead of the theological field; as if the theological field did not include the golden mine of the truest secularism, or as if ministers in particular, and Christians in general, were not prominent in every walk of practical benevolence. And here, by the way, let us ask in passing, what has Secularism done, what is it doing, or what is it proposing to do, in this practical field? Where are its moral trophies-its hospitals, charities, missions, or other benevolent institutions? It has a printing-office here and there to enlighten the world withal, and lectures enough with the same benevolent view. So far well; but how happens it that, with the same secularistic, benevolent, business-like pretensions, it writes and talks so much, and accomplishes so little? Is it consistent -can it really be sincere-to talk a thousand words against Christianity for one in favour of any real concrete public good, and pretend all the while to have a positive side? Why does it not plunge into the luxury of positive practical good doing, and leave Christianity quietly to die out in its own time? Why does it not, considering that Christianity would not at all stand in the way of any of its benevolent aims? Above all, why does it not, when the present life is short, and when this life is its all, instead of spending it in the chiefly speculative walks of barren and bootless discussion against a system which does not stand in the way, but is ever ready to furnish any substantial scheme of social secularistic melioration? "But suppose Secularists were as zealous as possible in every conceivable field of practical benevolence, what, after all, would they bring which Christianity has not brought to far better purpose before them? As much as in you lies, do good unto all men ;' 'To do good, and to communicate, forget not?? -Can Secularism bring anything that is not briefly comprehended in these sayings, and enforced in detail in other statements of the Bible? |