Newspaper Page Text
September 27, 1911 ] THE
Now, suppose you had never heard of baptism
you would know nothing about it, not even
that good men differed about its meaning or mode
or subjects. Suppose you find a Bible and begin
to read in Matthew. When you come to the third
chapter and find that John baptized (v. (i) a
multitude of people, you would be mystified as to
what he did to them. Just try now to divest your
mind of all you have ever heard on the subject
Olid let the Bible m?ke its own imnmiminn oo
you study it and pray for the JSpirit "to guide
you into all truth."
First ask who was "John the baptist," and
who were the people he baptized* The Book
shows they were all Jews. John as a regularly
descended Jewish priest. See Luke 1: 5. Both
father and mother were descended from Aaron.
Read on in Matthew three, v. 11: " I indeed baptize
you with water"?(there! whatever he did
it was "with water") "unto repentance"?(it
must have been a religious ceremony)?"he shall
baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire."
Hence, you conclude, whatever he did "with
water," " he that cometh after'' was to do " with
the Holy Ghost." Certainly right go far. Here
you find some references that may throw light on
what was done to these people "confessing their
sins." Acts 1:5- It is the Risen Lord speaking.
"For John truly baptized with water, but ye
shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many
days hence-'' No additional light yet. It is still
uupuzeu wnn water" and "with the LLoly
Ghost." When was this? "Forty days after
his passion." v. 3. Feverishly you read on and
find, "when the day of Pentecost was fully
come" you look back and find that Pentecost
was fifty days after the passover. (Lev. 23:
11, 15, 16.) It was ten days, then, after Christ
had said "not many days hence," and John's
words were fulfilled, for Christ sent the Holy
Spirit "from heaven" in the form of "cloven
tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of
them. Chapter 2:1-3. Later Peter explains to
the wandering multitude (v. 16) that it was fulfilling
a prophesy which said (v. 17, Joel 2: 28) :
"I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh,"
&c. Again in v. 33, he says, Jesus, "having received
of the Father the promise of the Holy
dknof l.ofU l:_i ^
uuw o?</u nv mas wiiicu ye uuw see ana
hear." Another reference points you to Acts
10: 44: * * "the Holy Ghost fell on all them
which heard the word." In explaining his conduct
in going in to men uncireumcised, Peter
said (Acts 11:15, 16): "As I began to speak,
the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Then remembered I the word of the
Lord, how He said, John indeed baptized with
water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy
Ghost." Now, you say, here is light on what
John was doing when he baptized all those Jews.
You rightly reach the only conclusion possible;
that, if the words used by the Holy Spirit, "came
from heaven," "sat upon," "pour out." "shed
forth" and "fell on," correctly describe the manner
(or mode) in which Christ baptized "with
the Holy Ghost," then they must also correctly
describe the way in which John baptized "with
water"?as "with" the one, so "with" the
other. John must have used the water in the
very manner his God had commanded, and in
which the Jews had been using it for fifteen hundred
years, to signify the cleansing of the heart
from sin. He shed it forth, or sprinkled it, and
"it sat upon each of them." Would he have
J 3 3 _ Ui -1 O TIT 13 *1 1 1
iiareu uti tiugm eise i wuuia iney nave SUDmitted
to it if he had?
Gravity is only the bark of wisdom, but it
preserves it.?Confucius.
lie praised me at a time when praise was of
value to me.?Samuel Johnson.
PRESBYTERIAN OF THE SO
THE AMERICAN REVISERS AGAIN.
BY UEV. J. \V. MOSEL.EY, SB.
Dr. Ley bum in his just contention omitted one
good argument which we will produce.
The other proofs were more or less circumstantial,
this is the declaration of a direct witness.
Dr. Schaaf (president at one time of the
theological school of whiclrl am an alumnus) was
also president of the committee of American Re
visers ana controlled on account of his great literary
reputation, very largely the action and decisions
of the committee. He was a distinguished
scholar and church historian but a very
poor Presbyterian. Ilis birth place was Switzerland
amongst the splendors of Geneva and her
immortal John Calvin.
Nevertheless he was an immersionist and weak
Calvinist, indeed he seemed to have an aversion
to Calvin. Dr. Yollmer in Calvin's life, says of
Dr. Schaaf, "On the whole he shows little sympathy
for Calvin," p. 110. This may show why
he agreed to blot out the doctrine of predestination
in Romans and Gphesians. But it is not this
which concerns us now, it is his views of Baptism.
Dr. Johnson, in his Apostolic Mode of Baptism,
expresses himself thus: 11 His great literary
skill and huge capacity for labor, were not conx
It -ii i ' *
ironea oy a aeep msigiit into his subject, by a
profundity of thought, nor by logical powers of
the highest order. Instead of making first hand
investigations, he was too much given to the reproduction
of other men's views." This accounts
for his admiration of everything German
and contempt for American scholarship. But he
continues, "The intelligent reader never accepts
a conclusion of Dr. Schaaf until he himself has
examined the evidence," &o. But as all readers
are not intelligent, many are in danger of being
misled by the works of Dr. Schaaf." Then he
quotes from first volume of Schaaf's Church History
: '' The usual form of baptism was immersion."
And attempts to support this by arguments.
(a) Definition of baptizo. (b) Form of
John's baptism- (c) Baptism at the Red Sea.
(d) 1 Pet. 3:21. Baptism doth now save us.
(e) Burial and resurrection, Rom. 6:4, &c. (f)
General custom of the ancient Church. Any one
can see this is a mere rehash of the old arguments
of Campbell and Carson. In a foot note Dr.
Schaaf says: "In the figurative phrase Baptizein
en pneumati to be overwhelmed, plentifully endowed
with the Holy Spirit, the idea of immersion
is scarcely admissible since the Holy Spirit
is poured out."
(a) The baptism of the Spirit does not teach
that any one is "overwhelmed." The apostles
were never more free, more splendidly illuminated
or more delighted than on the day of Pentecost.
"Webster defines the word, "To overspread
or crush beneath something that covers,
to immerse, and bear down, crush, subdue, sub
merge, to drown." Dr. Schaaf was a German.
It is not expected of him to be always accurate
in his English. Does the average American believe
that in the baptism of the Spirit a man is
crushed beneath something that covers, or that
he is inmicised into a thing or borne dcwn. subdued,
submerged or drowned? No, he believes
no such thing, because it would not be the truth.
The Spirit regenerates, quickens, purifies, sanctifies,
elevates, enlightens and fills one with Joy unspeakable
Rom. 14:17. "For the kingdom of
God is not meat and drink; but righteousness,
and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." These
are the very opposites to "overwhelm."
tt? *T ? -* " '
aVj auiuna inert; are places in tne niDlC
where immersion is "scarcely admissible." "Well,
be consistent and carry it through the New Testament
then it will be easy to see Jesus was not
immersed and no necessity for the exhibition of
partisan ism in the text.
> U T H (915) 3
(c) "Baptizein en pueumati agio" is a figurative
expression as lie tells us. 1 am sorry Dr. S.
ever allowed himself in this matter to be so misled.
it is the most profound and real thing ever
seen on this earth except a creative act. From
Booth down to (Jarson, and from Carson down to
Broadus this subterfuge has been employed to
escape the force of baptism by the Spirit as represented
in the Scriptures, if it is a figure then
therfi wna nn hnntiom of oil li-11 ''
uk an. uaausc 111 UUL llgurative
language the literal statement is a falsehood.
Homer says, "Achilles was a lion," but
would any one be so silly as to believe that
Achilles had four feet, a shaggy main and a long
tail? Certainly not. Dr. Hugh Blair, of Scotland,
defining a figure of speech, says: "A trope
(or figure) consists in a word's being used to
signify something different from its original
meaning." Example- "Light arises to the upright
in darkness.'' Here the figure is in " Light
and darkness, "not being taken literally." That
is the literal statement is not true. Again quoting
from Dr. Young, "When we dip too deep in
oleas 11 rp wp nluioua ? .....1:??*
A ? ? .. w ma?? u.j u obxx ci> ocuiiiiciil impure unci
noxious." It is evident no man can dip himself
into pleasure or stir up its noxious sediment.
"In the fourth place we must never jumble
metaphorical and plain language together," (p.
85) that is, do not mix the real with the unreal,
the true with the false. He gives a beautiful example
from Oxian: '4 Trothal went forth with
the stream of his people, but they met a rock;
for Fin gal stood unmoved; broken they rolled
back." It is not true that the people were a
"stream," or that they met a "rock." It was
Fingal with his powerful army whom they met
and were defeated, thus hurled back. Speaking
of some great statesman we say, "He is the pillar
of the State." But a State has no "pillars," and
if it did a man would make a very worthless one.
Still it is a beautiful metaphor and we perfectly
understand what is meant. When Dr. S. tells
us baptized by the Spirit is figurative language
he talks about something of which he knows little
or nothing.
Dr. Johnson, on page 3, "This is the whole aca*
AL- J
wuui, ui uie rnoue 01 oaptism given by Dr. S.,"
&e., then adds, "It is superficial, hasty, incorrect
and calculated to mislead careless and poorly
informed readers." But we are not yet down
with these scriptural figures and figments.
We translate 1 Cor. 10:1: "For I do not wish
you to be ignorant brethren (of the fact) that
our fathers were all under the cloud, and all
passed through the sea, and were all baptized into
Moses, by means of the cloud and by means of
the sea, all ate the same spiritual food," &c.
The Baptists claim that this baptism was figurative
and therefore not real. I hold and believe
that it was just as real as the baptisms of John
or Christ. Paul says it was a baptism, but if it
is figurative then there was no baptism; for we
have before made it plain that where the language
is figurative the literal statement is not
true.
I do not pretend to be able to tell wVi?
baptizer was though I believe it was the Messiah.
I may not be able to tell how it was performed,
except that it was done by means of the cloud
and by means of the sea. There was no immersion,
no submergence, no plunging, no drowning,
but a real baptism and that even according to
the Greek and Hellenistic tongue. There was a
deep and abiding change coming over the people;
they became forever separated from the rest of
the world; from slaves they became a free and
independent nation, from Egyptians they became
Jews, from rebels and unbelievers they became
submissive believers in God and Moses.
Again, according to Greek usage, the Egyptians
were all baptized but not into Moses. They
(Continued on page 11). _