.^vw*''i ^l \U Wmb^icnj ^ PRINCETON, N. J. '''< % Shelf. BV 800 .A8 Armstrong, George D. 1813- 1899. The sacraments of the New Testament THE SSCRSMENTS NEW TESTAMENT INSTITUTED BY CHRIST. GEORGE D; ARMSTRONG, D. D,, PASTOR OF THE 1 IKST PRESBYTEEIAJJ ilIUBCH OK NORFOI-K, VA. NEW YORK: A. C. ARMSTRONG & SON, 714 Broadway. 1880. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1880, by A. C. ARMSTRONG & SON, the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C. PREFACE. In the following treatise on the Sacraments of the New Testament, tlw author's aim has been to give a discussion of the subject: — First. — Thoroughly Scriptural. — Ever)' passage of Scripture which can properly claim attention in a full and fair examination of the sub- ject is considered, and a correct exposition of it attempted. The "Word of God, and that alone, can bind the faith of the Church in this matter, and to the "Word of God, and to that alone, is our appeal made. The Sacraments as instituted by Christ, were corrupted at a very early date, (see 1 Cor. xi. 17-34) and hence, what is called "primitive practice," and the authority, even of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, is of little worth in settling questions respecting their form and nature. Second. — Adapted to thei^resent state of the controversies in the Church. — Where controversy is long continued : — and the controversy between Fiomanists and Protestants respecting the Lord's Supper dates back to the very beginning of "the Reformation"; and that between Baptists and Pedobaptists, respecting the proper mode and subjects of baptism, to a time not much later, — it always happens, that new grounds of defence are occupied, and new arguments of assault are introduced from time to time; and hence it comes that the discussion which was thorough and exhaustive a century ago, does not meet the necessities of to-day. In the following treatise, the author has aimed to deal with the several doctrines discussed, as they are presented and defended by their leading advocates of to-day. Third. — Popular, i.e., adapted to the comprehension of the average English reader. The matters discussed are of interest to all Christian iv Frcface. people ; and in our day and country, Home, changing her tactics, is appealing to the people, through popular treatises in defence of her doctrine of salvation through the Hacraments. For this reason, a popu- lar treatise on the sacraments, setting forth and defending what Protes- tants regard as scriptural views of their nature, seems to be called for. The present work was commenced more than twi^nty years ago; and a portion of the treatise on Baptism was then wi'itten out and published under the title of "The Doctrine of Baptisms." This part has been c-arefully revised, and the whole work, a-s originally designed, completed : and is now given to the public, with the hope that it may prove of ser- vice, especially to young ministers, and Sabbath-school teachers, in helping them to a clear understanding of the Scripture doctrine of tba Sacraments THE DOCTRINE OF BAPTISMS." CONTENTS. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. Question respecting the Mode of Baptism— Queatibn respecting the Subjects of Baptism— Translation Question— Baptismal Regeneration xi f nrt fuBl TRANSLATION QUESTION. CHAPTER I. gl. Statement of the Question, g 2. Limitation to Bap^izo- Reasons for this. g3. Limitation to Baptizo used as a religious Term— Reasons for this— History of the Hellenistic Greek, g 4. Radical Fallacy in the Baptist Argument 1 CHAPTER II. g 5. Jno. iii. 25, 26. Katharizo (to purify,) used as a synonym for baptizo. g 6. Jno. i. 19-25. Confirmation of this sense of baptizo. g7. Significance of John's si- lence respecting the nature of baptism 13 CHAPTER III. Mosaic Laws of Purification. §8. Rites of personal Purification. g9. Rites of Purification for inanimate Thiners. glO. Purification by bathing and washing, g 11. EflTects of Purification. gl2. Definition of the Term purifu (knthnrizo). g 13. Definition of the Term baptize {baptizo), as used in the Word of God 20 CHAPTER IV. Use of Baptizo in the Sepluagint version of the Old Testament. 214. 2 Kings V. 14. gl5. Ecclesiasticus xxxiv. 25. g 16. Judith xii. 7. § 17. Isai.ih xxi 4 28 vu viii Contents. CHAPTER V. Use of Baptizo in the New Testament to signify Mosaic Purifications. J 18. Mark 7ii. 4, and Luke xi. 38. g 19. Hebrews ix. 10. g 20, Hebrews vi. 2.... 37 CHAPTER VI. Figurative A2:>plications of the word Baptizo. g 21. Christ's Baptism in his Death, Matt. xx. 20-23 ; Mark x. 38, 39 ; and Luke xii. 50. g 22. Baptism " unto Moses," 1 Cor. x. 2. g 23. Baptism in the Ark, 1 Pet. iii. 21 45 CHAPTER VII. Baptism with the Holy Ghost and ivith Fire. 1 24. Matt. iii. 11 ; Mark i. 8 ; Luke iii. IG ; John i. 26, 33 ; Acts i. 4-8, 22 ; ii. 1-4, IS- IS, 32, 33 ; X. 44-48 ; xi. 15, 16 56 CHAPTER VIII. Use of Baptizo in a Spiritual Sense. §25. 1 Cor. xii. 13. g26. Gal. ill. 27. §27. Eph. iv. 5. §28. Origin of the Doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration 64 CHAPTER IX. All Water Baptisms in their Nature Purifications. g 29. " The Baptism of Repentance." Matt. iii. 7, 8, 11 ; Mark i. 4 ; Luke iii. 7, 8, 12; Luke vii. 29, 30; Matt. xxi. 25; Mark xi. 30; Acts i. 22; Acts xiii. 21; Acts x. 37; Acts xix. 1-7; Acts xviii. 24-26. g30. Christ's Baptism by John. Matt. iii. 14-17 ; Mark i. 9-11 ; Luke iii. 21, 22 ; John i. 32, 32. g 31. Christian Baptism. Acts ii. 41 ; Acts viii. 12-16 ; Acts xviii. 8 69 Summing up— Conclusion 77 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. CHAPTER I. §32. Statement of the Question— ? 33. Arguments relied on to prove that Immer- sion is essential to valid Baptism 83 Contents. ix CHAPTER II. Symbolic Import of Baptism. g34. Rom. Ti. 3, 4; Col. ii. 12. §35. Rom. vi. 3, 4. §36. Col. ii. 12. 237. 1 Cor. X7. 29 86 CHAPTER III. J38. John's Baptisms in Jordan. Matt. iii. 1-6; Mark i. 4-10; Luke iii. 3, 21. John i. 28, I. 40. §39. John's Baptisms at ^non. John iii. 23. §40. The Baptism of the Eunuch. Acts viii. 36-39 101 CHAPTER IV. J41. The Baptism of the three thousand in Jerusalem. Acts ii.38, 41. §42. Paul's Baptism, Acts ix. 17, 18; xiii. 12-16. §43. The Baptism of Cornelius, Acts x. 44- 48. §44. The Baptism of the Jailer at Philippi, Acts xtL 32-34 113 Summing up— Conclusion 119 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE. The Practice of Immersion in Early Times 124 %hxi (l^iiirh. TEE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. CHAPTER I. g45. Statement of the Question, and of the Arguments relied on by Baptists and Pedo-Baptists „ 131 CHAPTER II. {4€. Christ's commission to his Church, Matt, xxviii. 19, 20; Mark xvi. 15, 16; Luke xxiv. 47-49 ., 133 CHAPTER III. ?4T. Is the import of Baptism inconsistent with its administration to Infants? Acts xxii. 16, and Deut. xxx. 6. Gal. iii. 27, and Rom. ii. 28, 29. 1 Cor. xii.13, and Rom. iv. 11. Col. ii. 12, and Col. ii. 11 138 CHAPTER IV. 248. Essential Character of the visible Church. §49. Nature of Church Member- •hip in X Contents. CHAPTER V. Relation of the Church under the New to that under the Old Testament Dispensation. . 2 50. The Charter of the Church unchanged, g 51. Scriptural Representations. g52. The first Christian Church but the Old Testament Church purged of tlie Apostasy , 148 CHAPTER VI. §53. Christ's Recognition of Infant Membership in the Church. Matt. xix. 13-15. Mark X. 13-16. Luke xviii. 15-17. ? 54. Christ's re-commission of Peter. John xxi. 15. §55. Peter's preaching of Christian Baptism. Acts ii. 38, 39 and iii. 24- 26. §56. Significant Silence of the Jews _ 158 CHAPTER VII. Infant Membership Recognized hy giving to Children the peculiar Titles Belonging to Church Members. §57. Names given to Church Members in Scripture. §58. Eph. i. 1, and vi. 1-3 ; Col. i. 1, 2, and iii. 20. § 59. Titus i. 6. ? 60. 1 Cor. vii. 12-U 169 CHAPTER VIII. § 61. Family Baptisms. Acts xvi. 14, 15, and 32-34 ; 1 Cor. i. 13-17 180 Summing up — Conclusion 184 furl /nnrtti. BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. CHAPTER I. Rites and Ceremonies of Romish Baptism. §62. Romish Baptism, its Rites and Ceremonies 191 CHAPTER II. Baptismal Regeneration Tested by Scripture. g63. Baptismal Regeneration defined. §64. John iii 3-7. § 65. Eph. v. 25-27. §66. Titus iii. 5, 6. § 67. Acts xxii. 16. § 68. Acts ii. 37, 38. § 69. Rom. v. 12-14 198 CHAPTER III. Sacramental Grace. § 70. Grace conferred " ex opere operate." §71. Infant Salvation. §72. Baptismal Regeneration Contradicted by Experience and Observation. §73. "Another Gospel." 220 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT, The Christian world lias long been divided in sentiment, on the question — What constitutes a valid Christian bap- tism ? All agree, that in Christian baptism, there must be an application of water to the person of the baptized ; and that this application must be made "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." The difference is — First. Respecting the mode in which this water is to be applied; some contending that in order to valid baptism, the subject must be immersed; others, while admitting the validity of baptism by immersion, hold, that the ap- plication of water by sprinkling or pouring, constitutes a baptism equally valid; — and that to require immersion, in order to admission to the Church of God, is to infringe upon that Christian "liberty wherewith Christ hath made his people free;" and to "teach for doctrine, the com- mandments of men." This is the difference between the Baptist, and,, what may be called the Non-Baptist churches. Second. Respecting the proper subjects of bajjtism; some contending that none but such as make a credible profession of their faith in Christ, are proper subjects of baptism; others, holding that, "not only those that do actually profess faith in, and obedience unto Christ, but xi xii Preliminary Statement. also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized " (Presbyterian Confession of Faith, Ch. xxviii., Art. 4). This is the difference between the Baptist, and that large portion of the Pedo-Baptist churches, to which the Presbyterian church belongs. A controversy, on these two points, has long existed in the Christian Church. In support of their doctrine, that immersion is essential to a valid Christian baptism. Bap- tist writers affirm, that the word baptizo (the word in the original Greek corresponding to baptize in our English version) "has but one signification — it always signifies to cZip, never expressing anything but mode;" and hence, they argued, that to speak of baptism by sprinkling or pouring, is to be guilty of a contradiction in terms, just such as there would be in speaking of dipping, by sprink- ling or pouring. Thus, does the question respecting the proper translation of baptizo enter as an element, and a most important element, too, into the decision of the ques- tion respecting the mode of baptism. On such a version as our commonly received English version, in which the Greek baptizo has been simply An- glicized and transferred, persons differing in opinion re- specting the meaning of the word, may unite, without any compromise of principle ; and had not the Foreign Mis- sionary work, in its progress, called for versions of the Bible in heathen tongues, the probability is, that no breach in the Church of God would ever have arisen from the "translation question." A breach, however, has been created by this question ; and the Baptist church, in our country, has withdrawn itself from the " Bible operations," in which all other Protestants are united, and formed the "American and Foreign Bible Society," for the express purpose of translating the word baptizo, by words corres- Preliminary Statement. xiii ponding to our word immerse, in all new versions of the Bible required for heathen lands. As a natural consequence of the formation of this Bible society, and more especially of the spirit in which they have pursued their work, we have, within the last few years, the formation of the "Bible Union," for the purpose of giving us a new English version of the Word of. God, in which, among other changes, the words immerse and immersion, shall be substituted for baptize and baptism. The American and Foreign Bible Society, at its anniver- sary, held x\pril 28th, 1840: ''Resolved, That by the fact, that the nations of the earth must now look to the Bap- tist denomination alone, for faithful translations of the Word of God, a responsibility is imposed upon them, de- manding for its full discharge, an unwonted degree of union, of devotion, and of strenuous persevering effort throughout the entire body." And in their Annual Ke- port, the society stigmatizes all the translations made for the heathen, excepting only such as may be published under Baptist auspices, as " versions, in which the real meaning of words is purposely kept out of sight, so that Baptists cannot circulate faithful versions, unless they print them at their own expense." And they add : "It is known that the British and Foreign Bible Society, and the American Bible Society, have virtually combined to ob- scure at least a part of the divine revelation, and continue to circulate versions of the Bible, unfaithfid, at least, so far as the subject of baptism is concerned." It is true, that a majority of those united in the "Ameri- can and Foreign Bible Society," condemn the new version movement, and declare that they are unwilling to see our venerable English version altered in a letter. And yet, we believe we do them no injustice, when we speak of the xiv Preliminary Statement. formation of the "Bible Union" as the natural conse- quence of the formation of their society, and of the spirit in which they have pursued their work; — and when we hold, not those engaged in the " new version " alone, hut the whole Baptist church, directly, a party to this trans- lation controversy. Here, then, we have a third point of difference, in which the Ba|)tist church stands as the one party, and all other Christian churches in our land, as the other. Besides these three points of diflference, there is a Fourth, "Baptismal Eegeneration," as it is popularly styled; in which the Evangelical Protestant churches are ranged on the one side, and the Latin and Greek churches, together with a party in the Protestant Episcopal church, represented by the authors of "The Oxford Tracts," are ranged on the other. The Evangelical Protestant churches agree in holding that Baptism is "a sign and seal of the covenant of grace," and that it symbolizes regeneration. The church of Eome teaches that " the Sacraments confer grace ex opere operato, by the act performed," and that "Baptism is the instrumental cause of justification," — • meaning by justification " not remission of sins merely, but also sanctification and renewal of the inward man." In the first editions of "The Doctrine of Baptisms," this fourth question was not discussed. In the present edi- tion, in order to make the work complete as a part of a treatise on the Sacraments of the New Testament, a "Fourth Part" has been added, in which the question of Baptismal Regeneration is carefully examined, like the questions previously considered, in the light of God's "Word, and God's Word alone. THE DOCTRINE OF BAPTISMS. CHAPTER I. Jl. Statement of the Question. ?2. Limitation to Baptizo. —Reasons for this. §3. Limitation to Bapfizo used as a religious Term— Reasons for this— His- tory of the Hellenistic Greek, g i. Radical Fallacy in the Baptist Argument. § 1. Statement of the Question. The word haptizo is a word used in the Scriptures to desig- nate the performance of a Christian rite, in which water is appHed to the body, in the name of the Trinity, Either this word is specific as to mode, Hke our EngHsh words, dip, sprinkle, pour ; or it is generic, denoting simply the production of an effect, like our English words, conse- crate, purify, cleanse. The Baptist affirms that haptizo is a specific term, that it " has bid one signification — it always signifies to dip, never expressing anything hut ')node." ' We affirm that haptizo, when used as a religious term (and it is always so used in the New Testament), is a generic term, having no reference to mode ; and hence, to translate it by dip, immerse, sprinkle or pour, will be to mis-translate the word of God. In this statement of the question, we have purposely limited it to the word haptizo, and to that word used as a religious term. * Carson on Baptism, p. 55. 2 The Doctrine of Baptisms. § 2. Question limited to baptizo. The question is limited to baptizo. Nothing is affirmed respecting bapto, a word frequently used by the sacred writers. This limitation is made for two reasons. First. The word baptizo, is the word invariably used, in the inspired Scriptures, when speaking of the rite of Christian baptism : the word bapto, although of frequent occurrence in the New Testament, is never applied to that ordinance. Even admitting, then, that bapto is the pri- mitive word, and baptizo a derivative from it, the fact that the sacred writers, when speaking of Christian bap- tism, always use the latter, and never in one instance the former, is strong presumptive evidence that they under- stood the words as differing in meaning. Second. Although most of the earlier Baptist writers contended as strenuously for the uniform modal meaning of bapto, as for that of baptizo, their later Avriters give up this point : and claim, and we think they do so fairly, that the word baptizo alone, is in controversy. Commenting on Dr. Gale's translation of bapto, as used by Homer, in his " Battle of the Frogs and the Mice," Dr. Carson translates the sentence in which the word occurs — " He fell and breathed no more, and the lake was tinged with blood ; " and adds : " To suppose that there is here any extravagant allusion to the literal immersion or dipping of a lake, is a monstrous perversion of taste. The lake is said to be dyed, not to be dipped, nor poured, nor sprinkled. Tliere is in the word no re- ference to mode. Had Baptists entrenched themselves here, they would have saved themselves much useless toil, and much false criticism, without straining to the im- peachment of their candor or their taste. What a mon- strous paradox in rhetoric is the figure of the dipping of a lake in the blood of a mouse ! Yet Dr. Gale supposes the lake dipped by hyperbole. 'The literal sense,' says he, 'is the lake was dipped in blood.' Never was there such a figure. The lake is not said to be dipped in blood, but to be dyed in blood." ' ' Carson on Baptism, p. 48. Question limited to Baptize. 3 In the portion of the " New Version " wliicli lias been published by the "Bible Union," Rev. xix. 13, in which the word bapto occurs, is translated — "And he was clothed with a garment dyed with blood; and his name is called The "Word of God." The substitution of the word dyed for dipped in this passage, we suppose may fairly be considered as a formal abandonment of the ground once maintained by Baptists, in so far as the word hapto is concerned. And as our purpose is, to treat the several questions respecting baptism, with reference to the posi- tions which the parties now occupy, we shall limit our ex- amination to baptizo alone. § 3. Question limited to bapttzo, used as a religious term. Words often change their meaning, with variations in the faith, sentiments, and manners of the people by whom they are used. As an instance of this, in our language, we may cite the words "religion" and "religious" — words which during the period of papal dominion in Great Britain, ha,d a meaning very different from that which they now have. " In former times," writes Trench, " a religious person, did not mean any one who felt and al- lowed the bonds which bound him to God and to his fellow man, but one who had taken peculiar vows upon him ; a member of one of the monkish orders. A reli- gious house did not mean, nor does it now mean in the Church of Rome, a Christian household, ordered in the fear of God, but a house in which these persons were gathered together according to the rule of some man, Benedict or Dominic, or some other, A religion, meant not a service of God, but an order of monkery; and taking the monastic vows, was termed going into a reli- gion. That, then, was religion, and nothing else was con- sidered deserving the name ! And religious, was a title which might not be given to parents and children, hus- bands and wives, men and women fulfilling faithfully and holily, in the world, the several duties of their stations, but only to those who had devised self-chosen services for themselves." * » Trench on the Study of Words, p. 19. 4 The Doctrine of Baptisms. Words used to designate officers in the cliurcli, or reli- gious rites and even doctrines, often acquire a meaning, when thus used, entirely different from their original meaning. This use of these terms, we call their religious, as contradistinguished from their secular use. Thus — the original meaning of the word bishop is overseer. In our language, it is used exclusively as a religious term ; and no one would think of speaking of a bishop of a cot- ton factory or of a southern plantation. The original meaning of the word elder, and its meaning now, when used as a secular term, is an old raayi. And yet I have known elders in the Baptist Church not twenty-one years of age. The original meaning of the word supper, and its meaning now, when used as a secular term, is, " the evening meal" (Webster). When, using it as a religious term, we speak of the sacrament of the supper — or, simply, the supper, we m3an a Christian rite, which is not a meal, and which in this country, is very frequently administered in the forenoon. Such changes in the meaning of words as these, are facts familiar to the student, in the history of every lan- guage. They take place, in consequence of changes in the faith, or manners and customs of a people, even where that people continue to speak the same language. But where a language comes to be spoken by a people of dif- ferent faith from those to whom it originally belonged, as, for example, a heathen language comes to be spoken by a Christian people, these changes in meaning are greatest and most frequent. Trench, in his work on "the Study of Words," gives some striking illustrations of these remarks. ''In the Greek language " — writes he — " there is a word for hu- mility : but this humility meant for the Creek, meanness of spirit. He who brought in the Christian grace of humility, did in so doing, rescue also the word which ex- presses it, for nobler uses, and to a far higher dignity than hitherto it had attained. There were Angels (mes- sengers), before heaven had been opened, but these only earthly messengers; martyrs (witnesses) also, but not witnesses unto blood, nor yet for God's highest truth;- £aj)tizo used as a Religloiis Term. 5 apostles (those sent), but sent of men ; advocates (plead- ers), but not with ' the Father.' Paradise, was a word common, in slightly ditTerent forms, to almost all the nations of the East ; but they meant by it only some royal park or garden of delights ; till for the Jews, it was exalted to signify the wondrous abode of our first pa- rents ; and higher honors awaited it still, when on the lips of the Lord, it signified the blissful waiting- place of the faithful departed souls (Luke xxiii. 43) : Yea, the hea- venly blessedness itself (Rev. ii. 7). Nor was the word regeneration unknown to the Greeks. They could speak of the earth's regeneration in the spring-time; and of memory as the regeneration of knowledge. The Jewish historian could describe the return of his countrymen from the Babylonian captivity, and their re-establish- ment, under Cyrus, in their own land, as the regeneration of the Jewish state; but still, the word, on the lips of either Jew or Greek, was very far removed from that honor reserved for it in the Christian dispensation — namely, that it should be the bearer of one of the chiefest and most blessed mysteries of the faith. And many other words, in like manner, there are, ' fetched from the very dregs of paganism,' as one has said, which words the Holy Ghost has not refused to employ for the setting forth of the great truths of redemption. Reversing in this, the impious deed of Belshazzar, who profaned the sacred vessels of God's house to sinful and idolatrous uses (Dan. V. 2), that blessed Spirit has often consecrated the veiy idol vessels of Babylon to the service of the sanc- tuary." ^ The remark is made by one of the ablest modern criti- cal scholars, " Classical use, both in Greek and Latin, is not only in this study" — i. e. the critical study of the New Testament — "sometimes unavailable, but may even mislead. The sacred use and the classical are often very different." ^ That we may have a clearer understanding of this sub- * Trench on the Study of Words, pp. 46, 47. ' Campbell on the Gospels, vol. i. p. 58. 6 The Doctrine of Baptisms. ject, and especially that we may see wliither we must look for reliable authority in the interpretation of the words of the New Testament, let us glance at the history of the Hellenistic Greek, or Greek of the synagogue, as it has been called, the peculiar Greek in which the New Testa- ment is written. " The persecutions with which the Jews were harassed under Antiochus Epiphanes, concurring with several other causes, occasioned the dispersion of a great part of their nation throughout the provinces of Asia Minor ; Assyria, Phoenicia, Persia, Arabia, Lybia, and Egypt; which dis- persion was, in process of time, extended to Achaia, Ma- cedonia and Italy." (For the state of things in our Lord's day, see Acts ii. 5-11.) '' The unavoidable conse- quence of this was, in a few ages, to all those who settled in distant lands, the total loss of that dialect which their fathers had brought out of Babylon into Palestine. But this is to be understood, with the exception of the learned, who studied the Oriental language by books." " At length a complete version of the Scriptures of the Old Testament was made into Greek ; a language which was then, and continued for many ages afterwards, in far more general use than any other. This is what is called the Sept'uagint, or version of the seventy (probably be- cause approved by the Sanhedrim) which was begun, by order of Ptolemy Philadelphus, King of Egypt, for the Alexandrian Library," (about 269 b. c). At first, no more than the Pentateuch was translated, which was soon followed by a version of the other books. This is doubt- less the first translation that was attempted of the Sacred Writings." "It will readily be imagined, that all the Jews who in- habited Grecian cities, where the Oriental tongues were unknown, would be solicitous to obtain copies of this translation. To excite in them this solicitude, patriotism would concur with piety, and indeed almost every motive that could operate upon men." " Let us attend to the consequences which would na- turally follow. Wherever Greek was the mother tongue, this version would come to bs used, not only in private in Baptizo used as a Religious Term. 7 Jewish houses, but also iu public in their schools and synagogues, in the explanation of the weekly lesson from the Law and the Prophets. The style of it would consequently soon become the standard of language to them, on religious subjects. Hence would arise a certain uniformity in phraseology and idiom among the Grecian Jews, wherever dispersed, with regard to their religion and sacred rites ; whatever were the particular dialects which prevailed in the places of their residence, and were used by them in conversing on ordinary matters." " Hence, if we would enter thoroughly into the idiom of the New Testament, we must familiarize ourselves with that of the Septuagint ; and if we would enter thoroughly into the idiom of the Septuagint, we must accustom our- selves to the study, not only of the original of the Old Testament, but of the dialects spoken in Palestine, be- tween the return of the Jews from the Babylonish capti- vity, and the destruction of Jerusalem by the P^omans ; for this last, as well as the Hebrew, has affected the lan- guage both of the old Greek translation and of the New Testament." " Such is the origin and the character of the idiom which prevails in the writings of the Apostles and Evan- gelists ; and the remarkable conformity of the new revela- tion, whith we have by them, though written in a different language, to the idiom of the old. It has been distin- guished by the name, Hellenistic Greek, not with a critical accuracy, if regard be had to the derivation of the word, but with sufficient exactness, if attention be given to the application which the Hebrews made of the term Hel- lenist : whereby they distinguished their Jewish brethren who lived in Grecian cities, and spoke Greek. It has been, by some of late, after father Simon, more properly termed the Greek of the synagogue." " It is acknowledged, that it cannot strictly be denomi- nated a separate language, or even dialect, when the term dialect is conceived to imply peculiarities in declension and conjugation. But with the greatest justice, it is denominated a peculiar idiom, being not only Hebrew and Chaldaic phrases, put in Greek words, but even single 8 The Doctrine of Baptisms. Greek words used in senses, in which they never occur in the writings of 'profane authors, and lohich can be learned only from the extent of signifcation given to some Hebrev) or Chaldaic word, corresponding to the Greek, in its prim- itive and most ordinary sense." ^ On these facts in the history of the Hellenistic Greek, the idiom in which the New Testament is written, Camp- bell bases his remark, already quoted, "classic use, is not only" — in the critical study of the New Testament — "sometimes unavailable, but may even mislead. The sacred use and the classical are often very different. And the further remark, that "those words in particular, which have been current in the explanations given in the Hellenistic synagogues and schools, have with their natu- ralization among the Israelites, acquired in the Jewish use an infusion of the national spirit. Though the words therefore are Greek, Jewish erudition is of more service than Grecian for bringing us to the true acceptation of them in the sacred writings." — " In determining the dif- ferent acceptation of some words, as used by Jews and Pagans, the Scriptures will ever be found their own best interpreter." The two sacraments in the Christian Church, are termed in Scripture, the one baptism, the other " The Lord's Supper" (deipnon). (See 1 Cor. xi. 20, 21.) As "furnish- ing at once an illustration and a proof, of Campbell's remarks, quoted above, we cite this word, deipnon. Ac- cording to invariable classic usage, this word means either " the chief meal of the day, taken among the Greeks, toward or at evening, after the labors of the day were over; or, a banquet or feast." And in this sense it is used both in the Septuagint and the New Testament, when used as a secular term. In the Septuagint, " Bel- shazzar, the king, made a great /casi (deipnon) to a thou- sand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand." (Dan. V. 1.) In the New Testament, " And he said unto him, a certain man made a great supper (deipnon), and bade many." Luke xiv. 16. And yet, nothing can be ' Campbell on the Gospels, vol. i. pp. 31, 32, 58, 62. Radical Fallacy in the Baptiat Argument. 9 more evident than that, used as a reHgious term, to designate a sacrament in the Christian Church, the word deipaoii has a signification very different from that in which it is used by classic Greek writers, and even by the New Testament writers, when they use it as a secular term. Hence Paul writes, "When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper (deipnon). For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper ; and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What ! have ye not houses to eat and drink in ? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not." (1 Cor. xi. 20, 22.) The Lord's Supper is neither a banquet nor a meal. And for making it a supper {de- ipnon) in the classic sense of that term, Paul declares that God's judgments were upon the church at Corinth, " For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep." (1 Cor. xi. 30.) This is one of those cases in which " classic use will mislead " — " in which Jewish erudition is of more service than Grecian in bringing us to the true acceptation of a term in the sacred writings " — "in which a single word is used in a sense in which it never occurs in profane au- thors, and which can be learned only from the extent of signification given to some Hebrew or Chaldaic word, cor- responding to the Greek in its primitive and most ordi- nary sense " — " in which the Scriptures are their own best interpreter." We have dwelt upon these principles of interpretation, at much greater length than would otherwise have seemed necessary, because, whilst the thorough scholar must be familiar with them, the same is not true of the general reader, and they have a most important bearing upon the decision of the question under examination. § 4. Radical Fallacy in the Baptist Argument. It is in the disregard of the distinction between the sacred and the secular sense of the word, that the radical fallacy of Dr. Carson's argument lies — and the same is true of every other Baptist argument we have read — in 1* 10 TJie Doctri/ie of Baptisms. 80 far as that argument is intended to determine the meaning of the word baptizo. (1.) Dr. Carson sneers at the distinction between the sacred and secular sense of the word. Thus he writes : — " Pedobaptists often take refuge in a supposed sacred or scriptural use, that they may be screened from the fire of tlie lexicons." ^ in addition to the words already cited, as illustrating and establishing this distinction, we may cite such words as — Presbyter (presbuteros). In its classical and secular use, it signi^es " an- old 7nan." "Your young men shall see visions, and your old men (presbuteroi) shall dream dreams." (Acts ii. 17.) In its sacred sense it signifies an officer in the church, who might be a young man. Timothy was a presbyter (see 1 Tim. iv. 14) ; and yet Paul writes to him, " Let no man despise thy youth." (1 Tim. iv. 12.) Pastor {poi7ncen). In its classical and secular use, it signifies a keeper of sheep, a Jierdsman. " And Abel was a keeper of sheep {poivicen)," (Gen. iv. 2). In its sacred sense it signifies " the teacher and spiritual guide of a particular church." " And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some p)astors, ipoimenas) and teachers." (Eph. iv. 11). Church {ekklcesia). In its classical and secular use, it signifies an assembly, even though it be a tumultuous one. " But if ye inquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly " {ekklcesia), (Acts xix. 39). In its sacred sense its meaning is the same with our English word church. " Unto the church [ekklcesia) of God which is at Corinth," (1 Cor. i. 2). In- deed, we do not know of a single term belonging to the class of words to which baptismos belongs, words used to designate rites or offices, in the Christian church, which has not a sacred sense, diff'erent from its secular and classic sense : and nothmg will involve the interpretation of Scripture in more inextricable confusion, than just the disregard of this distinction. ' Carson on Baptism, p. 58. Radical Fallacy in iJie Baptist Argument. 11 (2.) Having cited a number of instances, from classic Greek writers, in which he thinks it evident from the context, that baptizo is used in the sense of dip, and added several also from the writings of Josephus, in all of which, with one exception, ^ the word is evidently used as a secular term : Dr. Uarson, when he comes to the ex- amination of its use in Scripture, in those passages by which its meaning as a sacred term can alone be deter- mined, such as Mark vii. 4, cuts the matter short by saying, " Having found the meaning of the word, by the testimony of the whole range of Greek literature — having found that it signifies immerse, and nothing else, have I not an unquestionable right to allege this proved mean- ing?"— "Dr. Wardlaw says, with respect to the im- mersion of beds, ' he who can receive it, let him receive it.' I say, he who dares to reject it, rejects the testimony of God." 2 We may, for argument's sake, grant to Dr. Carson all that he thinks he has proved respecting the classical use of baptizo, and its use as a secular term by Josephus, and yet say, " You have proved nothing to the point." The unquestionable fact, that all other terms belonging to the same class with baptizo, have a sacred as well as a secu- lar sense, renders it probable, a priori, that the same is true of baptizo ; and if so, it is this sense, when used as a sacred term, which is alone in controversy. If upon such principles as those of Dr. Carson, it can be proved that there is no valid baptism without immersion ; upon the same principles, and with a much greater array of evi- dence, it can be proved that the Lord's supper [deipnon] is not validly administered in any church on earth, at the present day. For, certainly, the eating a morsel of bread, and swallowing a single sup of wine, is not more unlike a banquet or the principal meal of the day, than pouring or sprinkling a little water on the person to be baptized, is unlike the entire immersion of the person. And if de- parture from the classical and secular sense of the name * For an examination of this one instance, see note to ? 15. ' Carson on Baptism, pp. 398, 72. 12 The Dodrme of Baptisms. of one sacrament vitiates its administration, the same must be true of the other also. The " translation question," must, if possible, be settled by an appeal to the Scriptures alone ; or if compelled to go beyond the Scriptures, we must ever bear in mind, the distinction between the secular and sacred use of such terms as the one in controversy ; and our appeal should be, not to the classic Greek writers, who did not write in the dialect of Judea, but to Josephus and the earlier Greek Fathers. We believe that the question can be settled satisfactorily, from the Scriptures alone : and, hence, to the Scriptures alone shall we appeal. And bearing in mind, the sacred use of such terms as baptizo, we insist upon the second limitation of the question, viz. : that it be limited to baptizo, used as a religious or sacred term. Tlie Doctrine of Baptisms. 13 CHAPTER II. 26. Jno. iii. 25, 26. A'aWan'ro (purify), used as a synonym for hapiizo. J 6. Jno. i. 19-25. Confirmation of this sense of baptizo. 1 7. Significance of John's si- lence respecting the nature of baptism. § 5. John Hi. 22-30, and iv. 1-3. John iii. 22-30. " After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea ; and there he tarried with them and baptized. And John also was bap- tizing in -^non, near to Salim, because there was much water there; and they came and were bap- tized. For John was not yet cast into prison. Then there arose a question between some of John's dis- ciples and the Jews, about purifying (katharisniou). And they came unto John and said unto him : Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thoa bearest witness, behold the same baptizeth (baptizei), and all men come to him. John answered, and said : A man can receive nothing except it be given him from Heaven. Ye yourselves bear me witness that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom ; but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice; this my joy therefore is fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease." John iv. 1-3. " When, therefore, the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) He left Judea and departed again into Galilee." 14 The Doctrine of Baptisms. What was this "question about purifying," which is here said to have arisen between some of John's disciples and the Jews? According to the plain record of the text, the question is the one which they immediately propose to John : "And they came unto John, and said unto him, Kabbi, He that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou bearest witness, behold the same baptizeth, and all men come to him." Is his baptism a higher and holier baptism than thine? And is it about to take the place of thy baptism ? A question most natural in the circum- stances of the case; John and Jesus being engaged in baptizing in places not very remote from each other, and the Jews, who, a little while before, had flocked to John's baptism, now turning to that of Jesus in such numbers, that " he made and baptized more disciples than John." With the very imperfect, and, in many respects, erroneous views of the nature of the Messiah's kingdom then uni- versally entertained in Judea, we can hardly conceive how this question could have failed to arise. It is just this question to which John replies. "John answered and said : A man can receive nothing except it be given him from Heaven. Ye yourselves bear me wit- ness, that I said I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him. He must increase, but I must decrease." As if he had said : This is all according to divine appoint- ment ; I never claimed any other honor, as compared with him, but such as "a friend of the bridegroom," has, as com- pared with the " bridegroom " himself ; I the forerunner of Messiah, he the Messiah himself. "He must in- crease, but I must decrease." Thus understood, the interpretation of this whole pas- sage is perfectly simple ; and each part consistent with every other. And now, we ask the reader to notice that this interpretation proceeds upon the supposition, that what is called " a question about purifying, in v. 25, is, in V. 26, stated as a question about baptism. That is, that John the Baptist, and his disciples and the Jews, and John the writer of the Gospel record, regarded baptism as, in substance, a " purification." Dr. Carson, to get rid of this conclusion, takes the The Doclrine of Baptisms. 15 ground : Ist. That when " they came to John," they " did not state the case concerning purifying ; they stated another case quite different, one dilFerent from that at issue between the disciples of John and the Jews." ^ Let the reade'r turn to the record. " There arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews, about purifying. And they came unto John and said unto him — John answered and said;" and especially bearing in mind that the modern division of the New Testament into chapters and verses, is of no authority ; say, whether an ingenuous interpretation of that record will admit of Dr. Carson's explanation. 2d. That our exposition pro- ceeds upon the assumption " that if two words refer to the same ordinance, they must be identical in meaning," whilst " nothing is more unfounded. There are situa- tions in which two words may be interchanged at the option of the writer, while they are not perfectly synony- mous."^ To this we reply, synonymous terms are seldom identical in meaning. Our treatises on synonyms are treatises to point out the differences in meaning between such terms. In the case before us, purification is the more comprehensive term, whilst baptism is more limited in meaning ; and when we say that these terms are used as synonyms, we mean that the former includes the latter; that BAPTISM is a species of purification. We by no means assert, " that if two words refer to the same ordi- nance, they must be identical in meaning." § 6. John i. lG-25. John i. 16-25. "And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem, to ask him. Who art thou ? And he confessed and de- nied not ; but confessed, I am not the Christ. And they asked him; What then? Art thou Ehas? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet ? And he answered, no. Then said they unto him : Who art thou ? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? He said ' Carson on Baptism, p. 432. » Ibid. pp. 432, 433. 16 The Doctrine of Baptisms. I am tlie voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as saitli the Prophet Esaias. And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. And they asked him, and said unto him, Why BAPTIZEST {baptizeis) thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that Prophet ? " How comes it that the Pharisees ask of John this ques- tion, "Why BAPTIZEST thou then?" We answer: Because the Jews, as instructed out of the Prophets, expected Messiah, when he came, to come as a great Purifier among them, and they understood baptism, as adminis- tered by John, to be substantially a purification. There- fore it was, that whilst they could understand how a bap- tism might properly be administered by Messiah himself, or Elias, who was to come as his forerunner, they could not understand the propriety of John's baptizing, when he expressly disclaimed being either the one or the other. The prophecies upon which the Jews based this expec- tation, were such as: (Ezek. xxxvi. 25, 28): — "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean (purified); from all your filthiness (uncleanness) and from all your idols will I cleanse (purify) you. A new heart also, will I give you ; and a new spirit will I put within you ; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God." And (Mai iii. 2, 3) "But who may abide the day of his coming ? And who shall stand when he appeareth ? For he is like a refiner's fire, and like ful- ler's soap. And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier (katharizon) of silver : and he shall purify (katharisei), the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteous- ness." To these prophecies respecting the Messiah, John him- self had particularly called their attention at the com- Baptizo used as a Rdigioiis Term. 17 mencement of his public ministry ; and this too, in con- nection with his administration of baptism : " I, indeed, BAPTIZE you with water, unto repentance ; but he that Cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear : He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire : Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly PURGE [diakathariei) his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner ; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable tire." (Matt. iii. 11, 12.) Understanding baptism to be essentially a purification, how natural was it, for the Pharisees, when they saw John baptizing, to ask the question : Art thou our promised Messiah, the great purifier foretold by our Prophets ; He, who at his coming, will separate us from among our ene- mies, that "dwelling in the land given to our fathers," we may serve him ? And when he answered, No ; how natural was it for them to ask the further question : Art thou Elias, the " messenger who should prepare the way before " Messiah ? And when, again, he answered. No : how perfectly natural their surprise ; a surprise which finds expression in their last question : " Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that Prophet? " On this supposition, not only is the con- duct of the Pharisees natural ; but every part of the record is perfectly plain. But adopt the Baptist hypothesis, that baptism was an entirely new rite, of the nature of which the Jews knew nothing, except what they could gather from its being an immersion (for John gave no exposition of the nature of baptism, in so far as appears from the Gospel narrative), and how inexplicable the question of the Pharisees appears. § 7. John's Silence Respecting the Nature of Baptism Significant. In so far as appears from the sacred record, neither John nor Christ ever gave any special exposition of the nature of baptism, unless we regard our Lord's parting words to his disciples (Mark xvi. 16), after his resurrec- tion as such. . Certain it is, that we have not the slightest 18 The Doctrine of Baptisms:' hint of any explanation of its nature having been given by them, at the time these Pharisees came to John, and ques- tioned him in the manner related in John i. 19-25. And yet, both John and the Pharisees talk about baptism as if it were a rite, the nature of which was well understood by all parties. And in just the same unquestioning manner had " Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan," already been " baptized of John, in Jor- dan, confessing their sins." (Matt. iii. 5, 6.) How strange does all this seem, on the supposition that baptism ^as a new rite, then, for the first time, administered in Judea. Some have attempted to explain this, by saying that the Jews had been familiarized with baptism as a religious rite, by their established rite of proselyte baptism ; and therefore, no question is asked, nor answer given, respect- ing its nature in John's day. The existence of the rite of proselyte baptism among the Jews, in John's day, rests upon no higher authority than the Talmud, a part of which was not written until the seventh century, and the remainder still later : and the fact that the law of Moses prescribes a different rite for the admission of a proselyte into the Jewish Church, renders its practice then exceed- ingly improbable.^ " And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover of the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it ; and he shall be as one that is born in the land; for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof." (Exodus xii. 48.) Others would get rid of the difficulty by supposing that John did give an exposition of the nature of baptism, al- though no record is made of it in the Gospels. Eespect- ing this supposition, we remark : 1. It seems passing strange that such should have been the course pursued by the Evangelists, in the case of a sacred rite entirely new; and such, most Baptist writers contend that this rite is ; when in the case of the only other sacrament in- stituted in the Church, viz., the Lord's Supper, confessedly * For a fuller examination of this question respecting proselyte bap- tism, the reader is referred to Jennings Jewish Antiquities, Book I. chap. 3. Joha's Siloicc rcffpectitig Baptism. 10 only the Gospel counterpart of the Paschal Supper, ob- served from the days of Moses, they are so particular in recording our Lord's exposition of its nature. " And ho took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave it unto them, saying, this is my body which is given for you ; this do in remembrance of me. Likewise, also, the cup, after supper, saying, tliis cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you." (Luke xxii. 19, 20.) See also Matt. xxvi. 26-30, and Mark xiv. 22-25. 2. It is at variance with the soundest principles of biblical criti- cism, to explain a difficulty, by supposing something of which the Scriptures give us no hint, when it can be as well, or better, explained from the Scriptures them- selves. Even in the best view which we can take of such a course, it is preferring an apocryphal explanation to a scriptural one. In this fact, then, that in the Gospel narrative, baptism breaks upon us as an unquestioned, and evidently, a well- understood rite, we have very strong confirmation of the view we have taken : That baptism is substantially the same with the purifications established under the Old Tes- tament dispensation. A further proof of the correctness of this view we shall have, when we come to examine particularly the nature of John's baptism ; a Jewish, and not a Christian baptism ; and performed, whilst as yet the Old Testament dispen- sation had not passed away. 20 The, Doctrine of Baptisms, CHAPTER III. MOSAIC LAWS OF PUEIFICATION. §8. Ritea of personal Purification. ?9. Rites of Purification for inanimate Things. g 10. Purification by bathing and washing, g 11. Effects of Purification, g 12. Definition of the Term purify (katharizo). g 13. Definition of the Term bap- tize [baptizo,) as used in the Word of God. In our examination of Jno. iii. 25, 26, and i. 19-25, hav- ing seen good reason to believe that John and his disci- ples, and the Jews, considered John's baptism as essen- tially a rite of purification, we propose, in the present chapter, to give a summary of the Old Testament law of purification ; that we may be prepared the more intelli- gently, to examine into the use of the word baptizo by the sacred writers. The Mosaic law of purification is embraced in the fol- lowing passages, viz.(Ex. xxx. 17-21.) The rites of puri- fication for a priest about to engage in the services of the sanctuary. (Lev. xi. 31-46.) The rites of purification for any person or thing defiled by the touch of an unclean animal or creeping thing. (Lev. xii.) The rites of purifi- cation for a woman after childbirth, (Lev. xiv.) The rites of purification for the leper. (Lev. xv.) The rites of purification for those having issues, &c. (Lev. xvii. 15, 16.) The rites of purification for one who had eaten that which died of itself (Numb, xix.) The rites of pu- rification for one who had touched a dead body, or a bone, or a grave. (Numb. xxxi. 19-24.) The rites of purifica- tion for soldiers after battle, and for spoils taken in battle. In Heb. ix. 19-22, Paul gives a brief summary of the rites of purification for the " tabernacle and all the vessels cf the ministry," written out more at large in various places in the books of Exodus and Leviticus. Mosaic Laws of Purification. 21 After a careful examination, we present the following, as a correct summary of the Mosaic law of purification. § 8. Rites of personal Purification. 1. For a slight defilement; such as that arising from the touch of an unclean animal ; the washing of the clothes alone. (Lev. xi. 23.) For defilement resulting from eat- ing an animal which had died of itself ; or from having a running issue; or from sprinkling with the "water of separation" an unclean person or tent; the washing of the clothes, and the bathing of the body in water. (Lev. XV. 8, xvii. 15, xix. 19.) For such defilement as a priest would acquire in the routine of every-day life ; the wash- ing of the hands and the feet. (Exod. xxx. 19.) 2, For more serious defilement ; such as that contracted in childbirth ; the offering of a prescribed sacrifice. (Lev. xii. 6, 7.) For defilement arising fi-om touching a dead body, or bone, or grave ; sprinkling with the " water of separation," or " the ashes of an heifer." (Numb. xix. 17, 18.) For defilement arising from leprosy ; sprinkling with blood and water seven times, the touching of certain parts of the body with blood and oil, the offering of cer- tain prescribed sacrifices, the shaving of the head and the face, and the washing of the person and clothes in water. (Lev. xiv. 2-32.) § 9. Pites of Purification for iiianimate Things. For clothing, skins, sacks and culinary vessels of wood, purification was effected by washing, rinsing, or dipping in water. (Lev. xv. 12 — 17, and xi. 32.) The purifica- tion of tents, houses, and all ordinary household furniture, was by sprinkling with " the water of separation." (Numb. xix. 18.) Gold and all that would abide the fire, when taken as spoils in battle, was purified by passing through the fire, and then spiiiikling with "the water of separa- tion." (Numb. xxxi. 22, 23.) Altars, the Tabernacle, and " all the vessels of the ministry," were purified by sprinkling with blood. (Heb. ix. 21, 22.) 22 The Doctrine of Baptisms. §10. The Bathings and Washings required hy the Law. On the subject of the bathings and washings required by the law of Moses, we remark : 1. The words used in the Hebrew, and in the Greek of the Septuagint, and translated in our English version by the words bathe and wash, are, confessedly, words having no reference to mode ; and, therefore, are properly trans- lated in our English version. la Lev. xv. 5, both of these words occur. " And whosoever shall touch his bed, shall wash (Sept. plunei) his clothes, and bathe (Sept. lousetai) himself in water." In the " New Version," the first of these words is translated wash in Rev. vii. 14. " And they washed their robes ;" and the other is translated wash also, in Rev. i. 5. " And washed us from our sins." The Greek language has the word kataduno, correspond- ing exactly to our word immerse ; and the word bapto, meaning to dip (although this is not its only meaning), and the last mentioned of these words is frequently used in the Septuagint, in the sense of dip; and this in tho very passages in which the bathing of the body is pre- Bcribed (e.g. Lev. xix. 18, 19, "And he shall take hyssop, and dip (bapsei) it in water," &c.) ; and yet, in no instance is either of these words used to designate the bathings enjoined ; but instead thereof, we have general terms, translated even in the "Now Version" by our word wash. 2. The oriental manner of washing the hands and feet, at the present day, is not by putting them in water, but by pouring water upon them ; and this has been the custom, in eastern countries, as far back as the days of Elijah; as we learn from 2 Kings, iii. 11, where Elijah's attendant is spoken of as " Elisha, the son of Shaphat, who poured water on the hands of Elijah." The oriental method of bathing, at the present day, is not by immersing the body in the water of the bath, but by having the water thrown upon the body by an attendant, as all travellers tell us. 3. A fundamental principle in the Mosaic law of puri- fication, viz.: the principle of defilement by contact, would forbid bathing by immersion, v/hen performed for Bathiags and Washings. 23 purposes of purification, unless that bathing were in run- ning water. Tliis principle of defilement by contact runs all through the Mosaic law. In the case of " the water of separa- tion," for example, the priest who presided at the slaugh- ter and burning of the heifer, and the person who per- formed a part of the labor under the priest's direction, were both rendered unclean, by touching the heifer. The " clean person " who gathered the ashes of the heifer, was rendered unclean by their touch. The person who after- wards sprinkled the one to be cleansed by these ashes, was rendered unclean by the act. And any one even touching " the water of separation " was thereby defiled. See Numb. xix. That the reader may see how far this principle was carried, let him read attentively Lev. xi. 33, 34. " xind every earthen vessel wherein any of them " (i. e., unclean animal or creeping thing), " falleth, whatsoever is in it, shall be unclean ; and ye shall break it. Of all meat which may be eaten, that on which such water" (i.e., water contained in a vessel defiled by the touch of an unclean animal or creeping thing), " cometh, shall be unclean ; and all drink that may be drunk in any such vessel, shall be unclean;" the only exception made being in the case of " a fountain or pit, wherein was plenty of water." Ver. 36. Upon the Mosaic principle of defilement by contact, had a person bathed by immer- sion, or washed his hands by dipping them in any ordi- nary household water-vessel or l)ath, or even cistern, he would thereby have defiled the whole body of water, and the vessel which contained it; and these, in their turn, unless first purified, would have defiled any water which might subsequently have been put in them. And thus, one such bathing would have rendered a long scries of cleansing acts, to be subsequently performed, absolutely necessary. For these three reasons we conclude ; not simply that there is no evidence that personal purifications were ever effected by immersion ; we go further than this, and affirm that the Scriptures give us good reason to believe that immersion was never resorted to for such a pur|;)Ose. 24 The Doctrine of Baptisms. The only instance in which immersion may have been resorted to, was in the purification of certain inanimate tilings, such as " raiment, skins, sacks, and culinary ves- sels of wood." Of these, it is said in Lev. xi. 32, " They must be put in water." (Sept. haphasetai) Tlie quantity of water defiled in immersing such things would be small, and the Mosaic law, in its principles, might be observed without great inconvenience. § 11. The Effect of Purification. An unclean person, according to the law of Moses, was, in all circumstances, excluded from participation in the public worship of Jehovah, and from all intimate associa- tion with God's people. If the uncleanness were not of a serious kind, it did not exclude a person from all associa- tion with the clean ; but only such intimate association as is involved in eating together. (Acts x. 28.) But if the uncleanness were such as that resulting from touching a dead body slain in battle, or from the leprosy, it ex- cluded the person from the camp or city where his breth- ren were. (Numb. xxxi. 34, Lev. xiii. 45, 46.) In all instances, even those of slightest uncleanness, the unclean person was strictly excluded from the sanctuary; and this, in certain cases, under penalty of death. (Lev. xii. 4; Numb. xix. 20; Ex. xxx. 21; Acts xxi. 27-29.) Purification removed these restrictions, and admitted the purified person to unrestrained association with God's people, and gave him access to the solemn, public worship of Jehovah. An unclean thing could not be used in the service of the sanctuary ; nor by a clean person, in the ordinary business of life. Purification removed these restrictions. The rites of purification prescribed in the law of Moses had a reference to the state and condition of things then existing, and an immediate effect upon the person receiv- ing them, in admitting that person to unrestrained asso- ciation with God's people, and to participation in the public worship of Jehovah. Besides this — they were all typical, exhibiting spiritual truth in a visible form, as we Effect of Purification. 25 are most clearly taught in the word of God ; and thus they formed a homogeneous part of the system of worship established in Moses' day, which was "a shadow of good things to come." As in uncleanness, and its consequence, in excluding the unclean person from association with God's people, and all part in his public worship, we have symbolized sin in its fearful consequences; so in purifi- cation, and its visible effect, we have symbolized the re- moval of guilt and the blessed consequences flowing therefrom. § 12. Definition of the word Purify (katharizo). "With this summary of the Mosaic law of purification before us, we give as a definition of the word purify, as used in Scripture : — • 1. To j)urify is to administer a prescribed rite, by which a person, before excluded from association with God's people and the worship of the sanctuary, is publicly declared to be re-admitted to association with the one and participation in the other. This may be called the technic sense of the word. Ex. " And the Levites were purified " (i. e. had the rite of purification administered to them), '"and they washed their garments, and Aaron offered them as an oflTering unto the Lord." (Numb, viii. 21.) 2. To purify is visibly to separate unto God's service. This we would call the literal sense of the term. Ex. "And the priest shall offer it before the Lord, and make an atonement for her, and she shall be cleansed'' {purified. — i. e., the restriction arising from the issue of her blood shall be removed, and she visibly separated unto God's service) " from the issue of her blood." (Lev. xii. 7.) These two uses of the word purify may be illustrated by our use of the analogous word inaugurate. We may say that the delivering of the ke^'s and a Bible are a part of the inauguration of the president of a college — meaning by the inauguration, the rite by which a new president is inducted into office. Or, using the term in what we have 2 26 The Doctrine of Baptisms. called a literal sense, we may say, that a president of a certain college was inaugurated under very favorable cir- cumstances— meaning thereby that he was inducted into office under very favorable circumstances. 3. Since the purifying rites of the law symbolized the removal of the guilt and pollution of sin, the word purify naturally came to be used in what we would call its spiritual sense, the name of the symbol being put for that of the thing symbolized. When thus used, it means re- generate, sanctity. Ex. " x\nd he shall purify (i. e. sanc- tify) the sons of Levi, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness." (Mai. iii. 3.) This is much the most common use of the word in the New Tes- tament. Ex. " And put no difference between us and them, pitrifying " (i. e. sanctifying) " their hearts by faith." (Acts xv. 9.) Which of these three senses belongs to the word purify, in any particular passage of Scripture, must be deter- mined by an examination of the context ; and, as a general thing, the Bible student will find but little difficulty in thus determining the meaning of the word in each par- ticular passage. § 13. Definition of Baptize {baptize). As already intimated, we believe that the word bap- Tizo, when used as a religious term, is used in the Woi-d of God, as substantially the same in meaning with the word Katharizo. And hence we would define it : — 1. To mean the administration of a rite, whereby a per- son is admitted to association with God's people. This we call its technie sense. 2. To mean the visible separation of the baptized person from the world, and into association with God's people. This we call its literal sense. In this sense its meaning is very nearly the same with the word con- secrate. 3. To mean regenerate, sanctify. This we call its spir- itual sense. And we add — that as in the case of the word purify, we Effect of Purification. 27 must determine which of these senses belongs to it, in any particular passage of Scripture, by an examination of the context. Note. — That we may avoid the constantly repeated introduction of the word baptizo, in tno following pages, the use of this word in the original will be indicated by printing the corresponding words in small capitals — baptizk, baptism. The same rule will be observed with re- spect to the word Katharizo, translated in our English Bible by the words PURIFY, CLEANaK, PURGE. 28 The Doctrine of Baptisms, CHAPTER IV. EXAMINATION OF THE USE OF BAPTIZO, IN THE SEPTUA- GINT VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. §14. II. Kings, V. 14. g 15. Eeclesiasticus, xxxiv. 25. g 16. Judith, xii. 7. g IT. Isaiah, xxi. 4. The word baptizo is used four times in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. As it is in this version we first meet with the Hellenistic Greek, or Greek of the Synagogue, the peculiar idiom in which the New Testa- ment is written, we will examine these instances before turning to the New Testament itself. § 14. II. Kings, v. 14. " And his (i. e. Naaman's) servants came near and spake unto him, and said : My father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldst thou not have done it ? how much rather then, when he saith to thee. Wash, and be clean." (v. 13.) " Then went he down and dipped (baptized) himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God ; and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean." (v. 14.) That this washing here enjoined was considered, both by Elisha and Naaman, as a religious washing or purifi- cation, and is so set forth in the context, appears from several considerations. 1. The cure sought was expected, not from any medici- nal action of the waters of the Jordan, but from a direct exercise of divine power. Hence Elisha's language, in his Baptizo 1)1 the Old Testament. 29 message to tlic king of Israel, — " Let liini come now unto me, and he shall know that there is a prophet " (not a physician) " in Israel," (v. 8.) And hence, too, Naaman's language, when he turned away in a rage : " Behold, I thouglit, he will surely come out to me, and stand and call on the name of the Lord his God, and strike his hand over the place, and recover the leper," (v. 11.) It will not appear strange that Naaman, although a Syrian and not an Israelite, should thus have understood this matter, if we call to mind the fact that religious washings or puri- fications were not peculiar to the Israelites, but formed a part of the ritual worship of almost all ancient nations ; as they do of many heathen nations at the present day. To bathe in the sacred waters of the Ganges is one of the highest acts of devotion which the Hindoo can perform ; and of the existence of similar notions at a very early day, we have a proof in the washing of Pharaoh's daughter at the Nile, " not for pleasure, but for purification," as Bish- op Patrick remarks. (See Exod. ii. 5.) 2. Elisha promises to Naaman, on condition of obedi- ence, not healing only, but cleansing also. " Go and wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee" (here is the promise of healing), ''and thou shalt be CLEAN," (here is the promise of cleansing also.) And in the subsequent account of Naaman's obedience, and its conse- quences, we read, " And his flesh came again, like unto the flesh of a little child" (here was the healing), "and he was CLEAN," or CLEANSED (here was the cleansing also). And let the reader notice, that the word translated, clean, is, in both instances, the word commonly used in the Sep- tuagint to designate the cleansings, or purifications enjoined m the law of Moses. 3. After the cure of his leprosy is effected, Naaman treats his washing in Jordan as a cleansing or purifica- tion, i. e. a separation unto the worship of Jehovah the God of Israel, by the direction of whose Prophet, and in the river of the land of whose peculiar people, the wash- ing had been performed. " And he (Naaman) said, Be- hold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth but in Israel ; thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt- 30 The Doctrine of Baptisms. offering nor sacrifice unto other gods, but unto the Lord." (Verses 15-17.) Admitting now, that the word used in the original He- brew, the inspired text, is a word which means to dip (al- though this is not its only meaning, since in Gen. xxxvii. 31, the seventy translate it by moluno, which never means to dip, but " to soil, to stain, to defile ") the ques- tion comes up, why did the seventy, in their rendering of the passage under examination, translate it by the word haptizo ? The Baptist answers — Because Naaman's wash- ing was a dipping in Jordan, and baptize was the proper word to convey this idea. We answer, because they re- garded it as a religious washing, and they meant so to designate it by styling it a baptism. Our answer is, we think, the more probable one, for two reasons : 1. The religious character of Naaman's washing is prominently set forth in the context, whilst its charac- ter as an immersion (if he did dip himself in Jordan,) is left to be inferred from the one fact that it was performed in or at the Jordan. 2, This is the only instance in which the Hebrew word, here translated by baptizo, is used to designate a religious washing or purification; and it is the only instance in which the seventy have translated it by baptizo. It occurs in the Hebrew text, in Gen. xxxvii. 31 ; Exod. xii. 22 ; Lev. ix. 9 ; Deut. xxxiii. 24 ; Euth, ii. 14 ; 2 Kings, viii. 15, in the sense of dip or stain, and in none of these instances is it translated by baptizo. What weight ought to be given to Dr. Carson's frivo- lous objection, that " if the meaning of the word is purilH?-, then there would be seven purifications," ^ the reader will learn, by turning to Lev. xiv., where in the process for cleansing the leper, he is at three different stages of his cleansing pronounced clean by the priest, vs. 7, 9 and 20 ; or from Dr. Carson's own use of the word baptism, by which he understands immersion, and immersion only, when speaking of the " trine-immersion " practised in the Greek church ; the three immersions constituting but one baptism (i. e. immersion according to Dr. C). ^ Carson on Baptism, p. 316. Baptizo in the Old Testavient. 31 § 15. JEcdcsiasticus, xxxiv. 25. "He that washoth (baptizeih, ^c\).) himself after the' touching of a dead body, if he touch it again, what avail- eth his washing? " That the cleansing rite here referred to, and styled a BAPTISM in the Soptuagint, is the rite prescribed in the 19th chapter of Numbers, is conceded on all hands. The cleansing of a person who had become defiled by touching a dead body, was eifected by one rite, and one only, viz. : "sprinkling upon him the water of separation." " Whoso toucheth the dead body of any man that is dead, and PU- EiFiETH not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the Lord ; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel : b(!cause tJue water of separation was not sjirinlded upon him, he shall be unclean ; his uncleanness is yet upon him. . . . But the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the Lord ; the water of separation hath not been sprinkled upon him; he is unclean." Numb. xix. 13, 20. " For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh." Heb. ix. 13. The expressions " ashes of a heifer " and " water of separation," are used interchangeably in the Scriptures to designate the purifying material used in this rite. An instance of this we have in Numb. xix. 9. " And a man that is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and lay them up without the camp in a clean place, and it shall bo kept for the congregation of the children of Israel, for a water of separation." This use of these ex- pressions has arisen, doubtless, from the fact that the ashes of the heifer was the essential ingredient in "the water of separation," and the material actually sprinkled upon the person to be cleansed. If the word baptizo " always signifies to dip, never ex- pressing anything but mode," we ask where was the bap- tism here ? Dr. Carson writes : " The answer must be obvious to every person who consults Numb. xix. 19, which shows that sprinkling was but a part of that purifi- 32 The Doctrine qf Baptisms. cation, and that the unclean person was also bathed in water. It is this bathing which is effected by baptism." ^ Numb. xix. 19 reads : " And the dean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day ; and on the seventh day he shall purify him- self, and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at even." Here "he" has for its antece- dent, " the clean person who shall sprinkle upon the U7i- clean." This which appears, even in our English version, is seen most clearly in the Septuagint, and is placed be- yond all question by ver. 21, which is an explanatory re- petition of ver. 19, just as ver. 20 is of ver. 13. "And it shall be a perpetual statute unto them, that he that sprin- kleth the water of separation shall wash his clothes ; and he that toucheth the water of separation shall be unclean until even." The fact that he is spoken of, in ver. 19, as a " clean person," is not at variance with this idea, since he became unclean by the operation of sprinkling. His case is just like that of the one who gathered "the ashes of the heifer." " And a man that is clean shall gather the ashes of the heifer; and he that gathereth the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes and be unclean until even." Vers. 9, 10. The defilement acquired by the person thus sprinkling the water of separation, as also that acquired in gathering the ashes of the heifer, was but a slight de- filement, and, therefore, was purged away, by bathing the body and washing the cloth.es ; the rites of purification for cases of slight defilement. (See § 7.) Most unfortunately, then, for Dr. Carson's explanation, the person who had become unclean by touching a dead body, and whose purification is styled a baptism in the passage under examination, was not the person directed to bathe himself and wash his clothes. For him, there is but one purifying rite prescribed, and that is sprinkling with the water of separation. Here then, we have a rite, to which the name of a baptism is given in the Septuagint, which was, beyond all question, a purification ; and in which, according to the express declaration of Scripture, * Carson on Baptism, p. 66. Baptizo in Ihc Old Testament. 33 there was nothing approaching nearer to an immersion than spriyikling with the water of separation. Note. — To our interpretation of this passage Dr. Fairbairne objects, that " the latter person (i. e. the person who sprinkled upon the unclean, was not required to bathe his body at all; (v. 21) he had sim- ply to wash his clothas. And if he had been meant in v. 19, there could have been no propriety in laying stress on the seventh day, any more than on the third.' {Hermeneutical Manual, p. 299.) To this we reply : — (1) If the omission to mention specifically the " bathing in water " once, in v. 21, where the rite of cleansing for the person sprinkling is prescribed, proves that this bathing could not have been intended for him, — does not the omission to mention it three times, (see vs. 13, 18, 20), where the rite of cleansing for the person sprinkled upon, prove yet more conclusively that it could not have been meant for him!'— And yet, it certainly was meant for one or other of the two. (2) Stress is laid on the sevetith day, for the sufficient reason that it was not until the seventh day the defilement of the person sprinkling was complete ; and under Moses' law rites of cleansing were never re- sorted to until the defilement they were intended to remove was com- plete. On V. 19, Bishop Patrick — the highest authority, on such points as this, among our modern commentators, has this note : " On the seventh day he shall purify himself, &c. This seems to be meant of the clean person who sprinkled the unclean, and by coming near them, was in some sort defiled. But he was not to be purified by the water of sepa- ration ; but only by washing his clothes and bathing himself in water; and his uncleannsss lasted but till the evening." {PairicHs Commentary.) Instance of the use of the word baptizo 05 a religious term hy Josephus. " When, therefore, any persons were defiled by a dead hody, they put a Httle of these ashes " (i. e., the ashes of the heifer) " into spring water, witli hyssop, and dipping (baptizing, Josephus) part of these a.shes in it, they sprinkled with it, both on the third day and on the seventh, and after that they were clean." (Josephus' An- tiquities of th» Jews, book iv. chap. 4th, "Whiston's trans- lation.) This instance from Josephus is the only one cited by Dr. Carson, in which the word baptizo seems to be used as a religious term ; and v/e direct the reader's attention to it, in connection with the examination of Ecclesiasticus xxxiy. 25, because they both refer to the same cleansing 9* 34: The Doctrine of Baptisms. rite. Josephus, in the passage under examination, is evi- dently giving a summary of the Mosaic law contained in the 19th chapter of Numbers. In what sense does Josephus use the word baptizo, v/hen he speaks of the. ashes as being baptized in the water ? Evidently in the sense of dipping, says Dr. Car- son; and so Whiston has translated it. To this we object. The ashes are already described as " put into the spring water," in the member of the sentence immediately pre- ceding this ; and to translate baptizo here, to dip, is to make one member of the sentence a mere useless repeti- tion of the other. The word is here used in the sense of purify, i. e., set apart for a sacred use ; for this is the sense of the word purify, when used respecting inanimate things. (See § 10.) As a substitute for the awkward (to say the least of it) translation of Whiston, we would render it : " When, therefore, any jjersons were defiled by a dead body, they put a little of the ashes to spring water, and thus (bap- tizing) setting them apart to a sacred use, with hyssop, they sprinkle the unclean person with them on the third day, and also on the seventh day; and after that, they are clean." § 16. Judith xii. 7. Judith xii. 7. " Then the servant of Holofernes brought her (Judith) into the tent, and she slept till mid- night, and she arose when it was toward the morning watch ; And sent to Holofernes, saying, let my lord now command, that thine handmaid may go forth unto prayer. Then Holofernes commanded his guard, that they should not stay her; thus she abode in the camp three days, and went out in the.night, into the valley of Bethulia, and washed (baptized, Sep.) her- self in a fountain of water, by the camp. And when she came out, she besought the Lord God of Israel, to direct her way to the raising up of the children of her people. So she came in clean, and remained in her tent, until she did eat her meat in the evening. J]((pti:o in (he Old ToiianioU. 35 That this washing of Judith, here styled a baptism, was a rehgious washing or purilication, appears from several considerations. 1. It was a washing performed as a preparation for prayer. "And she sent to Holofernes, saying, let my lord now command, that thine handmaid may go forth to prayer. And when she came ont, she besought the Lord God of Israel to direct her way to the raising up of the children of her people." It is true, thrit in the law of Moses, there is no specific rite of purification prescribed as a preparation for prayer, excepting in the case of the priests, " when they came near to the altar to minister." (See Exod. xxx. 17-21.) But yet, a purification in pre- paration for worship was practised by all, long before Moses' day, as we learn from Gen. xxxv. 2. " Then Jacob said unto his household, and all that were with him : Put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments." This direction was given by Jacob, when about to go up with his family to Bethel, to worship. 2. The effect of this washing is expressly declared to be that of a purification. " So she came in clean, and remained in the tent until she did eat her meat at even- ing." That this washing of Judith was performed by immer- sion, seems altogether improbable. 1. Because even the priests, when they were about to engage in a more solemn act of worship ; when " they came near to the altar to minister," were required to wash their hands and their feet only. (See Exod. xxx, 17-21.) If washing the hands and the feet would sufiice to remove such defilement as was acquired in the ordi- nary business of life by a priest, surely no more would be required of a Jewish maiden, and one so careful to avoid every source of defilement, as, from the context, Judith appears to have been. 2. From the 10th verse of the 13th chapter, we learn that her maid accompanied Judith, when she thus went forth to prayer. " And she gave Holofernes' head to her maid, and she put it in her bag of meat; so they twain 36 The Doctrine of Baptisms. went together, according to their custom, unto pi-ayer." It is true that other reasons may be assigned for this ; but the one most naturally suggested by the Scriptures, is, that like EHsha with his master, Elijah, she went that she might "pour water " upon Judith's hands. 3. Because this washing was performed by Judith, " in 2i fountain of water, hy the camp,'' according to our Eng- lish version. Or if we translate literally from the Sep- tuagint, " in the camp, at a fountain of water." Had this record formed a part of any other history, these facts alone, that the washing was " at or in a fountain," and " in or near to " a large military encampment ; and per- formed, too, by a modest young woman, reared with oriental notions of propriety, would, we doubt not, have forever excluded the idea of immersion from the mind of every reader. And all that Dr. Carson could say about the water-troughs, sometimes placed near to fountains, in the East ; and of the poetic fancy of " Castalian nymphs bathing themselves in fountains." would not alter that judgment one iota. § 17. Isaiah xxi. 4. " My heart panted, fearfulness affrighted me (baptized me, Sep. ; the night of my pleasure hath he turned into fear unto me." Our English version, "fearfulness affrighted me," is a literal translation of the Hebrew ; so that the version of the Seventy, in their use of the word "baptized," must be regarded as a paraphrase rather than a translation ; and in just what sense they did use it, it is difficult to deter- mine. Nor is it of any importance that we should deter- mine its meaning here, in so far as our present inquiry is concerned ; since — 1, " The language of the whole passage is so highly figurative, that no prudent reasoner would make any use of it in determining the literal meaning of a word." And 2, The word is here evidently used as a secular, and not as a religious term ; and it is its use as a rehgious term, alone, we are attempting to determine. Baptizo ill the New TestamciiL 37 CHAPTER V. APPLICATION OF haptizo, IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, TO MOSAIC PURIFICATIONS 1 18. Mark vii. 4, and Luke xi. 38. § 19. Hebrews ix. 10. g 20. Hebrews vi. 2. In the New Testament, in four instances, ritual purifi- cation? prescribed in Moses' law, are termed baptisms. These instances we purpose examining in the present chapter. § 18. Mark vii. 4. Mark vii. 1-4. " Then came together unto him the Phari- sees, and certain of the Scribes, which came from Je- rusalem. And when they saw certain of his disciples eat bread with defiled (that is to say, with un- washen) hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they wash (baptize), they cat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing (baptizing) of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and tables." Luke xi. 38, 39. " And as ho spake, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him : and he went in and sat down to meat. And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed (baptized) before dinner." 38 The Doctrine of Baptiwis. These two passages are here placed together, not because they are parallel passages, for the incidents they record occurred on very different occasions ; but because the one will serve in some measure to explain the other. That the baptisms here spoken of were regarded by all parties as ritual cleansings, is evident from the whole tenor of the context. Indeed, no writer on either side, in so far as we know, has ever called this in question. The only point about which there is difference of opinion is, whether they were immersions or not. And let the read- er notice, that they must all have been immersions, in or- der that we may here translate the word baptizo immerse, since it is, in these passages, applied alike to all. First. The washing of hands is mentioned among these BAPTISMS practised by the Jews. That the washing (baptism) which the Pharisee ex- pected from our Lord, before dinner, as recorded in Luke xi. 38, was simply a washing of the hands, is placed be- yond all reasonable question by Ltark vii. 3, " For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not." 1. The washing of the hands, among the Jews, from time immemorial, has been performed by pouring water upon them, and not by dipping the hands in water. See 2 Kings, iii. 11. 2. A further proof that such was the method adopted in our Lord's day, where purification was aimed at, we have in the record contained in John ii. 6. "And there were set there six water pots of stone, after the onanner of the puri- fying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece." The word here translated ^'' water pots'' is the same word used to designate the vessel brought by the woman of Sa- maria to Jacob's well (see John iv. 28), and is the word used in the Septuagint, where our version uses the word pitcher, in Gen. xxiv. 15 ;" " Behold Rebekah came out, with her pitcher upon her shoulder," and in Judges, vii. 14 : " And he put a trumpet in every man's hand, with empty pitchers, and lamps within the pitchers." Judg- ing from the use to which these water pots or pitchers Baptizo ill the Kcw Testament. 39 were put, viz. that of carrying water from the well, the pitcher being placed " upon the shoulder," we have every reason to suppose that they were of like form with those used in the East for the same purpose at the present day — that of broad-mouthed bottles, rather than jars. Now, such vessels, whilst very well adapted to washing the hands or feet by pouring, are not at all suited to washing by dipping or immersion. Their size, " holding two or three firkins apiece," may seem to be at variance with this idea. But it must be borne in mind, 1, That on this occasion, they were in- tended to answer the demands for purification of the large company collected at a wedding ; when, of course, pitch- ers of the largest size would be selected. And 2, that the word here translated firkins, if we take the only guide we have to its meaning as used in our Lord's day, viz. its use in the Septuagint (2 Chron. iv. 5), to translate the He- brew word bath, must be understood to be a measure much smaller than our " firkin," having the capacity of only about one cubi'^. foot. And we may remark that this was about the capacity of the measure to which the Eng- lish name " firkin " was applied, at the time our English version of the Bible was made. A pitcher, of the capacity of two or three cubic feet, might well be used for pouring water upon the hands of guests at a wedding, but would utterly exclude the idea of the immersion of the persons of those guests, as some Baptist writers have imagined was customary among the Jews. Second. Pots and brazen vessels are mentioned among the things baptized. According to the law of Moses, such things were puri- fied, in all ordinary instances, by sprinkling them with the water of separation ; and when taken as spoils of war, by passing through the fire, and then sprinkling with the water of separation. (See § 9.) It is true, that the bap- tisms here spoken of, are said to have been practised in obedience to " the traditions of the elders." But then, it should be remarked — 1, In the expression, " Except they wash their hands oft," we have a clear intimation that the 40 The Doctrine of Baptisms. addition made to Moses' law by the elders, was in the way of a great multiplication of the washings, and not in the way of a change in the Mosaic mode. And 2, That the substitution of dipping for sprinkling with the water of separation, i. e. the substitution of the less for the more solemn mode (see § 8), is utterly at variance with the course of superstition, which is always onward ; and also, at variance with all the intimations of the text. Third. Tables (klinon) are also mentioned among the things baptized. The law of Moses is specific respecting the purification of household furniture ; and according to that law, this is to be effected by " sprinkling with the water of separa- tion." (See § 9.) On the one hand, we have no reason to suppose that the law had been departed from, in this particular ; whilst on the other hand, there is a strong improbability, we might say, almost an impossibility, from the size and structure of these tables, that they should have been pu- rified by immersion. If we follow our English version, we must understand these tables to have been the tables at which the Jews ate their meals. Or, if we translate the word klinon, as most modern scholars do, couches, we must understand these couches to have been those on which the Jews in our Lord's day, in common with the Greeks and Eomans, reclined at their meals — such as those used by Christ and his disciples at the last supper. These couches were of such a size as to accommodate seve- ral persons each (see John xxi. 20), and moreover, were generally made fast to the walls of the building. Is not immersion, in such a case as this, to the last degree, im- probable ? We need not say, impossible ; because, as Dr. Carson suggesjts, these tables or couches, might have been made to take to pieces, and so immersed, piece by piece. And so, we add, might hous3s be made to take to pieces ; and. therefore, if we had read in the Scriptures of the baptism of houses, it would not, upon such principles, have proved that baptizo did not mean " to dip, never sig- nifying anything but mode." Baptizo in the New Testament. 41 § 19. Hehrcios, ix. 10. "Which," i. e. the first tabernacle — "was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the ser- vice perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers walkings, (baptisms) and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." A literal translation of this passage is—" Which was a type for the time then present, in which were offered gifts and sacrifices ; which cannot, with respect to the con- science, make perfect, the person worshiping only with meats and drinks, and divers baptisms, carnal ordi- nances, imposed until the time of reformation." This literal translation is given, because, in our English version, several phrases are interpolated in the text (as is acknowledged by printing them in italics) ; and these phrases, we think, render the connection between the several members of the sentence obscure, where that con- nection is very plain in the original. And also, because the kai "and," before "carnal ordinances," is now rejected from all our best editions of the Greek Testament. What were these divers baptisms, of which Paul here speaks, as " imposed until the time of reformation? " We answer — the purifications enjoined in the law of Moses. To the translation of the word haptismois, here, immer- sions, there are, we think, insuperable objections. 1. The baptisms here spoken of, it is evident from the context, were acts of personal cleansing, " Which cannot, with respect to the conscience, make perfect, the person wor- shiping only with meats and drinks and divers baptisms." Now, according to the law of Moses, not only were per- sonal cleansings, in most cases, effected without anything which could possibly be construed into an immersion, but there are good scriptural reasons for believing, that im- mersion of the person was never practised. (See § 8 and 10.) And let it be remarked, we have here nothing to do with customs which may have been introduced under au- 42 Trie Doctrine of Baptisms. thority of " the traditions of the elders," since these bap- tisms were " imposed until the time of reformation ; " and constituted the service of the first tabernacle, " a type of good things to come." An inspired apostle would call nothing, but that " imposed " of God, " a type of good things to come." 2. In verse 13th, Paul gives a specification of one of these baptisms — " For if the blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the PUEiFYiNG of the flesh : how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God ? " The close logical connection between verses 10 and 13, requires us to con- sider the latter verse, as containing a specification under the former. Let the reader turn to Heb. IX. and read from verse 8 to verse 15, and he will see how close this connection is. 3. The baptisms here spoken of, are spoken of as " di- vers,'' or different. If 7node is the only thing essential to baptism — as the object of baptism was always the same under the law of Moses, viz. the removal of uncleanness — the application of this epithet " divers," to baptisms per- formed, always in the same mode and with the same ob- ject, is inexplicable. Take the view for which we con- tend, and the application of the epithet "■ divers " is at once evident, and most appropriate. In some instances, the baptism was a washing of the hands and feet; in others, the offering of a prescribed sacrifice; in others, sprinkling with the ashes of a heifer ; and so on, through a long catalogue of rites " imposed until the time of re- formation." §20. Hehreios vi. 1, 2. Hebrews vi. 1, 2. " Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection ; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of BAPTISMS, and of laying of hands, and of resurrec- tion of the dead, and of eternal judgment." Baptizo in the New Testament. 43 Near the close of the preceding chapter, Paul writes — " For when for the time ye ought to be teaclicrs, ye have need that one teach you again which be the fir d principles of the oracles of God." (Ilcb. v. 12.) For the expression, " the first principles of the oracles of God," he substitutes, in the passage before us, the phrase, " the principles of the doctrine of Christ." To the mind of a Jew, the idea na- turally suggested by " the oracles of God," would be that of the Old Testament Scriptures; and by immediately afterwards substituting for it, the phrase, " the principles of the doctrine of Christ," he would present to their minds, the truth that the doctrine of Christ, and that of the Old Testament Scriptures, were one and the same. This would be in perfect keeping with the course of thought and argument, which prevails throughout the Epistle to the Hebrews. In this epistle, to use Paul's own language — " unto the Jews, he becomes a Jew, that he may gain the Jews ; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that he may gain them that are under the law ;" illustrating, explaining, and proving " the doc- trine of Christ," from " the oracles of God," i. e. the Old Testament Scriptures. Hence, when he comes to specify " principles," we must understand him as referring to them, as exhibited in the Old Testament Scriptures, as well as in the clearer light of the New Dispensation. The reader will find but little difficulty in catching the Apostle's style of thought, if he will turn to the xi. chap- ter, and study the illustration there given of it, in the case of faith toward God. There were baptisms under the Old Testament dispensation, so much the same in their efiiect in visibly separating the baptized unto God's ser- vice, and so much the same in their symbolic import with the baptism administered in Paul's day, that to the Jews, familiar with the Old Testament Scriptures, and rightly understanding those Scriptures, "the doctrine of bap- tisms,'' might well be reckoned among the " first principles of the oracles of God," or " the doctrine of Christ." It is in this view of the matter, as we think, that Paul here uses the word baptisms, in the plural, meaning to include, not only Christian baptism, and the baptism of John, but 44 The Doctrine of Baptisms. also the "divers baptisms " of which he speaks in chap, ix. ver. 10, as " imposed " of God, under a former dispen^ sation. By " doctrine,^' we understand — God's teaching. It is in this view of the Apostle's meaning, that we have selected the phrase, " the doctrine of baptisms," as the title of the present treatise. Baptizo in the New Testament. 45 CHAPTER VI. FIGURATIVE APPLICATIONS OF THE WORD " BAPTIZO. 2 21. Christ's Baptism in his Death, Matt. xx. 22, 23 xii. 50. 222. Baptism "unto Moses," 1 Cor. x. 2. 1 Pet. iiL 21. Mark, z. 38, 39 ; and laike, I 23. Baptism in the Ark, § 21. Quiet's baptism in his death. Matt. XX. 20-23. V. 20. " Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him. And he said unto her. What wilt thou ? She saith unto hira, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom. But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to De BAPTIZED with the bap- tism that I am baptized with ? They say unto him. We are able. And he saith unto them. Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the BAPTISM that I am baptized with : but to sit on m}' right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father." 21 22. 23. Mark, X. 35-40. V. 35. " And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldst do for us whatsoever we shall de- sire. 36. And he saith unto them. What would ye that I should do for you ? 37. They say unto him. Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory. 38. But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask : Can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with ? 39. And they say unto him, We ■ can. And Jesus said unto them. Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of ; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be BAPTIZED ; 40. But, to sit on my right hand and on my left hand, is not mine to give ; but it shall be given to them for whom it la prepared. 46 . Tiie Doctrine of Baptisms. Luke, xii. 49, 50. Luke xii. 49,^0. ''I am come to send fire on the earth, and what will I, if it be already kindled ? But I have a baptism to be baptized with ; and how am I straitened till it be accomphshed." The declaration of our Lord, made in answer to the request of the two sons of Zebedee, and the one recorded in Luke xii. 50, were made on entirely different occa- sions ; yet, from the context, it appears so evident that he referred to his death, in both, that all commentators agree that it is of this he speaks as the baptism which was before him. The only point on which commentators differ, is as to the particular* view of his death, in which he calls it a baptism. Many understand our Lord to call his death a baptism inasmuch as it was to be a scene of overwhelming suffer- ing ; and hence, cite this use of the w^ord baptize, as an instance of its use in the sense of overwhelm. To this interpretation, we have two objections, suggested by an examination of the passages themselves-. 1. Jesus asks the sons of Zebedee, " Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized wnth ?" and in their reply, as also in our Lord's subsequent rejoinder, the same specifications are kept up, and this according to the Gos- pels both of Matthew and Mark. The metaphor our Lord uses in his words, " are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of?" is a standing metaphor with the sacred writers to represent bitter sufferings, and is thus used by Jesus himself when, " sorrowful unto death," overwhelmed with the very sufferings referred to in the passage under examination : " 0 my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me ; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt. 0 my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done." (Matt. xxvi. 39, 42.) There can be no doubt, then, that in the question, " Can ye drink of the cup that I shall drink of ?" Christ refers directly tc the overwhelming character of his sufier- Baptizo in the New Tcstavient. 47 ings in his death. If now we understand him to refer to his death, in the same aspect of it, in his question, " Can ye be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with '?." then have the two questions but one and the same meaning, and we can see no reason why the distinction between the two questions is so carefully preserved, as it Is, throughout both the Gospel narratives. 2. In Luke xii. 50, Christ speaks of this his baptism in his death, as something for the lack of which he is strait- ened, cramped in the establishment of his kingdom, *' And how am I straitened until it be accomplished." Now it is not by his death, viewed directly as a scene of bitter suf- fering, but rather as a scene of perfect obedience of Christ, the sinner's substitute, on the sinner's behalf, that he comes into the possession of the powers and prerogatives of the mediatorial throne : " And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."^ (Phil ii. 8-11.) Christ's priesthood is a priesthood " after the order of Melchisedec," (Heb. vi. 20,) i. o., both an eternal and a royal priesthood ; one in which the character of " King of righteousness and peace " is blended with that of '' Priest of the Most High God," (see Heb. vii.) and by his death was he fully set apart to this royal priesthood : " For every high-priest is ordained to offer gifts and sac- rifices; wherefore it is of necessity that this man ('Christ Jesus ') have somewhat also to offer." " For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true, but into heaven itself, now to ap- pear in the presence of God for us : nor yet, that he should ofier himself often, as the high-priest cntereth into the holy place every year with blood of others ; for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world : but new, once in the end of the world, hath he appeared 48 The Doctrine of Baptisms. to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." " But this man, after he had oflfered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God ; from henceforth expect- ing till his enemies be made his footstool." (Heb. viii. 3; ix. 24-26; x. 12, 13.) In the view which Paul here gives us of Christ's sufferings, they are distinctly pre- sented as consecrating sufierings — sufferings by which he was to be separated unto God's service as a royal priest ; and his death is a baptism, in the sense in which we understand that word. Understanding our Lord to speak of his death as a bap- tism, in this view of it, we avoid both of the difficulties attaching to the other interpretation ; and in both in- stances, we give to his words a meaning which exactly suits the context. 1. In Matt. XX. 20-23, and Mark x. 35-40, it is the request of the sons of Zebedee, that " they may sit, the one on his right hand, and the other on his left, in his kingdom," which gives rise to the question, " Can ye drink of the cup that I shall drink of?" "Can ye be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with ?" By drink- ing the cup of divine wrath, when he took the sinner's law-place, when " the chastisement of our peace was upon him," he redeemed from death these who were to be the subjects of his kingdom ; by his baptism in his death, he was publicly set apart to his royal priesthood, and " all power in heaven and in earth was given unto him," that he might rule, and defend, and establish his kingdom. How natural the questions then, to those aspiring to share that kingdom with him — '' Can ye drink of the cup that I shall drink of? Can ye be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized ?" John and James evidently had very low and earthly notions of the nature of the kingdom which Christ had come to establish ; and they had, at the same time, a very inadequate idea of the sufferings by which that kingdom was to be purchased and put into his possession. They did not yet understand that his sufferings must be unto death, although he had expressly informed them that such was the fact. Hence their reply to his questions, " We can." Baptizo ill the New Testament. 49 Christ Josus, in characteristic sympathy with their weak- ness, and because they were not yet able to bear the whole truth, does not correct their erroneous notions (erroneous, in that they were inadequate) ; but using the terms in the sense in which they understood them, he replies : " Ye shall indeed drink of my cup, and bo baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with." That the reader may understand how Christ could use such language in the sense which we give it, let him consider such passages of Scripture as these : " Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and pnests unto God and his Father ; to him be glory and dominion, forever and ever, Amen." (Rev. i. 5, 6.) " And Jesus said unto them, verily, I say unto you, that ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twilva thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Matt. xix. 28.) 2. Turning now to Luke xii. 50, in ver. 49, our Lord has set forth the designs of his mission. " I am come to send fire on the earth," i. e., I have come to establish a kingdom, which, in its progress, shall be like a fire, con- suming that which is dross, an(i refining all that is gold. " And what will I, if it be already kindled ?" i. e., What do I wish but that it were already kindled. " But I have a BAPTISM to be baptized with," i. e., I must be conse- crated, separated unto Cod, as a royal priest, ere this, my desire, can be fulfilled; ere " all power in heaven and in earth shall be given" into my hands. "And how am I straitened until it be accomplished?" Christ's three years of public ministry had resulted in bringing into his kingdom "one hundred and twenty souls." (Acts i. 15.) On the single day of Pentecost, after his consecration, his baptism in his death, " three thousand souls " were added to the number. (Acts ii. 41.) We have remarked that commentators differ as to the particular view of his death, in which Christ calls it a baptism. Most modern commentators understand him to refer to it in view of the overwhelming sufferings by which it was to be accomplished. Not so the earlier Chris- 3 60 The Doctrine of Baptisms. tian Fathers, especially those of the Eastern Church, who wrote while the Hellenistic Greek remained a living lan- guage, and who therefore may be presumed to have known tlie meaning of the word baptize, as used in our Lord's day. These, without exception, take the view of it which has just been presented as the true one. Christ calls his death a baptism, because by that death he was to be set apart to the office of his royal priesthood."^ § 22. Israel's baptism " unto Moses." 1 Corinthians x. 1, 2. '* Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea ; and were all baptized unto Moses, in the cloud and in the sea." Paul here refers to events accompanying the passage of the Red Sea, by Israel, in their exodus from Egypt. That we may see in what sense he speaks of these events as a baptism, let us turn to the account of them, given us by 1. Thei/ were baptized " in the cloud." Exod. xiv. 19, 20. " And the pillar of cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them: and it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel ; and it was a cloud and darkness to them, but it gave light by night to these : so that the one came not near the other all the night." Was there any immersion of Israel in the cloud? " And the pillar of cloud," — it was only a pillar ; i.e., a small cloud in the form of a pillar — " went from before their face and stood behind them, and it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel " — it was not directly over either — " and it was a cloud and darkness to them, but it gave light by night to these; so that one came not near the other all the night." It con- tinued between the Egyptians and the Israelites all the night until the sea was passed. To imagine the immer- 1 For proofs the reader is referred to " Beecher on Baptism," pp. 61-67. Baptizo in the New Testament. 61 sion of Israel in this cloud, is not simply to go beyond the record, but is to contradict that record. That which the cloud ett'ected, by its peculiar move- ment, on this occasion, was a separation of Israel unto God's service, and this in union with Moses. Hence it comes " between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel;" and whilst it "gives light to the one, it is cloud and darkness to the other ;" and so continues until the sea is passed — " and the one came not near the other all the night." This separation unto God's service, con- stituted Israel's baptism in the cloud. 2. They were baptized " in the sea." Exod. xiv. 27-31. " And Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to his strength when the morning ap- peared ; and the Egyptians fled against it ; and the Lord overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea. And the waters returned and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the hosts of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them ; there remained not so much as one of them. But the children of Israel walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea ; and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left. Thus the Lord saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyp- tians ; and Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea shore. And Israel saw that great work which the Lord did upon the Egyptians : and the people feared the Lord, and believed the Lord, and his servant !Moses." This last phrase — " and believed the Lord and his ser- vant Moses," probably suggested to Paul the phraseology, " baptized into or unto Moses." Understanding the term baptized to mean separated unto God's service, how ap- propriately does God style the passage of the sea by Israel, accompanied as it was by the utter destruction of the Egyptian hosts, their baptism in the sea. It was that they might become his peculiar people, separated from among the nations, and separated unto his service, that the Lord interposed in the miraculous manner related by Moses, so that Israel " walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea," whilst the Egyptians were overthrown. If we translate the word baptizo here, immersedy we 52 The Doctrine of Baptisms. make Paul flatly contradict Moses. Moses says, " they walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea, and the waters were a ivall unto them, on their right hand and on their left." Yet, with this record before him. Dr. Carson writes — " Moses, Mr. Hall tells us, walked on dry ground. Yes, and he got a dry dip. And could not a person, literally covered with oilcloth, get a dry immersion in water ?" ' To attempt to evade the force of plainly re- corded facts, by such worse than childish trifling with God's Word, is utterly unworthy the character of an expositor of Scripture ; and none but a desperate cause could call for such a defense as this. There was an immersion on this occasion, as Moses in- forms us; but not of baptized Israel. " And the waters returned, and covered the chariots and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh, that came into the sea after them." And as the consequence of this immersion, Moses tells us — '' And Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea shore." The Egyptians were the party immersed. Here, then, is a case, in which, according to the express testimony of Scripture, there was both a baptism and an immersion ; but the party baptized, was the one not wi- mersed; and their baptism consisted in their escaping immersion ; whilst the party im.m,ersed, was the one that was not baptized ; their immersion was a terrible immer- sion to them. § 23. Baptism iyi the Ark. 1 Peter iii. 18-21. " For Christ also hath once suf- fered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit : By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison : Which sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the Ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water : The like figure 1 Carson on Baptism, p. 413. Baptizo in the New Tcstaiaent. 53 wliereunto, even baptism, doth also now save us," — literally, as baptism, the antetypo does now save us, — " (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ : Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels, and authorities, and powers, being made subject unto him." We are clearly taught in Scripture, that in early times, God did often " so dispose the events of His providence, and appoint the external relations of His people, as to give by means of them, an exhibition of the better things of the Gospel ; " thus giving rise to that class of types, which, by way of distinction, are called historic types. In the passage before us, true Christian baptism, is declared to be an antetype of the salvation of Noah, and the few that were with him in the ark. Between a type and its antetype, there must be a re- semblance, such that the former will set forth, and suggest the latter. In what particular or particulars, was the sal- vation of Noah a type of baptism ? Let the reader notice particularly. 1. Peter does not say that the ark was a type of baptism; so that the shutting up of Noah in the ark, between which and im- mersion, some persons have a fancy lively enough to discover a resemblance; might be understood to be the particular upon which the typical relation rested. His declaration is — that it was the salvation of the eight souls in the ark, and hy the water (our version is literal here), of which baptism is the antetype. 2. He does not say, that salvation by baptism is the antetype of the salvation of the eight in the ark, but that baptism itself is the ante- type ; and this, that baptism which consists not in the mere " putting away of the filth of the flesh," but that which results in " the answer of a good conscience toward God," and saves through " the resurrection of Christ Jesus." A statement of the question then, in exact accordance with the declaration of Peter, will be : In what particular or particulars, was the salvation of the eight souls (in- 54 The Doctrine of Baptisms. eluding Noali) in the ark, hy the waters of the flood, a type of true Christian baptism ? Understand the word baptism to mean immersion, and immersion only, and give it that sense here, and the typi- cal relation between the salvation of Noah in the ark hy water, and this baptism, is inexplicable. The eight were the only ones of all the inhabitants of the teeming earth that were saved, and they were not immersed, and were saved because they were not immersed. But understand the word haptisni in the sense for which we contend — i. e, a visible separation unto God's service — and how simple the exposition of this passage. The salvation here spoken of was not a salvation from the flood. The eight were saved from the flood ; but had Peter intended this salvation, he would have called it a salvation from the water, and not " hy the water." The flood itself wrought out for them a greater salvation than their deliverance from its over- flowing waters — a salvation similar to that which was wrought out for righteous Lot in God's terrible over- throw of the guilty cities of the plain. To which last Peter refers, in connection with the salvation of Noah, when declaring the truth that, "the Lord knoweth how to deliver " (to save) " the godly out of temptations ; " (2 Pet. ii. 9) — a salvation for them as constituting God's church, from the overflowing flood of iniquity which threatened to ingulf them. This was their salvation in the ark hy water, which was a type of the baptism which now saves us. True Christian baptism — " not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God " — i. e. not the external rite, but the spiritual substance symbolized in that rite — now saves us from the dangers and temptations of an apostate world, and this "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ;" he who "once suffered, the just for the unjust," but now, in his resur- rection, has " ascended up on high, leading captivity cap- tive," that he might "give gifts unto men." (Eph, iv. 8.) When God "opened the windows of heaven," and Baptizo in the New Testament. 55 "broke up the fountains of the great deep," dcUiging the earth, he immersed the guilty multitude, now "in prison," to whom he had, by his Spirit, preached long in vain ; and a terrible immersion it was to them. By this same deluge he baptized his little church in the ark, not one drop of water touching them; thus visibly separating them unto his service. And on the cleansed earth the Church commenced her course anew. Such is a heaven-selected type of baptism ; and we will search the history of early times in vain to find one more beautiful or more appropriate, than this salvation of " the eight souls m the ark, and hy the water." 56 The Doctrine of Baptisms. CHAPTER VII. BAPTISM WITH THE HOLY GHOST AND WITH FIRE. g24. Matt. iii. 11; Mark i. 8 ; Luke iii. 16; John i. 26,33; Acts i. 4-8; ii. 1-4, 16-18, 32, 33; x. 44-48; xi. 15, 10. Matt. iii. 11. " I indeed BAPTIZE you with water unto repentance : but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear : he shall BAPTIZE you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." Mark i. 8. " I indeed baptize you with water : but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." Luke iii. 16. " John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water ; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose ; he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." John i. 26. " John answered them saying, " I baptize with water; but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not." Vs. 33. " And I knew him not : but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me. Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost." Acts i. 4-8. " And being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly BAPTIZED with water ; but ye shall be baptized wit^ the Holy Ghcst not many days hence. When they therefore were come together, they asked of Baptism icith the Holy Ghost and Fire. 57 him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the sea- sons which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost has come upon you ; and ye shall be witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth." Acts iii. 1-4. " And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of _a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire; and it sat vpon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirtt gave them utterance." Acts ii. 16-18. " But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel, And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh : and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams : And on my servants and on my hand-maidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit: and they shall pro- phesy." Acts ii. 32, 33. " This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we are all witnesses. Therefore, being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear." Acts X. 44-48. " While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed, were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be 3* 58 The Doctrine of Baptwns. BAPTIZED, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we ? And he commanded them to be bap- tized in the name of the Lord." Acts xi. 15, 16. " And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghoat fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water : but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." We have here, placed together all the passages in the New Testament which refer directly and explicitly to the " baptism with the Holy Ghost and with fire ;" that the reader, having the whole record before him, may be able to judge more correctly what this baptism was. ^l.s a summary of what is here stated, we give the folloiuing, viz. : 1. John, when baptizing in Jordan, utters a prophecy, or an inspired exposition of a prophecy, viz. That one, mightier than he, was coming, who shoftld baptize, not with water as he did, but with " the Holy Ghost and with fire." (Matt. iii. 11 ; Luke iii. 16.) 2. He that was to administer this better baptism with '' the Holy Ghost and with fire," was the Lord Jesus. (John i. 33.) 3. The Lord Jesus, after his resurrection, meets his disciples assembled in Jerusalem ; and repeating the pro- mise given by John, of a baptism with the Holy Ghost not many days thereafter, commands them that they de- part not from Jerusalem until they had received this bap- tism. (Acts i. 4, 5.) 4. Shortly after this, the disciples were " all with one accord, in one place" in Jerusalem; when suddenly, "there appeared unto them cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them ; and they were filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." (Acts ii. 1-4.) 5. This gift of the Spirit was a gift immediately from Christ Jesus. (Acts ii. 32, 33.) 6. As the consequence of this, we read : " And the multitude came together and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language : Baptism ivith the Holy Ghost and Fire. 59 Parthians and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judea, and in Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Lybia about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians. Then they were pricked in their hearts, and said unto Peter and the rest of the Apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do ? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Then they that gladly received his word, were baptized, and the same day, there were added unto them about three thousand souls." (Acts ii. 6, 9, 10, 37, 38, 41.) 7. In the event subsequently occiu'ring in Cornelius' house, at Cesarea, a similar effect follows, the evident gift of the Holy Ghost : " For they heard them speak with tongues." (Acts x. 45.) And this, Peter declares to be a fulfillment of our Lord's words, " Ye shall be bap- tized with the Holy Ghost." (Acts xi. 16.) What was this baptism with the Holy Ghost and with fire ? or rather, why was this miraculous gift of the Holy Ghost, in consequence of which those who received it " spake with other tongues," called a baptism ? We answer : It is called a baptism, not on account of anything in the mode of bestowment of the Holy Ghost, or the visible symbol of the Holy Ghost ; but because it was a visible setting apart of the Church for God's ser- vice, in the fulfillment of the commission a little while be- fore given to her: " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in 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." (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20.) " And he said unto them, that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." (Luke xxiv. 47.) This idea is most distinctly set forth in our Lord's words, when directing them to remain in Jerusalem and await the promised baptism with the Holy Ghost. " But ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you : and ye shall be witnesses unto me, both in Je- 60 The Doctrine of Baptisms. rusalem and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth." (Acts i. 8.) And the subsequent history is but an illustration of these words. The gift of tongues was " a sign " (samion), as Paul tells us, "to them that believe not," (1 Cor. xiv. 22.) Christ's own miracles were signs, (See Matt. xii. 38 ; John ii. 18) i. e., " tokens and indications of the near presence and working of God ; " and this gift of tongues had all the le- gitimate effects of a sign, as related in the second chapter of the Acts. John's language, repeated by Christ himself, seems clearly to imply that this baptism was to be a nobler and truer baptism than that with water. And so it appears, in the view which we take of it. This baptism was a literal, not a figurative one as Dr. Carson contends. In water-baptism, such as that administered by John, there is, 1. The living person baptized. 2. The sensible ele- ment (using the term element in its theological sense) with which the baptism is performed, i. e., water; and 3. The living person administering the baptism. In the case before us, there are, 1. Living persons baptized. 2. A sensible element with which the baptism is performed, i. e., the cloven tongues of fire. Were this wanting, the bap- tism might be called a figurative baptism. And. 3. A living person administering the baptism, viz. the Lord Jesus — not visible to mortal sense, it is true, but perfect- ly visible to the eye of faith. " lie hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear." This baptism was a nobler baptism than that of John, because performed by a nobler person, and for a nobler purpose. In ordinary baptisms, we but symbolize the gift of the Holy Ghost ; and whether or not the symbol shall represent that which has been truly received into the heart, depends, not upon the bap- tizer, but upon the faith of him who receives the baptism. Here, the Lord Jesus, himself the baptizer, in his sove- reignty, bestows the gift along with the symbol. In this view of the matter, we remark, the baptism with the Holy Ghost and with fire, administered on the day of Pente- cost, was the truest baptism ever administered upon earth. In the one particular in which water-baptism is often Baptism with the Holy Ghost and Fire. Gl nothing more than a figure, a shadow without a sub- stance, this baptism was reah Was this baptism an immersion ? Will the word bap- tizo, in this account of the baptism " with the Holy Ghost and with fire," bear the translation immerse or dip, with- out doing violence to the context ? First. — There was a baptism "with fire." It is dis- tinctly so set forth by John, as his words are recorded by Matthew and Luke, and also in the inspired account of the baptism itself. This fire was in the form " of cloven tongues," and " it- sat on them." Acts i. 3. Is not this language as definite as language can be ? And does it not exclude the idea of immersion ? Second. — This baptism with the Holy Ghost is the only baptism recorded in the New Testament in which terms distinctly modal are used to designate the baptizing ele- ment. These terms are — " came from heaven," "fell on \heTQ." " poured out" and " shed forth.'' And here let the reader remark : — 1. The use of modal terms does not occur once only, but uniformly throughout the whole account given us of this baptism. In the narrative of Luke we have — " caine from heaven," "fell on them," was " shed forth" and poured out; " — in Joel's prophecy, as quoted by Peter, we nave "poured out," and a second time "poured out;" — in the baptism at the house of Cornelius, "fell on them" and " was poured out; " and in Peter's defence at Jerusa- lem, "fell on them." 2. These modal terms, whilst all in harmony one with the other, are all utterly at variance with the modal terms dip and immerse. 3. As already remarked, this is the only instance in which terms distinctly modal are used to describe the ap- plication of the baptizing element, in the whole course of the New Testament. Thied. — It is not of the Holy Ghost in his spiritual es- sence, nor yet of the spiritual influences of the Holy Ghost, that this language is used. That which " came from heaven," which was "poured out," was "shed forth," which "fell on them" that were baptized of the Holy G2 The Doctrine of Baptisms. Ghost, was simply the sensible symbol of the Spirit's pre- sence and influences; it was that which stood in the same relation to the spiritual essence and influences of the Holy Ghost, which the water of baptism now does ; and hence Peter's language — " he hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear.'' Dr. Carson's horror at what he is pleased to represent as the opinion of his opponents, is a horror at the creature of his own imagination. " Our opponents," writes he, " understand the baptism of the Spirit to be a literal pour- ing out of Him who is immaterial. Baptism, whatever be the mode, cannot represent either the manner of con- veying the Spirit, or his operations in the soul. These things cannot be represented by natural things. There is no likeness to the Spirit, nor to the modes of his opera- tions. It is blasphemy to attempt a representation. It would be as easy to make a likeness of God creating the world, and attempt to represent, by a picture, the Divine operations in the formation of matter, as to represent by symbols the manner of the communication of the Holy Spirit, and his operations on the soul. If Christians were not infatuated with the desire of establishing a fa- vorite system, such gross conceptions of God could not have so long escaped detection." ^ To this, we reply — We agree perfectly with Dr. Carson, that it is not the spiritual essence " of him who is imma- terial " which is said to be "poured out," to ''fall on them,'' to be " shed forth"; nor is it a representation of " the mode of the Spirit's operations " which we have in these words. Were it either the one or the other, this language would furnish no legitimate argument for determining the meaning of the word baptizo as used by the Apostles, or of the Apostolic mode of baptism. It is just because that of which such language is used, is the audible and visible symbol of the Spirit's presence and influences — that which stands in just the same relation to the spiritual essence of the Holy Ghost, and to his spiritual influences, that water does in Christian baptism — that we speak of this baptism ' Carson on Baptism, p. 105. Baptism with the Holy Ghost and Fire. 63 as a literal baptism; and appeal to this language as a sound and legitimate argument, and — in the absence of all other modal language in the Word of God — as an ar- gument of great weight, in determining such a question as that before us. To state the case in brief : — Here is "a baptism with the Holy Ghost and with fire." Can we reconcile the idea tlmt baptizo "has but one signification — it always signifies to dip, never expressing anything but mode," with the use of such expressions, to represent the application of the baptizing element, as — it '' came from heaven," it ^' sat on them," it was "poured out" it "was shed forth," it "fell on them ? " 64 TIce Doctrine of Baptisms. CHAPTER VIII. USE OF BaptizO IN ITS SPIRITUAL SENSE. I 25. 1 Cor. xii. 13. § 26. Gal. iii. 27. ? 27. Eph. iv. 5. ? 28. Origin of the Doc- trine of Baptismal Regeneration. In our definition of the term baptizo, as used in the Word of God, in § 13, we remarked, that it was sometimes used in a spiritual sense ; to mean regenerate, sanctify. Of this statement, we purpose giving proof in the present chapter. As instances of a similar use of the analogous terms, circumcise, cleanse, purify; we cite: Lent. xxx. 6, "And the Lord thy God will eircwndse thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live." Eph. v. 25, 26, " Christ also loved the Church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word." Acts xv. 9, " And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." This use of the terms circumcise, cleanse, purify, renders it probable, a priori, that baptize will be used by the sacred writers in a similar way. §25. 1 Corinthians, xii. 13. 1 Corinthians xii. 18. " For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body : so also is Christ. For by one Spirit, are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free ; and have been all made to diink into one Spirit." Use of Baptizo in its Spiritual Sense. 65 That the word baptize is here used in a spiritual sense, appears from these considerations, viz. 1. The baptism is said to be " by one Spirit," or, " by the one Spirit," i. e. as all evangelical commentators agree, by the Holy Spirit — the third person in the blessed Trinity. Man administers ritual baptism with water; Christ Jesus l^aptized his Church on the day of Pentecost, with " the Holy Ghost and with fire," in visible form. The Holy Spirit, in so far as we can learn from Scripture, baptizes with those spiritual graces which constitute re- generation, alone. 2. As a consequence of the baptism here spoken of, or rather, as an expression equivalent to " we are all bap- tized into one body," the Apostle adds, "and have all been made to drink into one Spirit ; " thus presenting the same idea which he has, a httle before, dwelt upon in his words. " The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ ? For we being many, are one bread and one body." (1 Cor. x. 16, 17.) The unity here spoken of, is evidently the unity of all Christians in Christ ; the unity which is symbolized by their communion in the Lord's supper. In other words : it is a spiritual unity, the re- sult of a spiritual baptism. We would paraphrase the verse : " For by the one Holy Spirit are we all regenerated into one church spirit- ual, whether we bo Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free ; and as we all drink of one sacramental cup, so have we, in our regeneration, all been made to drink into one Spirit. § 26. Galatians, iii. 27. Galatians iii. 26-29. " For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female : for, ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be 66 The Doctrine of Baptisms. Christ's, tlien are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs ao- cording to the promise." That the baptism here spoken of, is a spiritual, and not a ritual baptism, we infer : 1. From what is said respecting the result of this bap- tism, in the case of those who have received it, viz : they " have put on Christ ; " a phrase uniformly used by Paul, to express a spiritual change. Kom. xiii. 12, 14, "The night is far spent, the day is at hand : let us, therefore, cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the ar- mor of light. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts there- of." Eph. iv. 22-24, '' That ye put off concerning the former conversation, the old man, which is corrupt, ac- cording to the deceitful lusts ; and be renewed in the spirit of your mind : and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holi- ness." 2. From the context. Paul's argument, which runs through all this portion of his epistle to the Galatians, turns upon the distinction between " the letter" and "the spirit," and his design is, to set forth the peculiar excel- lence of the Christian dispensation, as a spiritual dispen- sation ; and thus to guard the Galatian Christians against that legal spirit with which they seemed " bewitched " (iii. 1) ; and to keep them from making their religion con- sist in the " observance of days, and months, and times, and years," the " beggarly elements whereunto they de- sired to be again in bondage," (iv. 9, 10.) In contrast with such a religion, Paul sets before them a religion of faith, such as he affirms that true religion, in this world, has ever been. The spiritual sense of baptism, in tlie pas- sage under examination, alone, suits such a context. We would paraphrase the passage : " For ye are all the children of God, by faith in Christ Jesus ; for as many of you as have been regenerated into a spiritual union with Christ, have, by that very operation, cast off the works of darkness, and put on Christ Jesus ; and thus have ye evi- dently been made one with Christ, and through him, have Use of Baptizo in its Spiritual Sense. 07 become the seed of Abraham, and heirs according to the promise, in the true sense of that promise. § 27. Ephesians iv. 5. Ephesians iv. 3-6. '' Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calUng ; One Lord, one faith, one baptism ; One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." "We would give to the word baptism here, a spiritual sense : 1. Because there is an incongruity, amounting almost to impiety, in placing a mere external rite in such associ- ation as baptism is here placed in ; but give to the word its spiritual sense, and a beautiful harmony is seen in its association. We can understand why regeneration should be associated with membership in the Church spiritual, (i. e. " the one body,") the Christian's hope, the Holy Ghost, Christ Jesus, and God the Father, as constituting " a bond of peace ; " but not, why water-baptism should. 2. Paul is here giving a summary of Christian unities. If either sacrament is to be introduced into the summary, the Scriptures would lead us to expect that it would be the Lord's Siqoper ; one express design of which is, to set forth the unity of Christians by then* communion in " the body and blood " of their common Lord, (see 1 Cor. x. 16, 17), and not the sacrament of Baptism. We would paraphrase this passage : " Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, even the church spiritual, of which Christ is the head, and ye are all members ; (see 1 Cor. xii. 27), and there is one Holy Spirit, by whom ye are all effectu- ally called, in one hope of your calling ; one Lord, Jesus Christ, one faith in Him, by the which ye are all saved, and one regeneration, by the which ye are made one with Him ; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." 68 Tlie Doctrine of Baptisms. Other instances of tlie use of baptizo, in its spiritual sense, will be given in a subsequent part of this work. (See §§ 35, 36.) § 28. Origin of the Doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. That the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, prevailed in the Christian Church at an early day, and that there is much in the phraseology of the early Christian Fathers which, at first sight, seems to countenance this doctrine, are facts well known to every one who has studied the history of the Church. Many account for this, by saying, that the doctrine once adopted, has given rise to this pe- culiar phraseology. On the contrary, we believe the phraseology has given rise to the doctrine ; and we believe this for two reasons, viz. : 1. "We find this phraseology in use at a very early date, and long before we have any sufficient evidence that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration had begun to prevail in the Church. Indeed, the Romanists, and Puseyites, and Campbellites, of our day, in common with the earlier ' advocates of baptismal regeneration, derive their most plausible arguments from the language of Scripture itself, by giving to the term baptism, a ritual, when it is evi- dently used in a spiritual sense ; as in Gal. iii. 27, " For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." 2. Where a word, such as baptizo, is used in two senses — one spiritual, and the other external and material — the tendency of religious formalism is ever to substitute the latter sense for the former ; and this, for the reason, that a " manipulated religion " suits well the pride of the natu- ral heart. Abundant proof of this remark, will, at once suggest itseK to every student of Ecclesiastical History. The Baptism of Repentance. 69 CHAPTER IX. ALL WATER-BAPTISMS, IN THEIR NATURE, PURIFICATIONS. ? 29. " The Baptism of Repentance." Matt. iii. 7, 8, 11 ; Mark i. 4 ; Luke iii. 7, 8, 12; Lukevii. 29, 30; Matt. xxi. 25; Mark xi. 30 ; Acts i. 22 ; Acts xiii. 24; Acta X. 37 ; Acts xix. 1-7 ; Acts xviii. 24-26. g30. Christ's Baptism by John. Matt, iii. 14, 17; Mark i. 9-11 ; Luko iii. 21, 22; John i. 22, 35. §31. Christian Bap- tism. Acts ii. 41 ; Acts viii. 12-16 ; Acts xviii. 8. § 29. " The Baptism of Repentance." Matt. iii. 7, 8, 11. "But when he (John) saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, 0 generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come ? Bring forth, therefore, fi'uits meet for repentance. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." Mark i. 4. " John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance, for the remission of sins." Luke iii. 3, 7, 8, 12. " And he (John) came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of re- pentance, for the remission of sins. Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, 0! generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come ? Bring forth, there- fore, fruits worthy of repentance. Then came also publicans to be baptized." Luke vii. 29, 30. " And all the people that heard him (Jesus), and the Publicans, justified God, being bap- tized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him." 70 The Doctrine of Baptisms. Matt. xxi. 25. "The baptism of Jolin, whence was it? from heaven or of men ? " Mark xi. 30 ; Luke xx. 4. " The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men ? " Acts i. 22, " Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection." Acts xii. 24. " When John had first preached before his (Jesus') coming, the baptism of repentayice to all the people of Israel." Acts X. 37. " That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judea, and began from Gralilee, after the baptism which John preached." Acts xix. 1-7. "And it came to pass, that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus ; and finding certain disciples, he said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed ? And they said Unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy GThost. And he said unto them, unto what then were ye baptized ? And they said. Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily bap- tized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they Avere baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them ; and they spake with tongues and prophesied. And all the men were about twelve." Acts xviii. 24-26. " And a certain Jew, named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord : and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. And he began to speak boldly in the syna- gogue : whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly." llhc Baptuiiii of Repentance. 71 "We have here placed together all the passages of Scrip- ture in which Johu's baptism is spoken of as a baptism of repeiitanee. And along with these, certain other passages, calculated to throw light upon the import of that phrase and the true nature of John's baptism. We do not de- sign, in this place, to inquire into the mode in which John administered his baptism : that subject properly belongs to Part II., and is not necessarily involved in the determi- nation of the meaning of the word baptizo. The only questions we shall attempt to answer now, are : What was the nature of John's baptism ? and what its import ? In answer to the first of these questions we remark : — 1. John's baptism was not Christian baptism, nor could it serve in the place of Christian baptism. It was not Christian baptism inasmuch as it was not baptism in the " name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; " and it was not an initiatory rite into any Church. It was not a rite of initiation into the Old Testament Church, since those who received it, " Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan," were al- ready members of that church in virtue of their circum- cision. It was not a rite of initiation into the Christian Church, since that church had not begun to be esta- blished; and although many thousands must have re- ceived John's baptism, yet after our Lord's crucifixion, and just before the " day of pentecost," we find the Chris- tian Church in Jerusalem containing but " about one hundred and twenty " members. (Acts i. 15.) That John's baptism was not Christian baptism is ren- dered yet more evident, by the fact that when Paul finds certain persons at Ephesus who had received John's bap- tism, he re-baptized them in the name of Jesus. The most eminent modern Baptist writers all admit the correctness of the views just expressed. Some of the older Baptist wri- ters took diff"erent ground, and in order to maintain their position, contended that those^said to have been baptized by Paul at Ephesus in Acts xix. 5, were not the persons said to have been baptized by John in v. 3. On this, Robert Hall, himself a Baptist, remarks : " In the whole compass of theological con tro vers v it would be difficult to 72 The Doctrine of Baptisms, find a stronger instance than this, of the force of preju- dice in obscuring a plain matter-of-fact." 2. John's ministry and baptism, according to the plain and oft-repeated representations of Scripture, belonged to the Old Testament dispensation ; and were only prepara- tory to the new. "And he (John) shall go before. him in the spirit and power of Elias, to make ready a people pre- pared for the Lord." (Luke i. 17. See also Matt. iii. 3 ; John i. 23.) The Old Testament dispensation, with all its ceremonies, continued until the crucifixion of Christ, Then, and not till then, Christ appears " blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross." (Col. ii. 14.) Hence, Jesus himself was '' circumcised," and when the days of his mother's purification were accomplished, ac- cording to the law of Moses, he was brought to Jerusalem and presented to the Lord. (Luke ii. 21, 22.) Hence, too, when among his first miracles he cleanses a leper, he gives the direction — " go show thyself to the priest, and olfer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them." (Luke v. 14.) To the "mul- titude, and to his disciples," Christ gives the general di- rection:— " The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All, therefore, whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works." (Matt, xxii. 2, 3.) One of his last public acts, before his betrayal, was to observe with his disciples the Jewish feast of the Passover. " Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him; Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the pass- over? And he said: Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him ; The Master saith, my time is at hand, I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples. And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them, and they made ready the passover. Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve." (Matt. xxvi. 17-20.) In answer to the other question — What was the import of John's baptism ? we reply : — It was a " baptism of or unto repentance ; " that is, a baptism in which the recipi- The Baptism of Repentance. 73 ent professed repentance {meta noia, a change of mind or spirit), and thus placed himself in the attitude of an ex- pectant of the coming Messiah. In other words, a pu- rification, a separation unto God's service, by which " the way of the Lord was prepared and his path made straight.'' Many, doubtless, received the baptism un- worthily ; and to them it was no blessing. Many, also, received it worthily, and by their baptism were prepared for the reception of the Messiah. ''And all the people that heard him (Jesus) and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Phari- sees and Lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him." (Luke vii. 29, 30.) In this respect, John's baptism was not unlike the puri- fication which Israel underwent in preparation for the reception of the Law at Sinai. (See Exod. xix. 10, 11.) All that has been said respecting John's " baptism unto repentance," is true also of the baptism administered by Christ's disciples, before their Lord's crucifixion. The substance of their preaching and that of John was the same. " As ye go, preach, saying, the kingdom of heaven is at hand; " (Matt. x. 7.) "Into whatsoever city ye enter, heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them The kingdom of heaven is at hand," (Luke x. 8, 9.) So closely were the baptism and the new doctrine connected, that the one term is, in Scripture, employed for the other. " The baptism of John," (i. e. the new doctrine), "was it from heaven, or of men?" (Matt. xxi. 25.) " After the baptism," (i. e. the doctrine), " which John preached." (Acts x. 37.) John's baptism, then, was in its essential nature, simply a purification. And here, as we shall after- wards have occasion to refer to this matter, we ask the reader to notice, that baptism, though it be administered by divine appointment, be "from heaven," is not neces- sarily an initiatonj rite into any church. It may be, like the ordinary purifications, established by Moses' law, but a setting apart of those already in the Church, for some special purpose or service of God. Christian baptism is, we believe, always an initiatory rite ; but this is not the 4 74 The Doctrine of Baptisms. case with every rite to which, in Scripture, the name of baptism is given, as illustrated in the case before us. § 30. Christ's Baptism hy John. Matt. iii. 13-17. "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan, unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbade him, saying, I have need to be bap- tized of thee, and comest thou to me ? And Jesus answering, said unto him, suffer it to be so now : for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water ; and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him : And lo, a voice from Heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Mark i. 9-11. " And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was bap- tized of John, in Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit, like a dove, descending upon him. And there came a voice from Heaven, saying. Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Luke iii. 21, 22. " Now, when all the people were bap- tized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being bap- tized, and praying, the Heaven was opened. And the Holy Gliost descended in a bodily shape, like a dove, upon him ; and a voice came from Heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son ; in thee I am well pleased." John i. 32, 83. " And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from Heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not : but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me. Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit de- scending and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost." What was this baptism which Christ received at the Chrisi''s BajHism by John. 75 hands of John ? "We do not intend, here, to inquire into the mode of this baptism ; that subject will be examined in another place. (See § 38.) But what was this baptism in its nature and import ? We answer : Certainly not a baptism such as that which John administered to others ; i. e., "a baptism unto re- pentance." Christ Jesus was " holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners," and hence, repentance was, for him, not only uncalled for, but impossible. On this point, all commentators are agreed. Christ's baptism was, we think, a purification, in the Old Testament sense of that term (i. e., a consecration,) similar to that administered by Moses to Aaron and his sons, when setting them apart to the priesthood. (See Lev. viii. 5.) A visible setting apart of him, for his public ministry on earth. To this conclusion we come : 1. Because Christ received this baptism, not in infancy. When eight days old, he had been circumcised. (See Luke ii. 21.) As the promised seed of Abraham, come to fulfil God's covenant with Abraham, he bore in his flesh the seal of the covenant ; but this, his baptism, he received when about thirty years old ; (see Luke iii. 23), and when just about to enter upon his public ministry. 2. This view of the matter explains John's objection to baptizing Christ — " I have need to be baptized of thee." Regarding this baptism as a purification, and understand- ing that Christ, as Messiah, possessed a nobler and truer priesthood than his ; that he (John) stood to him in no higher relation than " the friend, to the bridgroom" him- self (John iii. 29); he would naturally say, "I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?" Our Lord's reply to John is, "Sufifer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness." In his won- drous humiliation, " made under the law" (Gal. iv. 4), he complied with all the requirements of that law. As a priest, he was set apart for his priestly work, as was Aaron; the law, which he afterwards "nailed to his cross," being not yet "taken out of the way." (Col. ii. 14.) 3. Our Lord's baptism by John is immediately followed 76 T'Ue Doctrine, of Baptisms. by a more solemn baptism from heaven, when the Spirit was seen, " descending like a dove, and remaining on him," and " a voice from heaven " declared, " This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." § 31. Christian Baptism. Acts ii, 41. " Then they that gladly received the word were baptized : and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." Acts viii. 12, 13. "Bat when they believed Philip, preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also; and when he was BAPrrzED, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. 16. They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Acts xviii. 8. " And Crispus, the chief ruler of the nyna- gogue, believed on the Lord with all his house ; and many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed, and were baptized." In a large number of passages of Scripture, of which the above-cited are a fair specimen, it is agreed on all hands, that the word baptize is used simply to designate the rite of Christian baptism. Now Christian baptism is, in its nature, a purification, or consecration of the person baptized; a visible setting apart of that person to God's service. And we refer to it here, not for the purpose of discussing its nature — that will be done hereafter — but for the purpose of remarking that, as all the instances, not already examined, in which the words baptize and baptism occur in the New Testament, are instances in which they are evidently used to signify Christian bap- tism, the Old Testament sense to purify must suit the context. We have now completed our examination of the use of haptizo in the word of God, in so far as is necessary to a fair and proper determination of the " translation ques- Sur/wiuig up — Conclusion. 77 tion." No instance of its use, which, in the view of the author, or of any prominent Baptist writer, could assist us in arriving at a correct determination of this question, has been omitted. Let us now state, in brief, tiie results of this examination, that we may see what conclusion we must come to. SUMMING UP — CONCLUSION. Throwing out of account, for reasons already given, (see §17,) Isaiah xxi. 4, we have in the Septuagint version of the Old and in the Greek New Testament; First. A large class of passages — viz., those in which John's " baptism of repentance," John's baptism of Christ, and Christian baptism, are spoken of, in all of which (1) baptism is unquestionably a purification, in the Old Testament sense of the word purify (see § 12), and in which (2) the baptism •may have been an immersion — to give the Baptist every possible advantage, we are willing to Bay, as far as the matter is involved in " the transla- tion question," ivas an immersion. This class of passages, then, will determine nothing respecting the signification of haptizo; since, in every one of them, we may give to the word either of the meanings, purify or immerse, and meet the demands of the context equally well. Second. Three passages — viz., those referring to Christ's baptism in his death — in which we may give to haptizo the sense of overwhelm (but not of dip, or immerse, as a .synonym of dip), but in which the Old Testament sense of purify better meets the demands of the context. (See §21.) _ Third. One passage — viz., 1 Kings v. 14 — in which a religious w^ashing, substantially a purification, and which washing may have been effected by " dipping in Jordan," is called a baptism. (See §14.) Fourth. A passage — viz., John iii. 25, 26 — in which haptizo is used as a synonym of katharizo (purify). And a second passage — viz., John i. 19-25 — from wliich it is evident that John the Baptist and the Jews understood these terms a.s synonymous. (See §§ 5, 6.) 78 The Doctrine of Baptisms, Fifth, A class of passages, in which baptizo is used in a spiritual sense; and this sense is the same with the spiritual sense, which Scripture use assigns to the word purify. (See §§ 25, 26, 27.) Sixth, A class of passages — viz., Ecc. xxxiv 25 §15- Judith xii. 7, §16; .Mark vii. 4, §18; Luke xi. 38, §18,' Heb. ix. 10, §19; Heb. vi. 2, §20— in which baptizo is expressly applied to Mosaic purifications. /Seventh. A class of passages — viz., those recording and referring to the " baptism with the Holy Ghost and with fire " — in which, to translate the word baptizo, immerse, is to contradict recorded fact, in so far as the ''baptism with fire" is concerned; and in the case of the "baptism with the Holy Ghost;" to apply to it a modal term, utterly at variance with the whole class of modal terms in the "Word of God ; and this, in the only case in which modal terms are used, with respect to baptism, in the whole Bible. (See §24.) In all tUs class of passages the word purify, in its Old Testament sense, meets every de- mand of the context. Eighth. Two passages — viz., 1 Cor. x. 2, §22; and 1 Pet. iii. 21, §23 — in which the translation, purify, i. e., separate unto God's service, exactly accords with, whilst the translation, immerse, flatly contradicts the plain re- cord of the Word of God. Or we may state the case differently. "We have af- firmed that baptizo, when used in the Word of God as a religious term, is used in the Old Testament sense of the word purify. Our reasons for limiting the question thus are given at large in Chapter I. If now, the Baptist can show one single instance in which baptizo is used in the Word of God as a religious term, in which the context, upon a fair and fuU examination, forbids this sense, our position is overthrown. After a careful examination of every instance in which baptizo occurs in the Word of God, we do not hesitate to express the opinion, that the Baptist will search, for one such as he requires, in vain. On the other hand, the Baptist affirms that baptizo "has but one signification — it always signifies to dip, never ex- pressing anything but mode." If, now, we can show one Summiiig up — Conclusion. 79 single instance in which the context, upon a full and fair examination, forbids this sense, the position of the Baptist is overthrown. Instead of one instance only, we give the Baptist his choice among the following eight: 1st. The baptism of Judith. §16. 2d. The baptism after touching a dead body. §15. 3d. The diverse baptisms under Moses' law. §19. 4th. The baptism of the tables. §18. 5th. The baptism with fire. §24. 6th. The baptism with the Holy Ghost. §24. 7th. The baptism in the cloud and in the sea. §22. 8th. The baptism in the ark, by the flood. §23. And we here remark, for the information of those not accustomed to the examination of such questions as this, that it is but seldom that a meaning for a word can be established by so many clear and decisive instances as these. "What, then, is the conclusion to which we come ? Plain- ly this — 1. If we reject our English word baptize — for baptize has now become truly and properly an English word — and attempt to translate the Greek baptize, we should translate it by the word purify, and not the word im- merse. At the same time, we remark, that the word pu- rify, as used in the Old Testament, is used in a sense dif- ferent from that in which it is used in common conversation and in the English classics. The English word baptize, in its common acceptation, more nearly expresses the ex- act idea of the Greek baptizo, than the English word pu- rify would. And on this account, we would greatly pre- fer to see our venerable English version stand "as of old." ^ 2. To translate the Greek baptizo in the Word of God, by the English words dip or immerse; or, in any other language, by words corresponding to our English words dip or immerse, is to mis-translate the Word of God. Not simply to make an allowable variation in a version of the Bible, but — TO mis-translate the Word of God. PAET 11. THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 4* THE MODE OF BAPTISM. CHAPTER I. STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION. g 32. Statement of the question—? 33. Arguments relied on to prove that immer- Hion is essential to yalid baptism. § 32. Statement of the Question. "Whilst the Baptist and non-Baptist churches agree, that in Christian baptism there must be an application of water to the person of the baptized, and that this appli- cation must be made " in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," they differ as to the mode in which this water is t6 be applied. The Baptist holds that there can be no valid baptism without the immersion of the person baptized. The non-Baptist churches, whilst admitting the validi- ty of baptism by immersion, hold that the application of water by sprinkling or pouring constitutes a baptism equally valid ; and that to require immersion in order to admission to the Church of God, is to infringe upon that Christian " liberty wherewith Christ hath made Lis peo- ple free," and to "teach for doctrine the commandments of men." And here, we would ask the reader to notice particu- 83 84 The Doctrine of Baptisms. larly, the real points of difference between the parties to this controversy. 1. It is not as to the validity of a baptism by immer- sion. On this point, both parties are agreed. 2. The difference is simply and solely as to the validity of baptism by sprinkling or pouring. The question, then is fairly stated thus : Is immersion essential to the validity of Christian baptism ? §33. Statement of the arguments relied on. The arguments by which the Baptist seeks to establish his position are derived — 1. From the meaning of the word baptizo. Affirming that it is a specific term ; that it has but one signification ; it always signifies to dip, never expressing anything but mode : — he argues, that to speak of baptizing by sprink- ling or pouring, is a contradiction in terms, and must so have presented itself to the mind of every one to whom the command, "repent, and be baptized," was addressed in the days of Christ and his Apostles; just as we, at the present day, would see a contradiction in terms in speak- ing of immersing by sprinkling or pouring. 2. From the emblematic import of baptism : the Bap- tist affirming that in the ordinance we have an emblem, not of spiritual purification alone, but also of the spiritual death, burial, and resurrection of the person baptized. On these points. Dr. Carson writes : " The immersion of the whole body is essential to baptism, not because nothing but immersion can be an emblem of purification, but be- cause immersion is the thing commanded." This he af- firms on the ground that baptizo " always signifies to dip, never expressing anything but mode." ''And because that, without immersion, there is no emblem of death, burial, and resurrection, which are in the emblem equally with purification. Had no emblem but that of purifica- tion been intended by this ordinance, we do not say that immersion would be either essential or preferable."* * Carson on Baptism, p. 381. Arguments relied on. So 3. From the practice of Christ and his apostles, as that practice is to be gathered from the inspired narratives of baptisms administered in their day. The first of these arguments we have already examined in Part I. ; the other two we propose examining in Part II., in the order in which they have been mentioned. The Doctrine of Baptmas. CHAPTER 11. SYMBOLIC IMPORT OF BAPTISM. §34. Rom. vi. 3, 4; Col. ii. 12. g35. Rom. vi. 3, 4. g 3G. Col. ii. 12. i 37. 1 Cor. XV. 29., The passages of Scripture upon which Baptist writers rely, as proof that in the rite of Christian baptism there was intended to be incorporated an '' emblem of death, burial and resurrection," are — Romans vi. 3, 4; Colos- sians ii. 12; and 1 Corinthians xv. 29. §34. Eom, vi. 3, 4; Col ii. 12. Rom. vi. 1-6. " "What shall we say then ? Shall we con- tinue in sin, that grace may abound ? God for- bid; how shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein ? Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore, we are buried with him by bap- tism into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resur- rection. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." Colossians ii. 10-12. '' And ye are complete in him, i. e. (Christ), which is the head of all principality and power ; in whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting ofi" the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Symbolic import of Baptism. 87 Christ : Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the opera- tion of God, who hath raised him from the dead." In the course of his comments on these two passages, Dr. Carson remarlvs : "I value the evidence of these two passages so highly that I look on them as perfectly de- cisive. They contain God's explanation of his own ordi- nance. And in this I call upon my unlearned Lrethren to admire the Divine wisdom. They do not understand the original, and the adoption of the words baptize and baptism can teach them nothing. Translators, by adopt- ing the Greek words, have contrived to hide the meaning from the unlearned. The Spirit of God has, by this ex- planation, enabled them to judge for themselves in this matter. While the learned are fighting about baptizo and certain Greek prepositions, let the unlearned turn to Kom, vi. 4, and Col. ii. 12." ^ In attaching so great im- portance to these passages, Dr. Carson does not differ from other Baptist writers ; and these passages are those from which the necessity of immersion is most frequently argued fr-om the pulpit. On this account we shall ex- amine them with greater care, and at greater length, than would otherwise seem necessary. "VVe have placed the two together at the head of this section, because the Baptist argument from both is sub- stantially the same. After examining this argument, we shall make such comments upon the passages, separately, as will serve to set before the reader what we consider the true import of them. The Baptist argument for immersion, from Bom. vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 12, may be stated, in brief, thus : — 1. The baptism here spoken of is ritual baptism, or bap- tism with water. 2. Paul treats it as a universally acknowledged fact, and therefore, one from which he may reason in settling a controverted point of doctrine, that in the rite of baptism Carson on Baptism, pp. 144, 145. 88 The Doctrine of Baptisms. there is symbolized the spiritual death, burial and resur- rection of the believer. ^ 3, nence the inference is drawn, that as immersion is the mode in which baptism with water most aptly repre- sents a death, burial and resurrection, these passages teach us that immersion is the divinely appointed mod 3 of baptism. Admitting, for the present, that we may give these passages a more thorough examination, that the baptism here spoken of is ritual baptism, as the Baptist contends, we remark : — First. It is the common faith of all evangelical Chris- tian churches, that water-baptism symbolizes regenera- tion, or that spiritual change of which our Lord speaks, when he says to Nicodemus, " Except a man be horn again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John iii. 3.) Thus the Presbyterian Confession of Faith teaches, that in baptism there is symbolized, not only the " remission of sins," but also our "ingrafting into Christ," and "our giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life," (chap, xxviii.) ; i. e. there is symbolized regeneration, in the full Scriptural sense of that term. What, now, we ask, is the meaning of the phrase, " the spiritual death, burial and resurrection of the believer," his "death unto sin," his resurrection to "walk in new- ness of life ? " Nothing more nor less than simply re- ^ Baptist writers, when treating of the death, burial and resurrection symbolized in baptism, often make use of language so equivocal as to leave the reader m doubt whether they mean a spiritual death, burial and resurrection, or the death, burial and resurrection of the body of the believer. In Rom. vi. 3, 4, the death and resurrection are un- doubtedly spiritual ; since the death is expressly declared to be, a death " wito sin," that we " should live no longer therein," and the resurrection, a resurrection "to walk in newness of life;" not here- after, in heaven, but here, upon earth. So Dr. Carson regards it. Hence he writes — " Here we see that baptism is an emblem also of the new life of the Christian. He dies with Christ to sin, he rises with him to a new life of holi-ness." (Carson on Baptism, p. 143.) To confound the two — i. e., natural and spiritual death, burial and resurrection, is to be imposed upon by the mere sound of words, to fall into the same sort of error which Nicodemus did with respect to the phrase " Ye must be born again," when he asked "Can a man enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" jSt/mbolic i/npoi-t of BajDiis-m. 89 generation. When, then, the Baptist expositor of these passages says, Water-baptism has a two-fold import ; viz., 1st, symbolizing regeneration in the washing with water; and 2d, symbolizing the spiritual death, burial, and resurrection of the believer, in the immersion of the person baptized, he is imposed upon by the mere sound of words. His two things are but one and the same thing. Second. Where spiritual things are to be symbolized by material things, the choice of a symbol cannot bo based upon any proper similitude between the two ; for, as Dr. Carson remarks, when discussing the " baptism with the Holy Ghost," "There is no likeness to the Spirit, nor to the mode of his operations. It is blasphemy to attempt a representation. It would be as easy to make a likeness of God creating the world, and attempt to re- present by a picture the Divine operations in the forma- tion of matter, as to represent by symbol the manner of the communication of the Holy Spirit, and his operations on the soid."^ In all such cases, the choice of a symbol must be based upon some one of the several analogies which exist between the material symbol and the imma- terial thing symbolized. In the case under consideration, several of these analo- gies have been incorporated in the figurative language of Scripture. Thus, the sacred writers speak of regenera- tion as the substitution of a heart of flesh for a heart of stone : " I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh." (Ezek. xxxvi. 26.) As the taking of a stone out of the earth and build- ing it into a habitation : " In whom also ye are buildcd together, for a habitation of God through the Spirit." (Eph. ii. 22.) As the ingrafting of a limb into a body : " I am the vine, ye are the branches ; he that abideth in me and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit." (John XV. 5.) As the putting off of filthy garments, and the putting on of clean : " Put off, concerning the former conversation, the old man, and put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holi- * Carson on Baptism, p. 105. 90 The Doctrine of Baptisms. ness." (Eph. iv. 22, 24.) As a death, burial, and resur- rection with Christ, in the passages under examination. As the appUcation of a cleansing element to the body: " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean." (Ezek, xxxvi. 25.) These, and many more such analogies, are found incorporated in the figurative language of Scripture. The choice of a symbol for regeneration may, in the first instance, be based upon any one of these analogies ; and when that choice is once made, the symbol will repre- sent the thing symbolized, no matter by what figurative language you may choose to designate it. To introduce a new symbol, or to incorporate a new element in the symbol, for each one of the analogies found in the figura- tive language of Scripture, on the ground that these figures, although equivalent, are not one and the same — as by making the application of the purifying element, water, emblematic of regeneration, and immersion in water emblematic of spiritual death, burial, and resur- rection, which is neither more nor less than regenera- tion— is like insisting upon the payment of a debt, once paid in gold, a second time in silver ; because, whilst gold and silver are equivalent in value, they are not one and the same substance. God has chosen to base his selection of a symbol for regeneration, upon the purifying effect of water applied to the body, an analogy familiar to the minds of those among whom Christian baptism was first administered, through their observance of Moses' law; and now, the choice being made, the application of water to the body symbolizes regeneration, by whatever figurative language we may choose to designate it. Is, now, the question asked, Does not baptism sym- bohze the spiritual death, burial, and resurrection of the behever? we answer. Yes. And for the same reason, would we answer tiie questions, Does not baptism sym- bolize the putting oif of the old man, and the putting on of the new ? Yes. Does not baptism symboUze the^ in- grafting of a believer into Christ, as a branch into a vine? Yes. Does not baptism symboHze the taking away of the Si/mholic import of Baptism. 91 stony heart out of our flosli, and the giving instead thereof a heart of flesh? Yes. Does not baptism sym- bolize the cleansing of the soul from the guilt and pollu- tion of sin ? Yes. Baptism symbolizes them one and all ; and for the simple and sufficient reason, that they are all one and the same thing — viz., the spiritual change which Christ calls regeiuratloii, a being born agaiyi. Is the further question asked, Do not the Scriptures teach that the analogy between " death, burial, and resur- rection" and regeneration was intended to be incorporated in the symbol, baptism, in saying, " We are buried with him by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life?" we answer, No more than they teach that the analogy between the in- grafting of a branch into a vine and regeneration was in- tended to be incorporated in it, in saying, " For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body." (1 Cor. xii. 13.) Or, that the analogy between the putting off of filthy garments, and the putting on of clean, and regeneration, was intended to be incorporated in it, in saying, " For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Gal. iii. 27.) In fact, one of the earliest departures from the simplici- ty of this rite, as administered by the Apostles, was the removal of the old garments from the person to be bap- tized, and the clothing of him in a clean white robe after baptism. Gal. iii. 27, was pleaded as authority for this practice, and the argument from the sacred text was of just the same kind as that by which the Baptist proves immersion from Rom. vi. 3, 4; Col. ii. 12, at the present day. Admitting, then, that the baptism spoken of in the pas- sages under examination is ritual baptism, they do not teach immersion ; and every reason for supposing that they do is based upon a misapprehension, on one or other of two points — viz. 1. That the spiritual death, burial, and resurrection of the believer is something different from his regeneration ; whereas, they are but one and the same thing. Or, 2, That a material symbol of a spiritual thing, 92 The Doctrine of Baptisms, must embody, as distinct elements, all the analogies exist- ing between that material symbol and the immaterial thing symbolized. Thus far, we have taken it for granted that the baptism here spoken of is ritual baptism, or baptism with water. We now raise a question on this point ; and express our belief that Paul here uses the term baptism in its spiritual sense, i. e., in the sense of regeneration ; and, of course, that there is no reference to the mode of baptism intended. From this point we must conduct our examination of Rom. vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 12, separately. § 35. Rommvi, vi. 3, 4. In this passage, the spiritual sense of baptism seems to be demanded, both by the peculiar form of the expression Paul uses, and by the course of his argument. First. Paul here uses the peculiar form of expression "baptized into Christ," and not the more common form " baptized in the name of Christ." Let the reader attempt to picture to his mind, as a rite to be administered, a bap- tism in the name of Christ and he will find no difficulty in the work. It is just a rite consisting in the application of water to the person of the baptized, which act, the bap- tizer declares to be done in the name of Christ. But let him now make a similar attempt with ''a baptism into Christ," and he will see that this phrase can appropriately belong to a spiritual act only. This distinction in the use of these forms of expression, appropriate in itself, is uniformly observed by the sacred writers. The form "baptized into Christ," is never used where ritual baptism is intended; the form "baptized in the name of Christ," is never used but when ritual bap- tism is intended. As illustrating the use of the latter form, we cite Matt, xxviii. 19. "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, bap- tizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Acts ii. 38, "Then Peter said unto them, Eepent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye Symbolic import of Baptism. 93 shall receive tlie gift of tlie Holy Gliost." Acts xix. 5. " And lie commanded them to be baptized in the name of tlie Lord Jesus." In all these instances, the context de- termines that the baptism spoken of is the external rite. As illustrating the use of the other form, we cite Gal. iii. 27. " For as many of you as have been baptized mfo Christ, have put on Christ." 1 Cor. xii. 13. "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body." 2 Cor. x. 2. "And were all baptized unto (or into) Moses, in the cloud and in the sea," These passages, with the one we are examining, are all the passages in the New Testa- ment, in which this peculiar form of expression occurs. In the case of the two first quoted, we have already shown that the baptism spoken of is a spiritual baptism. (See §§ 25, 26.) In the case of the third, the baptism "unto, or into Moses," ritual baptism is not intended; but in ac- cordance with a common Scriptural usage, the name of the antetype is thrown back upon the type; Paul meaning by the baptism of Israel into Moses, simply, their separation unto God's service, in union with Moses. (See §22.) These instances of the use of these two forms of expres- sion, baptized into and baptized in the name of, go to es- tablish the usus loquendi of the sacred writers, in their application of them ; and require us to understand Paul, when he writes " Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized iyito Jesus Christ," (Ptom. vi. 3,) as speaking, not of a ritual, but of a spiritual l^aptism. Second. The course of Paul's argument here, demands the spiritual sense of baptism, in this passage. He is answering the objection of a caviller, to the doctrine which forms the grand subject of his epistle to the Eo- mans — the doctrine of justification by faith, without the deeds of the law. This objection he first states in ver. 1, "Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?" — ^just the grand objection made to this doctrine by the caviller, in every age and in every country, that it tends to immorality. In ver. 2, Paul indignantly repels the in- ference which constitutes the objection ; " God forbid,'' his usual form of expression at once of denial and of ab- ■ horrence, " How shall we that are dead to sin, live any '94 The Doctrine of Baptisms. longer therein ? " And here, in the figurative expression, ""dead to sin," a very common expression with Paul (see Eom. vii. 4 ; 2 Cor. v. 14 ; Eph. ii. 1 ; Col. iii. 3), is the fountain from which springs the phraseology running through vers. 3, 4, in which verses he proceeds to answer the objection more at large. Let us now ask the question; what is the answer which the Scriptures teach us to make to this objection — that the doctrine of gratuitous justification tends to immorali- ty? Is it not this ? That in God's scheme of salvation, justification, and sanctification (using that term in its widest sense, as including regeneration) are inseparably connected. They are both acts of a sovereign God ; and in the exercise of his sovereignty, God never pardons a sinner without working in that sinner a death unto sin, that he may live unto God. This is just the answer which Baptist expositors, in common with ourselves, understand the Apostle to be giving expression to in vers. 3, 4; but with this difference: Baptist expositors understand Paul here to declare, that Christians have professed to receive this as true, whilst we understand Paul here to assert its truth ; and considering that he is here answering the objection of a caviller, there is all the difference between these two, in so for as argu- ment is concerned, that there is between a profession and a fact. To make this matter plain, let us paraphrase this pas- sage, in accordance with these different views of its inter- pretation. 1. Know ye (i. e., ye cavillers, who say, let us " con- tinue in sin that grace may abound,") not, that so many of us as were baptized into Christ, were baptized in a mode which represented in emblem our spiritual death with him? We have professed, in receiving such a baptism, that we were spiritually buried with him, and also our belief that like as Christ was raised up from the dead, by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 2. Know ye (i. e., ye cavillers) not, that so many of us as have been regenerated into a spiritual union with Symbolic imjwrt of Baptism. 95 Christ, have been regenerated into union with one dead to the world? Therefore, being regenerated into union with him in this his death, our death is complete ; we are buried with him in the regeneration. (For the use of even stronger language than the word buried, to express the idea of death completed, see Ezek. vii. 3, 12 : Gal. vi. 12 ; Col. iii. 3.) And we thus die, that the same glorious God who raised up Clrrist from the dead, may raise us up also, to walk in newness of life. Third. The immediate context demands the spiritual sense of baptism here. The resurrection of the believer, here spoken of, is one, the consequence of which is that he shall " walk in newness of life :" — not hereafter in hea- ven; but here, at this present time, upon earth. The resurrection, then, is a spiritual resurrection. The death of which Paul speaks is styled in verse 2, a " death to sin;" i. e., a spiritual death. The burial is a burial "into this death;" verse 3. A burial into a spiritual death must be a spiritual burial. If, then, the death, burial, and resurrection, here spoken of, are spiritual, is it a forced interpretation, which would make the baptism which they ■ constituted ("buried bij baptism") a spiritual baptism? Is it not, rather, a forced interpretation, which would make it anything else than a spiritual baptism ? § 3G. Colossians ii. 12. The phrase, " ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God," is sometimes spoken of as if the "operation," here mentioned, were baptism. Perhaps there is something equivocal in our English translation : — in the original Greek, however, it is not so. Doddridge translates the phrase : " Ye were raised with him, by belief in the energy of God, who raised him from the dead." McKnight translates it : " Ye have been raised with him through the belief of the strong-working of God, who raised him from the dead." Both of these trans- lations are more literal than that of our common version, and they both bring out the sense in which " the operation of God " is to be understood. 96 The Doctrine of Baptisms. The spiritual sense of the word baptism, in this pas- sage, is demanded : — First. By the immediate context. (1.) Paul says of the believer's resurrection in baptism, it is " by belief in the energy, or strong-working of God," a resurrection by faith, i. e., a spiritual resurrection ; and not a resurrection out of the water, by the strength of the one administer- ing the baptism. '' Buried with him in baptism, wherein," i. e., in your baptism, " also ye are risen again by faith in the energy of (jrod." If the resurrection is spiritual so must the burial be also, since both the resurrection and burial belong to, and, in fact constitute one baptism ; and the baptism, constituted as it is, of a spiritual resurrec- tion, must be a spiritual baptism, i. e., regeneration. (2.) Paul is here evidently using the understood nature of the older rite, circumcision, to illustrate the nature of bap- tism; and to mark this the more distinctly, he calls bap- tism " the circumcision of Christ," or Christian circum- cision. Now, the circumcision of which Paul speaks, he declares expressly, is a circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, i. e., a spi- ritual circumcision. We can understand how spiritual cir- cumcision, as understood by those to whom Paul addresses himself, shall illustrate the nature of a spiritual baptism, but not of water baptism. Second. By Paul's train of thought and reasoning run- ning throughout this chapter. He is warning the Colos- sians against the danger of substituting formalism for spirituality in religion. " Beware," writes he, " lest any man spoil you, through philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men, and after the rudiments of this world," (verse 8 ;) which he afterwards more fully ex- plains in his words : "Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect to a holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath day. Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility, and worship- ping of angels," (verses 16, 18.) A striking specification, this, of the developments of formalism, as they presented themselves in the Jewish Church in Paul's day, and as they have appeared in the "great apostasy" since. Symbolic import of Baptism. 07 . "What reasons does Paul urge why Christians should not give such attention, as some of their Judaizing mem- bers contended for, even to some things lawful and proper ■ in themselves and in their own place ? Among others, this: "They were complete in Christ, in whom dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily," (verse 9.) And this ■ is just the point on which he is enlarging in the passage under examination. "In whom (i. e., in Christ), also, ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting oft" the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: buried ivith him in baptism; (i. e., completely dead with him in your regeneration), wherein, also, ye are risen with him, through faith in the energy of God, who hath raised him from the dead." Thus interpreted, verse 12 falls in with the spirit of verse 11, both of them being expository of Paul's meaning in saying that believers are "complete in Christ." §37. 1 Corinthians, xv. 29. " Else what shall they do, which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they, then, BAPTIZED for the dead?" Dr. Carson's comment on this passage is : " There must be an argument here, and this object of baptism must be a Scriptural object, otherwise it could not be an argument. Indeed, though to us the passage may be difficult, from diff'erence of circumstances with respect to those immedi- ately addressed, yet it is evident that the Apostle con- sidered the argument as very obvious and convincing. Now, to consider the expression to be a reference to the mode and import of baptism, as implying an emblem of the resurrection of believers, will afford a natural meaning to the words, and an important argument to the Apostle. Baptism is an ordinance that represents our burial and resurrection with Christ. We are baptized, in the hope that our dead bodies shall rise from the grave. Now, if there is no resurrection, why are we baptized? On that supposition there is no meaning in baptism. It is absurd for any to be baptized, baptism being a figure of resurrec- tion, if they do not believe in a resurrection." 5 98 The Doctrine of Baptisms. On this exposition, we remark : 1. It seems unaccountable to us, if the resurrection of the dead was so clearly figured forth in baptism, in the believer's "rising from his watery grave," as the Baptist contends for, that serious doubts respecting the reality of a resurrection should ever have arisen in the Church at Corinth. And yet, that the doctrine of a resurrection had been called in question, and even rejected by some, is evident from the lengthened proof of that doctrine which Paul gives in the context. If immersion were the mode of baptism practised at Corinth, and by divine ap- pointment, the rising of the person immersed out of the water, was universally understood to be an emblem of the believer's resurrection from the grave; and this is so un- questionably true, that Paul could appeal to it as a deci- sive argument in establishing the fact of a resurrection; we cannot understand how it is possible the Corinthians could ever have rejected that doctrme. 2. Dr. Carson's interpretation^ requires us to read, " Else what shall they do, which are baptized in the hope of a resurrection of the dead,'' mstead of baptized for the dead,'^ as Paul has written it— i. e. to interpolate "the hope of the resurrection," a phrase which may entirely change the meaning of the text. Such interpolations should never be made, unless there be unquestionable in- timation in the context, that such word or phrase is in- tended to be supplied ; and no such intimation is given here. By throwing in a word or phrase here and there, on the same principles upon which Dr. Carson interpo- lates the passage under examination, it will be a very easy matter to make the word of God teach anything which the expositor chooses. 3. If the Scriptures teach that in baptism we have sym- bolized "the resurrection from the dead," of the believer, they teach that truth in this passage only. The believer's resurrection spoken of in Kom. vi. 5, is undoubtedly a spiritual resurrection, i. e. a resurrection only in figure ; since it is expressly declared to be a resurrection "to walk ' Carson on Baptir,m, pp. 163, lfi4. Symbolic import of Baptism. 99 in newness of life." So also ilie resurrection spoken of in Col. ii. 12, where the resurrection is said to be a resur- rection " through faith." Respecting the true interpretation of this passage, there has been great ditfcrence of opinion among our ablest commentators; and this, because of the obscurity of the phrase " baptized for the dead." The exposition which on the whole we prefer, is that which makes this phrase refer directly to Christ Jesus, here called " the dead," on the supposition made in ver. 16, that he is not risen fi'om the dead. Paul's argument then, would be a proof of the believer's resurrection, from the resurrection of Christ. 1. This interpretation suits the course of Paul's argu- ment in the context. This chapter opens with the proof of the resurrection of Christ, that he was seen after his resurrection by the twelve, by five hundred brethren, the greater part of whom were living then, and by Paul him- self. (Vers. 4-8.) Then, from the resurrection of Christ thus established, he undertakes the refutation of the dangerous error taught by some in Corinth, that there was no resurrection of the dead. Vers. 12-16. Pointing to the connection existing between Christ and the believer, such as that between the first fruits and the harvest, ver. 20, and similar to that between Adam and his descendants, vers. 21, 22, Paul argues that the condition of the one is determined by that of the other; and hence, concludes that "if there be no resurrection of the dead" believer, "then Christ is not raised." Ver. 16. Adopting, for argument's sake, the supposition that " Christ is not raised," he shows the con- sequences which must follow : 1. " Your faith is vain ; ye are yet in your sins," i. e., your faith is in a dead person, who cannot help you. Ver. 17. 2. " Having hope in Christ, in this Hfe only, we are of all men most miserable." Ver. 19. 3. It is folly to be baptized for a dead one, as Christ is on this supposition; "Else what shall they do, which are baptized for " (i. e., separated unto the service of) "the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead ? " Ver. 29. Considering from ver. 2-1 to ver. 29 a parenthesis, and such it evidently is, 100 The Doctrine of Baptisms. ver. 28 will follow immediately the other statements of difficulty, under which the supposition that " Christ is not raised," in Paul's view, labors. And then Paul goes on to answer certain objections to the doctrine of the resur- rection, and to state that doctrine at large throughout the remainder of the chapter. 2. In the original, the word translated " the dead," is in the plural form. " In Greek the plural form is often used where only an individual or a particular thing is meant." (See Stuart's N. T. Grammar, p. 149.) And grammarians notice what they call " the plural of digni- ty," i. e., the plural form used to indicate dignity in the person spoken of. This plural of dignity in " the dead," if we understand Christ Jesus to be " the dead " one in- tended, is just in place here. This peculiarity, then, in the original, when we call to mind the idiom of the Greek, affords strong confirmation of the correctness of this in- terpretation. We would paraphrase the passage : On the supposition that Christ is not risen — is yet dead, what shall they do who are baptized for this dead one ? If the dead rise not at all, why are we then baptized for the dead, as we all have been when "baptized in the name of Jesus? " John's BajDtisms in Jordan. 101 CHAPTER III. g88. John's Baptisms in Jordan. Matt. iii. llfi: Mark, 14 10: Luke iii. 3, 21; John i. 28, X. 40. ? 39. John's Baptisms at ^uon. John, iii. 23. g 40. The Baptism of the Euiiuuh. Acts, viii. 36-39. § 38. Johns Baptisms in Jordan. Matt. iii. 1, 5, 6, 13, 16. " In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea. Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. Then Cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan, unto John, to be BAPTIZED of him. And Jesus, when he was BAPTIZED, went up straightway out of the water." Mark i. 4, 5, 6, 9, 10. "John did baptize in the wilder- ness, and preach the baptism of repentance, for the remission of sins. And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were baptized in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened." Luke iii. 3, 21. " And he " (John), " came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of re- pentance, for the remission of sins. Now, when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the Heaven was opened." John i. 28, x. 40. " These things were done in Bethaba- ra, beyond Jordan where John was baptizing. " And he," (Jesus), " went away again beyond Jordan, into the place where John at first baptized." 102 TiLC Doctrine of Baptisms. That these baptisms of John were baptisms by immer- sion, is thought by Baptist writers to be fairly inferable : 1. From the phraseology of the sacred text, " in Jordan," " in the river Jordan," and more especially, "he went up outof thev)ater." And 2. From the fact that they were performed in a river. First. Respecting the phraseology used by the Evange- lists, we ask : Supposing that John and Jesus, in the bap- tism of the latter, had together entered the water to .such a depth that John, by reaching down his hand, could con- veniently obtain the water needed to baptize him by aspersion, would not precisely the same phraseology have been used in recording the baptism? — 'Mn Jordan," "in the river Jordan," and " he went up straightway out of the water." That this Avas indeed the way in which Jesus was bap- tized by John, is, we think, rendered more than probable by several considerations. 1. With the dress of the people of Judea, such a bap- tism would be altogether natural. The principal articles of dress worn by the common people were, a loose coat or toga, reaching down a little below the knee, and bound to the body by a girdle, and wooden sandals. Such a dress was that worn by John at the time of these baptisms. " And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins." (Matt. iii. 4.) If baptism were to be administered in a warm country like Judea, and where such was the dress of all parties, and where it was not customary for the people to carry drink- ing vessels of any kind with them (in the army of Gideon, containing at the time ten thousand men, there was not a single drinking vessel found. See Judges, vii. 5, 6,) in which water could conveniently be brought ; what more natural than that a baptism by aspersion should be ad- ministered in the way we have supposed ? 2. To drink by raising water in the hand to the mouth, in the same way in which we have supposed John to have raised the water for baptizing Jesus, is a very common cus- tom in Eastern countries now, and has been so from a very early date, as is evident from the way in which God di- Johns Baptisms in Jordan. 103 rects Gideon to select those who are to accompany him against the Midianites. See Judges vi'i. 5, 6. The true explanation of the phrase " every one that lappeth of the water with his tongue, as a dog lappeth," undoubtedly is that these men, instead of kneeling down to take a long draught, or successive draughts, from the water, employed their hand as the dog employs his tongue ; that is, form- ing it into a hollow spoon, and dipping water with it from the stream. This mode of drinking is often practised in the East, and practice alone can give that peculiar tact wdiich generally excites the wonder of travellers. The interchange of the hand between the water and the mouth is managed with amazing dexterity, and with nearly or quite as much rapidity as the tongue of the dog in the same act. The water is not sucked out of the hand, but by a peculiar jerk is thrown into the mouth before the hand is brought close to it ; so that the hand is approach- ing with a fresh supply almost before the first has been swallowed. This explanation will serve to show how the distinction operated, and why those who ' lapped, putting their hands to their mouths,' were considered to evince an alacrity and readiness for action, which peculiarly fitted them for the service in which Gideon was engaged." (Bush's Notes, Judges, vii. 5.) 3. As remarked in § 10, the oriental method of bath- ing, whether performed in a river or in a bath, is not by immersing the body in the water, but by having the water thrown upon the body by an attendant, as all travellers tell us. And such, we have reason to believe, has been the custom prevailing foi ages : 1. Because the oriental nations are remarkable for seldom or never changing a custom; and, 2. Because the Scriptural ac- counts of bathings performed in ancient days contain hints, at least, of these bathings being performed in this way. Pharaoh's daughter, when she went " to wash her- self at the river," was accompanied by her maidens. (See Ex. ii. 5.) Judith, when she washed herself in the valley of Bethulia, was accompanied by her maid. (See Judith, xiii. 10.) And in the sixth chapter of Tobit, we have an account of a young man washing himself in a river, where 104 The Doctrine of Baptisms. the word perz-klusasthai, to throw up the water as in waves around his body, is used to describe his washing. (Tobit, vi. 2.) In interpreting such a narrative as that given us in the Gospels, of John's baptisms, we must be guided by the customs of the country in wliich the transaction narrated occurred, and not by the customs of some other country : and, in view of these facts just stated, we aifirm that all we can learn of the customs prevalent in Judea at the time John baptized in Jordan, favors the idea of baptism by aspersion in the manner we have supposed, and is ad- verse to the idea of baptism by immersion. 4. All the most ancient pictorial representations of the baptism of Christ in Jordan, and some of them are of great antiquity, represent the baptism as performed in the way we have supposed. The evidence, in questions respecting ancient manners and customs, afforded by con- temporary pictures, is, on all hands, considered the most rehable which can be obtained. The pictures which have been discovered in the ancient tombs of Egypt have shut the mouth of many an infidel caviller at Moses' history; and did the pictures of John's baptism of Jesus date back to the days of Christ, they would be absolutely decisive of the question. They cannot, however, claim so great an- tiquity as this. From the peculiar circumstances attend- ant upon the early spread of Christianity, and more espe- cially the persecutions which it encountered, if there were any such pictorial representations then made they have not come down to us. Still, there are some very ancient engraved plates and mosaics depicting the scene (for this was a favorite subject of early Christian art), and more recently, pictorial representations have been discovered in the catacombs of Komo, which, probably, date back to the time of the primitive persecutions, and these all agree in representing the baptism of Jesus in Jordan as performed by aspersion, and in the way we have supposed. Now, we do not think that the evidence of these picto- rial representations absolutely decides this matter, as it would if they were contemporary representations. But this, we do think, must in all fairness be allowed, that Johns Baptisms in Jordan. 105 when the language of the record will suit either method, equally well, this evidence should come in to determine our choice between the two, considered as a choice betioeen probabilities. Second. — The fact that these baptisms by John were performed in a river, is thought, by Baptist writers, to furnish proof that they were performed by immersion. " What could take him," i. e., Jesus, " into the river at all if he was only to be sprinkled? what could take him to the edge of the water? what could take him to the . river? No rational answer can be given to this on the ground that sprinkling a few drops of water is baptism." ' So writes Dr. Carson. Let us see if the Scriptures will give us any answer to these questions. 1. John was preaching in " a wilderness " (Matt. iii. 1), and this wilderness extended down to the very bank of the Jordan, for thus only can we explain the language of Mark, "John did baptize in the wilderness.'' (Mark i. 4.) A wilderness, or a desert country, would not contain either wells or springs of water. If, then, baptism is to be administered, even by aspersion, to the multitudes who thronged about John — " Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan " (Matt. iii. 5) — to receive baptism at his hands, we see not how the water could be conveniently obtained, excepting by all parties going to the river; and in the warm climate of Judea, and with the dress and customs common at that day, we see not how it could be as conveniently administered in any other way, as by the parties walking into the Jordan, as we have supposed them to do. 2. A second reason why John baptized in Jordan, ex- ists in the nature of John's baptism. As we have already shown in §29, John's baptism was not Christian baptism, but a Jewish baptism. It was a baptism administered in Judea, by a Jew, to Jews, and whilst the Jewish dispensa- tion had not as yet passed away. The law of Moses was still in force, as is evident from our Saviour's teaching and example, up to the time of the pentecostal baptism of ■ Carson on Baptism, p. 373. 5 = 106 Tlui Doctrine of Bajytisms. the Apostles with " the Holy Ghost and with fire," Ac- cording to the law of Moses, whatever an unclean person touched, even water, was thereby rendered unclean — an exception being made in the case of running water, in- cluding fountains and " pits wherein is plenty of water " (see §10), a kind of a pit not to be met with in a " wil- derness." John's baptisms were undoubtedly of the na- ture of purifications," i. e., a separation of the baptized unto God's service, as expectants of the coming Messiah, and if these baptisms are to be performed in accordance with the requirements of the law, no other place than such an one as the "river Jordan," or ^non (see §39), will answer the purpose. And in proof that this was the great reason why John baptized, first in Jordan and af- terwards at ^non, we ask the reader to remark the fact that after the Christian dispensation was fairly intro- duced, we read no more in the Word of God of baptisms " in rivers," but in every instance, baptisms appear to have been administered just where the convert has been led to embrace the truth, as in the case of the three thousand on the day of pentecost, and the cases of Paul, of Cornelius, and the Jailer at Philippi. Here, then, we have two answers to Dr. Carson's ques- .tions, " What could take him to the river if he was only to be sprinkled? what could take him to the edge of the water?" And they are both of them scriptural answers too, suggested by the inspired narrative itself. Can as much be said on behalf of immersion, as a reason for John's baptizing in Jordan ? § 39. Johns Baptisms at ^non. John iii. 23. "And John also was baptizing in ^Enon, near to Salim, because there was much water (lite- rally, many waters) there." 1. What are we to understand by the " much water " (or, as both the words in the Greek have the plural form, a literal translation will be "many waters ") here spoken of? Some will answer — simply a large quantity of water. Joh/is Baptisms at yEnon. 107 To this we reply; Scripture usage is at variance with this answer. No example can be adduced of the use of this form of expression, in the New Testament, to de- signate the quantity of water merely. It is the waters of a sea or lake, as broken into waves, or the multiplied waters of numerous streams or fountains to which alone it is applied. Rev. i. 15 ; Rev. xvii. 1, 15. The suggestion arising out of the peculiar form of ex- pression used in the text, becomes, in our view, a cer- tainty, when we take into account the name of the place " J^non." " En or ^n," says Calmet, in his Bible Dic- tionary, " signifies a fountain, for which reason we find it compounded in many names of places ; e. g., En-Dor, i. e., the fountain of Dor, En-Geddi, i. e., the fountain of Geddi." ^Enon is the plural of jEn, and of course means fountains. The names of almost all places, in early times, were significant, and given on account of some remark- able event which had happened there, or some peculiarity of the place. How is it likely that this place ever got the name of iEnon (the springs) excepting from the fact that there were many fountains there? Translate the passage literally, and fully, and it will read — " John was bap- tizing at the springs near to Salim, because there were many loaters there." Does not the interpretation which would make these " many waters "to be many fountains or streams, appear, not simply the most natural, but the only natural one ? 2. But why select this place, on this account, for ad- ministering baptism? Certainly, not because fountains, or streams near their fountains, are peculiarly adapted to immersion. We have read, in our day, of baptism by immersion in rivers, in ponds, and in baptisteries, but never of immersions in springs or fountains. Nor can we admit the explanation sometimes given, that the " many waters " at ^non, made it a very suitable place for people to congregate in large numbers, since they would thus be secured against all suffering from thirst. In writing as the Apostle does — "John was baptizing at iEnon, near to Salim, because there were many waters there," he seems, according to fair principles of interpre- 108 The Doctrine of Bajotisms. tation, to mention the " many waters " there, as that which rendered the place a fit one for administering bap- tism at. John selected ^non for his later baptisms, and jEnon was a fit place for those baptisms, because those baptisms were Jewish and not Christian baptisms. The law of Moses must be complied with, and that law required that baptisms such as these should be administered in running water, or in a spring, or a pit wherein was plenty of water ; and this, in order that the defilement which the water ac- quired by contact with the person first baptized, might not unfit it for the baptism of the second. § 40. The Baptism of the Eunuch. Acts viii. 36-39. " And as they went on their way, they came to a certain water : and the eunuch said, See, here is water ; what doth hinder me to be baptized ? And Philip said. If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesas Christ is the Son of God. And he com- manded the chariot to stand still : and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch ; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eanuch saw him no more : and he went on his way rejoicing." This baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch by Philip is thought to have been a baptism by immersion, from Luke's use of the expressions — '' And they went down both into the water. And when they were come tip out of the water." Admitting for the present, the Baptist's suppo- sition, that the " certain water here mentioned was some large body of water, such as a river or pool ; we ask — Would not Luke have used the same forms of expression in describing the transaction, had the baptism been per- formed in the other way, which all the most ancient pic- torial representations of our Lord's baptism point out as that which John practised ? The Baptism of ike Eunuch. 109 Bat there are circumstances in this narrative, whi<.'h lead us to think that the eunuch was baptized without either he or PhiUp entering the water. The Greek word here translated, into, is the same word translated unto, in Matt. xv. 24, " I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel ; " Matt. xxii. 4, " All things are ready : come unto the marriage ; " John xi. 31, " She goeth unto the sepulchre, that she may weep there ; " said of Mary, while the stone which closed the sepulchre was not yet taken away, v. 39 ; in this very chapter it is twice translated unto. " And Peter said unto him," ver. 20 ; "from Jerusalem unto Gaza," ver. 26. And the Greek word translated "out of," is the same trans- lated/rom, in Matt. xiii. 49, "And sever the wicked /ro/?i among the just," Mark xiii. 27, "And shall gather together his elect froyn the four winds;" Mark i. 11, " And there came a voice frorn heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." From these examples (and we could easily adduce many more, did it seem necessary), it is evident that Scriptural usage will autho- rize the translation either into or unto, and out of or from, and consequently the translation, in any particular instance, must be determined in some way, before it can be appealed to in argument. Can the sense in which they are here used be deter- mined from the context ? The Baptist will say the expressions " ivent down " and " came up " call for the translations iiito and out of. The verbs of motion here in question, in the original Greek, are compounded with the prepositions, instead of standing separate, as they do in our English version, A literal translation, preserving the exact form of the original, as far as it can be pre- served in a translation, is — " And he commanded the chariot to stand still, and they descended eis {u7ito or into) the water, that is, Philip and the eunuch, and he bap- tized him. And when they ascended ek {from or out of) the water." It is only in our English translation, then, that the expressions " went down " and " came up " seem to call for the translations into and out of. If, however, as we think, the " certain loater " at which no The Doctrine, of Bapt'isnu. tliis baptism was performed, can be shown to bave been, in all probability, a wayside well or fountain, this would determine the translation of these prepositions, as men do not usually go into, but unto, and do not come out of, but from a well or fountain. Our reasons for thinking this " certain water " was, in all probability, a wayside well or fountain, are : 1. The name which Luke gives it — " A certain water," (and this is a literal translation of the original), does not imply anything more than such a wayside well. This fact, taken in connection with the other, that he gives it no specific name — rivers, lakes, and even pools, ordi- narily having particular names, and names by which they are spoken of in Scripture — naturally suggests that this was some inconsiderable wayside well or fountain, having no particular name, and therefore called by the most general of all names, " a certain water." 2. On the way from Jerusalem to Gaza, the way that Philip and the eunuch were travelling when they came to this " certain water," neither the Scriptures nor the writings of modern travelers give us the slightest intima- tion of the existence of any river or other large body of water. 3. Luke expressly tells us, that the way they were traveling was a " desert " way : " In the way that goelh down from Jerusalem to Gaza, which is desert," — not Gaza, but — " the way is desert." On a desert way, it is altogether improbable that any large body of water would be met with.: whilst we know, from various intimations in Scripture, as well as from the testimony of modern travelers, that wayside wells are to be met with even in desert countries, and that the routes of travel are usually arranged with reference to these wayside wells. 4. Besides all this, we think that there is intimation in the inspired record of this event, of the way in which this baptism was actually performed. Let the reader notice that the subject of baptism is introduced by the eunuch, and not by Philip: "And the eunuch said, See, here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized?" Was there anything in the passage of Scripture that Philip The Baptixhi of the Eunuch. 1 1 L was expounding, which would naturally bring up this sub- ject before the mind of the eunuch? The passage from which Philip was preaching unto him, Jesus, was from the prophecy of Isaiah. (See vers. 32, 33.) Turning to this passage (remembering that the division of the Bible into chapters is of modern origin, and therefore, of no au- thority), it will be seen that the passage commences with the 13th verse of chap. 52, and embraces the whole of chap. 53; since it is in the first verse mentioned, Isaiah introduces the subject of Christ's vicarious sufierings, the subject of which he continues to treat throughout the fol- lowing chapter. Among the first things that Isaiah says of Jesus is, " so shall he sprinkle many nations." (Isai. lii. 15.) Could Philip have expounded these words with- out being led to speak of baptism — and then, how natural would it be, when they came to "a certain water," that the eunuch should say, '' See, here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized?" But if Philip preached bap- tism to the eunuch, from the words "he shall sprinkle many nations," was it likely to be a baptism by immer- sion ? Whilst, then, we grant that the Greek preposition eis means into as well as to, and ek means out of as well as from; for all these reasons, we translate the passage un- der examination: "And they descended both to the water, that is, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they ascended from the water;'.' and we express the opinion that whilst there is not absolute certainty, yet all the probabilities which can be gathered from a careful ex- amination of the sacred narative, favor the idea that this baptism of the euntich by Philip, was performed by "sprinkling," and not by immersion. The reader has . now all the facts of this case before him; and we ask, is there anything here to authorize such language as that of Dr. Carson? "The man who can read it (i. e., Acts viii. 36-39), and not see immersion in it, must have something in his mind unfavorable to the investigation of truth. As long as I fear God, I cannot, for all the kingdoms of the world, resist the evidence of this single document. Nav, had I no more conscience than 112 The Doctrine of Baptisms. Satan himself, I could not, as a scholar, attempt to expel immersion from this account. All the ingenuity of all the critics in Europe could not silence the evidence of this passage. Amidst the most violent perversion that it can sustain on the rack, it will still cry out immersion, hn- Tnersion! ^" Is this the calm expression of a conclusion intelligently reached? or is it the blustering dogmatism and denunciation of the prejudiced advocate of a weak cause ? ' Carson on Baptism, p 128. TJie Baptism of the Tiirce Tlioumad. 1 13 CHAPTER IV. §41. The Baptism of the three thousand, Ai-ts ii. 38, 41. § 42. Paul's Baptism Acts ix. 17, 18; xxii. 1216. §43. The baptism of Cornelius, Acts x. 44-48 g 44. The Baptism of the Jailer, Acts xvi. a2-34. § 41. The Baptism of the three thousand. Acts, ii. vers. 38, 41. " Tlien Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift oi' the Holy Ghost. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." In this record, it appears: 1. That the three thousand persons here mentioned, were baptized immediately upon the close of Peter's sermon ; and, of course, in but a part of a day ; and 2. That these baptisms were administered in the same place where that sermon had been preached, i. e., at the door of the house in which the Apostles were, when they themselves were baptized " with the Holy Ghost and with fire;" at the least, there is no intimation given by Luke of their having quitted that place. Tak- ing nothing for granted, now, but what appears in the sa- cred record, the baptism of these three thousand, if per- formed by aspersion, would all seem very natural; the water-pots which the Jews were accustomed to keep near the entrance of their houses for purification (see John iii. 6), would have furnished a convenient and abundant sup- ply of water for baptizing the whole three thousand in this way. But in supposing they were baptized by im- mersion, the»e is sorio'iis difficulty, both in the fact that 114 The Doctrine of Baptisms. so large a number were baptized in so short a time, and in the fact that no mention is made of their having quit- ted the place where they had listened to Peter's sermon, in order that the baptism might be performed. This last-mentioned fact would not have claimed, fairly, as much attention as it does, were it not true that in the case of the traveling eunuch, in circumstances in which no convenient vessel for bringing the water is likely to be at hand (for in eastern countries travelers do not ordinarily carry drinking vessels with them, as illustrated in the case of Gideon's ten thousand men, Judges vii, 5, 6), we are expressly informed that they both left the chariot, "and descended to the water;" whilst, in the baptism of these three thousand, the baptism of Paul, the baptism of Cor- nelius, and that of the Philippian jailer, all which were performed in cities, or in houses, where water vessels must have been at hand, no intimation is given of the parties having quitted the spot, for baptism. But, in every in- stance, the natural interpretation of the narrative is, that the baptisms were performed just where the parties to be baptized first believed in Christ Jesus. § 42. Paul's Baptism. Acts ix., vers. 17, 18; xxii., vers. 12-16. "And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house: and put- ting his hands on him, said, Brother Saul, the Lord (even Jesus that appeared unto thee in the way as thou earnest) hath sent me, that thou mightest re- ceive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes, as it had been scales : and he received sight forthwith, and arose and was baptized." Acts xxii, vers. 12-16. " And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked upon him. And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldst know his will, and see that J.ust One, and shouldst JPaur^ Baj^ilsni. 115 hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And now why tarriest thou? arise and be BAPTIZED, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Let the reader call to mind now the facts in Paul's case, as we learn them from Luke's narrative. He had been struck blind, by Jesus appearing to him in a light above the brightness of the mid-day sun ; and in this con- dition, led by his attendants, he had come to the house of Judas, in the city of Damascus. Here he had remained three days, blind, neither eating nor drinking, but en- gaged in prayer, when Ananias was sent of God to him. Bead now the inspired record of his baptism. And is not this the fair and natural interpretation of it; that Paul is found of Ananias, kneeling or sitting down, and engaged in prayer, and that whilst he is yet in this posi- tion, his blindness is miraculously removed; and then, immediately, he arises from his knees, and is there baptized upon the spot, and baptized in a standing po- sition ? This is the natural interpretation of Luke's language, as it appears in our English version. In the original, the language is more definite. On the expression " arise and be baptized" (literally, standing up be baptized), and " he arose and was baptized" (literally, standing up he -was baptized), Dr. J. H. Ptice remarks correctly: "According to the idiom of the Greek language, these two words do not make two different commands, as the English reader would suppose, when he read 1, arise; 2, be baptized. But the participle (arise, literally, standing up) simply modifies the signification of the verb, or rather is used to complete the action of the verb ; and, therefore, instead of warranting the opinion that Paul rose up, went out, and was immersed, it definitely and precisely expresses his posture when he received baptism. " ^ > The ramr.hleteer. No. 1. p. 89. 116 The Doctrine of Baptisms, § 43. Baptism of Cornelius. Acts X. vers. 44-48. "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed, were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have re- ceived the Holy Ghost as well as we ? And he com- manded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." This discourse of Peter's, thus followed by the outpour- ing of the Spirit, was delivered in the house of Cornelius (see ver. 27), and was addressed to Cornelius and "his kinsmen and near friends," whom he had assembled there. " While Peter was yet speaking," i. e., before he had brought his discourse to its intended close, " the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word." Thus were they baptized by the Lord, as foretold by John : "He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." Peter seeing this, and prepared by his vision at Joppa to understand it aright, at once asks, (not as need- ing or desiring an answer, but as strongly expressing the conclusion to which he had come), " Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he com- manded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." Here, then, as in the cases last examined, the natural, and the only natural interpretation of the language is, that these baptisms were administered upon the spot ; and as God had baptized them by "pouring out," by causing to "fall on them " the visible symbol of the Holy Ghost, that God's servants baptized them also by "pour- ing out " water, the symbol of the Holy Spirit's influences upon them. Baptiani of the Jailer. 117 § 44. Baptism of the Jailer. Acts xvi. 32-34. " x\nd they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes ; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, be- lieving in God, with all his house." There is a slight apparent discrepancy between the parts of this account, as it appears in our English version, which does not exist in the Greek. It is first said, " And they s]-»ake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house," thus plainly implying that the address of Paul and Silas was delivered in the house. And then afterwards, it is added — " And when he had bi'ought them into his house, he set meat before them," as if they had not entered the house before. In the original, there are here two different words translated by the one Eng- lish word hoicse. The one used in ver. 32 is the more comprehensive term, including not only the house (in our English sense of that word), but also the out-houses and servants' apartments, which, in most ancient habitations, surrounded the house proper, and enclosed it with its court. The one used in ver. 34 is a term corresponding more exactly to our word house. Bearing this distinction in mind, a fair interpretation of Luke's narrative will require us to understand that the baptism of the jailer " and all his " was performed in the court, and this straightwai/ (literally, o?i the spot). And then, that after this, they were taken into the house proper, and there refreshed. Here, then, we have still another instance of baptism upon the spot where the convert has received Christ, and where we have no intimation of there being water for baptism by immersion. Some Baptist writers have attempted to break the force of the argument, from these several baptisms upon the spot, by telling us of the dependence in which the in- 118 • The Doctrine of Baptisms. habitants of Jerusalem were, upon the rains of heaven for water needed for daily use; and, consequently, of the large number of cisterns which had been built in that city. The evidence of the existence of such numerous cisterns in Jerusalem is very questionable, to say the least of it. But, granting their existence, it matters not, for our present purpose, in how great numbers. Of what use will cisterns in Jerusalem be, for immersing Paul at Da- mascus, or Cornelius at Caesarea, or the jailer at Philippi — not one of which places is even in Judea ? Whilst, in the case of the only one of these baptisms which did take place at Jerusalem — the baptism of the three thousand on the day of Pentecost — the number is so great that even Baptist writers are not satisfied with the cisterns, but ima- gine the multitude to have gone to some such pool as that of Bethesda for immersion. Sammuig Up — Conclusion. 119 SUMMING UP — CONCLUSION. The arguments by which the Baptist would estabhsh his position, that immersion is the one, only mode of baptism, as stated in § 33, are — from 1, The meaning of the word baptizo ; 2, The emblematic import of bap- tism ; and 3, The practice of Christ and his apostles. The reader has now before him all that can be gathered from the Word of God on these several points. In our examination, no passage of Scripture calculated to throw light upon this subject has been omitted. Let us bring together now the results of this examination. First. T7ie argument fro7n the meaning of the word BAPTIZO. Affirming that " baptizo is a specific term ; that it has but one signification ; that it alw^ays signifies to dip, never expressing anything but mode " — the Baptist argues that to speak of baptism by sprinkling or pouring, is a contradiction in terms, and must so have presented itself to the mind of every one to whom the command " repent and be baptized " was addressed, in the days of Christ and his apostles — just as we, at the present day, would see a contradiction in terms in speaking of immer- sion by sprinkling or pouring. In Part I. we have examined every instance of the use of the word baptizo in the Scriptures ; and, as the result of that examination, have found that, in the Word of God, baptizo is always used as a religious term, in the Old Tes- tament sense of the word purify, and never in the sense of dip or immerse. The Baptist argument for immersion, from the meaning of this word, then, when the falsity of the assumption upon which it rests is made to appear, falls. 120 The Doctrine of Baptisms. But W3 stop not liere. AVe admit that, could it be shown that baptize did signify to dip and to dip only, this would, to say the least of it, create a strong presumption ill favor of dipping, as the truly primitive, apostolic mode of baptism. And admitting this, we have a right to claim — when it is shown (and this we think has been done) that baptize is always used, in the Word of God, in the sense of katharizo, to purify — on this ground, a strong presumption in favor of a variety in mode being allowed in baptism, such as all admit was allowed in the puri- fications practised under the Old Testament dispensation. Second. T/ie arganient from the emblematic imp)ort of bapt'ism. Assuming that in baptism we have an em- blem, not of spiritual purification, or regeneration, alone, but also of "death, burial, and resurrection," it is hence inferred that as in imrasrsion we have the aptest repre- sentation of death, burial, and resurrection, baptism must have been administered by Christ and his apostles, and oaght to be administered in our day, by immersion. 1. Understanding this death, burial, and resurrection to be spiritual — and this is the only sense which the text will admit of in Eom. vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 12, the passages chiefly relied upon by the Baptist — we have seen that the argument rests upon the false assumption that spiritual death, burial, and resurrection, was something different from regeneration; whereas, as the terms are used in Scripture, they moan one and the same thing. §§ 3-1, 35, 36. 2. Understanding the death, burial, and resurrection to be that of the believer (and Baptist authors sometimes write as if this were what they intended), the argument rests upon 1 Cor. xv. 29, alone, a passage of somewhat doubtful interpretation ; but in which all the probabilities of the case point us to the death of Christ as that to which Paul refers in this expression, " baptized for the dead : " and this, not as something symbohzed in bap- tism, but as something which Paul has simply supposed to be true, in the course of his argument for the resurrec- tion of the believer. § 37. Dr. Carson writes : "Had no emblem bat that of puri- Sui/wiing Up — CoadusLOii. 121 fication been intended in this ordinance, we do not say that immersion, would be either essential or preferable." (p. 381.) This might be fliirly claimed by us, even if not expressly admitted by the Baptist. We have seen that ac- cording to Scripture, no emblem but that of purification is intended to be included in this ordinance ; and hence, we conclude in Dr. Carson's own words, " that immersion is neither essential nor preferable " to pouring or sprinkling as a mode of baptism. Third. In our examination of the practice in the days of Christ and his Apostles, as that practice is to be gathered from the inspired narrative of baptisms then ad- ministered, we have found : 1. That the baptisms administered by John tlie Baptist and by Christ's disciples, before our Lord's death, were not Christian, but Jewish baptisms ; at least, in so fir as is implied in their being administered in Judea, to Jews, by John and Christ's disciples, themselves Jews, and whilst the Old Testament dispensation had not as yet passed away — the law of Moses, as decided by Christ himself, being yet in force. (§§ 29, 38.) Even should we admit, then, that they were baptisms by immersion, this admis- sion could affect our decision of the question respecting the mode of Christian baptism, only as it would render it probable that the Apostles afterward practised the samo mode ; the mode of John's baptism can no more bind the faith of the Church, under this our Christian dispensation, than that of other Jewish baptisms (the "divers bap- tisms " of which Paul speaks in his Epistle to the He- brews), many of which were undoubtedly performed by sprinkling. 2. But we do not admit that these baptisms of John's and Christ's disciples were baptisms by immersion. So far from it, we think that the true reason why these bap- tisms were performed in Jordan and " at ^non (the Springs) near to SaUm," is to be found in the fact that they were Jewish baptisms, Moses' law requiring the puri- fication, in such cases, to be effected in running water. §§38, 39. 3. The baptism of the eunuch, the only Christian bap- 122 The Doctrine of Baptisms. tism, in the account of which the Baptist finds any evi- dence of immersion, appears to have been administered at a wayside well or fountain — and in so far as anything can be learned from the Scriptures, to have been a baptism by sprinkling. § 40. 4. The other baptisms recorded in the Scripture; viz., the baptism of the three thousand on the day of Pente- cost, that of Paul, that of Cornelius, and that of the Jailer at Philippi, a,ll appear to have been administered upon the spot, where the person baptized first believed in Christ Jesus; in the streets of Jerusalem, in the private house at Csesarea and Damascus, in the prison-court at Philippi, and that of Paul, at the least, to have been administered with the baptized person in a standing posture. All these circumstances, irreconcilable with the idea of baptism by immersion, accord well with that of baptism by sprinkling or pouring. §§41, 42, 43, 44. 5. Even admitting (and we admit it simply for argu- ment's sake) that it could be clearly shown that the Apos- tles did baptize by immersion ; this, of itself, could not bind the faith of the Church, unless the principle were es- tablished that mere mode is essential to the validity of a sacrament, a principle which no Christian church will ad- mit to be true. There can be no question that the Lord's Supper, as administered by Christ to his disciples, was administered at night, the communicants lying upon couches around a table. On these points no question has ever been raised.. Unless, then, some good reason can be given why mode is essential to one sacrament and not to the other, consistency requires of the Baptist that he first administer the Lord's Supper in the mode in which he ad- mits that Christ administered it, ere he demand of others that they administer baptism in that mode, alone, in which it was administered in Apostolic times. . The conclusion in this whole matter to which we come is— 1. There is nothing in the meaning of the word baptize, nor in the emblematical import of the rite of baptism, to authorize the belief that any particular mode of applying the water to the person of the baptized, is essential to the validity of baptism. Summing Up — Conclimon. 123 2. Whilst WG cannot determine, with absolute certain- ty, whether sprinlcUng, pouring, or immersion, was the mode of baptism practised in the days of Christ and his Apostles, immersion is the least probable of the three. 3. To require immersion in order to admission to the church of God, is to infringe upon that "liberty where- with Christ hath made his people free," and to "teach for doctrine the commandments of men." And to exclude from the Lord's table, the Lord's people, because they have not been immersed, is to bring upon the soul the guilt of the sin of schism. 124 The Doctrine of Baptisms. SUPPLEMENTAEY NOTE. THE PEACTICE OF IMMERSION IN EARLY TIMES. Baptist authors, generally, attach a great deal of im- portance to the fact that immersion was practised in the Church at a very early age. The author of the article on ^'Baptism," in the Encyclopedia of Keligious Knowledge, writes: ''On this point there is overwhelming evidence. The best ecclesiastical historians — Mosheim, Waddington, Neander, &c. — affirm that the practice of the primitive Church was immersion." And this fact he makes one of his four arguments for immersion, the other three being — The meaning of the word hajDtizo; The emblematic im- port of baptism ; and. The practice of Christ and his Apos- tles. If by " the primitive Church " we understand the an- cient, as contradistinguished from the Apostolic Church — i. e., the Church in the third century, and later — the cor- rectness of the above statement will not be called in ques- tion by any one. But why do many Baptist writers keep back the fact, established by precisely t/ie same authority, that this immersion was performed with the person of the baptized naked ? Dr. Carson, in his reply to Dr. Miller, admits that im- mersion was received naked, in the third and fourth cen- turies, and does not deny that such was the fact at an earlier date. (Carson on Baptism, pp. 380, 381.) The Baptist historian, Robinson, in his " History of Baptism" (a book written by request of the Baptist min- isters of London), is more ingenuous. His words are: "The primitive Christians baptized naked. Nothing is easier than to give proof of this, by quotations from the Immersion in Early Times. 125 authentic writings of men who administered baptism, and who certainly knew in what way they themselves per- formed it. There is no ancient historical fact better au- thenticated than this. This evidence does not go on the meaning of the single word naked; for then the reader might suspect allegory; but on many facts reported, and many reasons assigned for the practice." Wall, in his "History of Baptism," writes: "The an- cient Christians, when they were baptized by immersion, were all baptized naked, ivhether they were vien, ivomen, or children." As one reads such statements as these, the question will arise — Can these things be so? Is there not some mis- take about this matter? Is it credible that in the East, where the most rigid notions of womanly propriety have prevailed from time immemorial, ico7nen received baptism naked ? Is such a practice as this consistent with that "modesty" which no book more emphatically than the New Testament enjoins upon woman? To these questions we do not hesitate to return the answer — The thing is in- credible; such a practice is utterly at variance with Christian modesty in women. The true explanation of the matter, we believe, is that given by Taylor, in his "Facts and Evidences," viz.. That, at an early date, there was added to the simple baptismal rite, as practised by Christ and his apostles, a washing of the whole body in water, as a preparation for the baptism proper — ^just as there was added the anointing of the body with oil, and the clothing of the person in a white gar- ment, as rites following upon the baptism, at almost if not quite as early a date. This preparatory washing of the body was performed in a bath, and, in the case of women, with none but women present; and this it was which was performed by immersion, and with the person naked — the baptism proper being afterwards administered in pres- ence of the church, and by sprinkling or pouring. In support of this explanation we urge : 1. With the peculiar attachment of the Jewish converts to the law of Moses, the addition of an ablution, prepara- tory to baptism, would be one of the most natural changes 126 The Doctrine of Baptisms. which could he made in the apostolic rite of baptism. They regarded baptism as, essentially, a purification ; and a preparatory washing was, in many instances, enjoined in Moses' law ; e. g., in the cleansing of a leper (Lev. xiv.), the cleansings to be effected by the water of separa- tion (Numb, xix.) 2. There is nothing in any of the statements made by ancient writers, and relied upon to prove the early prac- tice of immersion (in so far as we have seen), inconsistent with this explanation, but much to favor it. 3. In the Abyssinian Church, at the present day, a washing of the whole body, preparatory to baptism, is practised, the baptism itself being performed by affusion (See Taylor's Facts and Evidences, pp. 153, 154). The Abyssinian Church being that one of the ancient churches which has for ages been almost entirely cut off from all communication with other parts of the world, is, on this account, the one most likely to have retained the practice prevailing in early times. 4. The testimony of Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantia, who wrote during the fourth century, when speaking of the office of the deaconess : " There are also deaconesses in the Church; but this office was not instituted as a priest- ly function, nor has it any interference with priestly ad- ministrations; but it was instituted for the purpose of preserving a due regard to the modesty of the female sex, espeeially at the tiini of hajHisTnal washing, and while the person of the looman is naked, that she may not be seen by the men perfornfiing the sacred service, but by her only who is appointed to take charge of the woman during the time she was naked." (Epiphanius, as quoted by Taylor in his "Facts and Evidences," p. 168.) We refer to this matter here, not as an argument for baptism by sprinkling or affusion — for our purpose is to offer as argument nothing but what the Scriptures them- selves furnish — but, 1. That the Baptist argument from the early practice of the Church— an argument based, as we think, upon a mis- apprehension of the facts recorded — may not prejudice the mind of the reader against the reception of Scripture truth. Immersion in Early Tunes. 127 2. To show tlie reader the way in which immersion has come to bo substituted for sprinkling or pouring, as prac- tised by the apostles. And, 3. As affording a strong incidental confirmation of the correctness of the definition we have given to haptizo when used as a religious term, viz., to cleanse or purify. PART III. THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 6* 129 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. CHAPTER I. 3 43. Statement of the Question, and of the Arguments relied on by Baptists and Pedo-Bapticts. To the question, To whom is Christian baptism to be administered ? The Baptist replies : To such as make a credible pro- fession of faith in Christ, and to such only. The Presbyterian replies: " Not only those that do ac- tually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be bap- tized." (Presbyterian Confession of Faith, chap. 28.) And here we ask the reader to notic"e — 1, With respect to adults who have not been baptized in infancy, there is no difference of opinion. They are to be baptized upon a credible profession of faith in Christ alone. Such must have been the case with all the con- verts on the day of Pentecost, and for some time after- wards, since proper Christian baptism was never adminis- tered before that time. 2. The only point in so far as the subjects of baptism are concerned, on which the Baptist and Presbyterian dif- fer, is — Does the word of God teach that Chinstian bap- tism is to be administered to infant children, where one or both the parents are professed believers ? The grounds upon which the Baptist seeks to establish his position are — 131 132 The Suhjccts of Baptinn. 1. The commission given by Christ to his Church, when about to be talcen in bodily presence from his disciples, and recorded in Mark xvi. 15, 16. This commission, he affirms, is given in terms which exclude the idea of the administration of baptism to infants. 2. The import of baptism, as the ordinance is explained in the AVord of God. This, he affirms, is utterly incon- sistent with its administration to any but believers. The arguments by which we shall seek to establish the position assumed in the Presbyterian Confession of Faith, are : 1. Assuming that Christian baptism is the initiatory rite of the Church, under the Christian dispensation (and this the Baptist maintains as zealously as we do), and that the infant-membership in the Church was established of God, under the Old Testament dispensation, (and this we shall prove from Scripture, although but few Baptists will deny it) ; we shall attempt to show, 1. That the visible Church of God has ever been one; and consequently, fis the rite of infant-membership in that Church has not been repealed, it must continue. And 2. That this right of infant-membership — and hence, of infant baptism — was expressly recognized by Christ and his Apostles. 2. The express mention made in the New Testament Scriptures, of family baptisms. Other arguments have been adduced, some of them of great weight, from the experience of the Church at the present day, the history of the Church, especially in primi- tive times, and what are thought to be the proprieties of the case. As, however, our purpose is to give a purely Scriptural discussion of the question, settling it, if at all, upon the authority of the Word of God alone, we shall take no notice of these arguments, as urged on either side. Christ's Commission to His Church. 133 CHAPTER II. J48. Christ's commission to his Church, Matt, xxvlii. 19, 20; Mark ivi. 15, 16; Luke xxiv. 47-i9. §4G. Matt, xxviii. Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. "Go ye, therefore, and teach all na- tions, BAPTIZING tliem in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have com- manded yoa : and lo, I am with you always, even nnto the end of the world." Amen. Mark xvi. 15, 16. " 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 be damned." Luke xxiv. 47-19. "And " (Jesus said unto them, ver. 46) " that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses' of these things. And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you ; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high." Eemarking upon Mark xvi. 16, Dr. Carson writes — " I am willing to hang the whole controversy on this passage. If I had not another passage in the Word of God, I would engage to refute my opponents from the words of this commission alone. I will risk the credit of my under- standing, on my success in showing that according to this commission believers only are to be baptized." * ' Carson on r>;ipti?m, p. 169. 134 The Subjects of Bajytism. The Baptist reasons upon this passage, thus : Baptism is here made consequent upon faith — " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." And as no one pretends that infants can exercise faith in Christ, the faith here spoken of, this passage prohibits their baptism. For the purpose of bringing out distinctly the nature of this argument, let us give it the form of what logicians call a syllogism. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." the Baptist, Si/l. I. Baptism is here made consequent upon faith. Infants cannot exercise faith; Therefore — Infants must not be baptized. If, in our Lord's words, " He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; he that believeth not, shall be damned," baptism is made consequent upon faith, in such a sense as to restrict it to those who believe, upon pre- cisely the same principles of interpretation salvation is made consequent upon faith, in such a sense as to restrict it to those that believe, and damnation is made conse- quent upon not believing. We, therefore, call upon the Baptist, consistently to follow out his principles of inter- pretation, as expressed in the two following syllogisms : — Syl. II. Salvation is here made consequent upon faith. Infants cannot exercise faith : Therefore — Infants cannot be saved. .Sijl. III. Damnation is here made consequent upon not believing. Infants do not believe ; Therefore — Infants must be damned. And further ; if in these words of our Lord, baptism is made consequent ui^on faith — upon the same principle of interpretation, but more clearly, is salvation made conse- quent upon baptism; since faith and baptism are con- nected together by the copulative "and," and together declared to be the antecedents of salvation. We, there- fore, call upon the Baptist to follow out his principles, as expressed in a fourth syllogism : — Clirifl'.s Commission io His Church. 135 Si/l. iv. Salvation is here made consequent upon bap- tism. The Baptist will not baptize an infant ; Therefore — The Baptist secures the damnation of that infant. Now, we do not say that the Baptist believes the doc- trines embodied in syllogisms ii. iii. iv. What we do say is, that the principles of interpretation, which would, in these words of our Lord, give him a restriction of bap- tism to those exercising faith, shut him up to these doc- trines. The same logic which, from these words, places a bar in the infant's way to the baptismal font, places a triple bar in his way to heaven. In view of these conclusions, which the Baptist will be as unwilling to admit as we, we say to him — There must be some fault in your logic. And this fault, if we mistake not, lies just here. You have entirely mistaken the true nature of the commission recorded in Mark xvi. 15, 16. This is not the Apostles' commission, either to preach or to baptize. And we offer this Scriptural proof of our statement : Their commission to preach they had received long be- fore. " And he (Jesus) goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto him whom he would, and they came unto him, and he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach " (Mark iii. 13, 14). " These twelve Jesus sent forth, and com- manded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not ; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and as ye go preach " (Matt. x. 5-7). Here is the commission to preach, of those to whom the words recorded in Mark xvi. 15, 16, were addressed. But a commission to preach, under certain restrictions. " When, therefore, the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and BAPTIZED more disciples than John (though Jesus himself BAPTIZED not, but his disciples.") John iv. 1, 2. This re- cord refers to events which occurred near the commence- ment of our Lord's ministry, and shortly after his ordina- tion of the twelve, as recorded in Mark iii. 13, 14. His 136 The Doctrine of Baptisms. disciples must have received authority to baptize, at this time, or else they were here baptizing, under the very eyes of Jesus, without any authority so to do. If the commission recordod in Mark xvi. 15, 16, is not the Apostles' commission to preach, nor to baptize, the question will be asked: — " What, then, is it?" We answer, it is just what it purports to be. Having before given them their commission to preach and baptize, with the re- striction that they " go not in the way of the Gentiles and enter no city of the Samaritans, but go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" alone, now that '' all power is given unto him, in heaven and in earth " (Matt, xxviii.), and by his death he has " broken down the middle wall of parti- tion " (Eph. ii. 14) between the Jew and the Gentile ; has taken out of the way " the handwriting of ordinances which was against us (Gentiles), nailing it to his cross " (Col. ii. 14), he takes off this restriction, and says — " Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every crea- ture." Applying now the principle of interpretation universally admitted — that every part of an article must be inter- preted with an eye to the scope and object of that article — we conclude that baptism is mentioned here only inci- dentally; our Lord taking it for granted that his Apostles were already fully instructed as to the proper subjects of baptism. Of the correctness of this view of the passage under ex- amination, the corresponding records in Matthew and Luke afford the strongest confirmation. In Luke's report of our Lord's words, the subject of baptism is not even formally mentioned — " And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." (Luke xxiv. 47.) And Mat- thew's report is in the words, "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of tlie Holy Ghost; Teaching them to observe all things, ivhat'ioever I have conimanded you.'" (Matt, xxvii. 19, 20.) Here Christ expressly refers them to his instructions previously given, as their guide in the discharo-e of this verv commission. What these instruc- Ch flint's Comoiiission to His Church. 137 tions on the subject of baptism were, we shall inquiro hereafter. (See §§ 53, 54.) h we disregard this principle, that every part of an article must be interpreted with an eye to the scope and import of that article, we run into all kinds of absurdities. In the very passage under examination, Christ says, " Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every ctvature." Creature is often used in the word of God, as a general term, including the lower orders of animals as well as man. Will the Baptist interpret this commission, so as to cover such preaching as that ascribed, in the Romish legends, to St. Anthony, viz. : his preaching to the fishes ? All that our Saviour means to teach in his words — "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved, but he that believeth not, shall be damned " — is just what his words, in their most natural interpretation, seem to con- vey, viz.: That he who does believe, and is worthily bap- tized, shall be saved ; and then, to mark faith as essential, and baptism as not essential to salvation, he adds, re- versing the form of his declaration, "he that believeth not, shall be damned." He is speaking of such, and of such only, as he sends his disciples to preach his gospel to ; the case of infants is in no way referred to in his declaration respecting either faith or i3aptism. If his dis- ciples are to believe (as the Baptists, in common with ourselves, think they are,) that infants are saved without faith, he has taught that doctrine on some other occasion, and he does not recall that teaching here. If his disciples are to believe that infants may properly be baptized with- out faith, he has taught it on some other occasion, and he does not recall that teaching here. The two cases are precisely similar, and our interpretations of them must stand or fall together. 138 The Doctrine of Baptisms. CHAPTEE III. g47. Is the import of Baptism inconsistent witli its administration to Infants? Acts xxii. 16, and Deut. XXX. 6. Gal. iii. 27, and Rom. ii. 28,29. 1 Cor. xii. 13, and Rom. iv. 11. Col. ii. 12, and Col. ii. 11. §47. Baptist writers are accustomed to quote all that class of passages of Scripture, in which the spiritual import of baptism is taught us, as utterly inconsistent with the idea of its administration to infants. We give below the most important of these, adding the substance of Dr. Car- son's comments on them. These we have placed in the column to the left. In the right hand column we have placed certain passages of similar character, respecting the analogous rite of circumcision, and added comments of our own, in Dr. Carson's strain of Bible criticism. Ads xxii. 16. And now, why tamest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." " Here we see baptism figura- tively washes away sms, and sup- poses that they are previously truly washed away. Could our opponents say to the parents of the infant about to be baptized, ' Arise, and wash away the sins of thy infant ? ' " Carson, p. 212. CIECUMCISION. Deut. XXX. 6. " And the Lord thy God will cir- cumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thy soul, that thou mayest live." Here we see that circumcision represents in figure the loving of the Lord our God, with all our soul. Could our opponents say to the parents of an infant about to be circumcised — Do you de- clare that this infant loves the Lord our God with all its soul ? Baptism and Circumcision. 139 BAPTISM. Gal. iii. 27. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." " Nothing can be more express. Here baptism is represented as implying a putting on of Christ. Surely this is peculiar to believers. Infants cannot put on Christ." Carson, p. 213. 1 Cor. xii. 13. " For by one Spirit are we all B.iPTiZED into one body, whe- ther we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free ; anl have been all made to drink into one Spirit." " They who are baptized, are here supposed to belong already to the body of Christ; and for this reason they are baptized into it. None are here supposed to be baptized upon the expectation, or probability, or possibility that they may yet belong to that body. They are baptized into the "body." Carson, pp. 212, 213. CIRCUMCISION. Rom. ii. 28, 29. " For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; nether is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew which is one in- wardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter: who.se praise is not of men, but of (iod. Nothing can be more express. Here circumcision is said to be " of the heart, in the spirit, whose f raise is not of men, but of (Iod." nfants cannot be thu3 circum- cised. Eom. iv. 11. " And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, being yet un- circumcised, that he might be the father of all them that believe." Here circumcision is said to be the seal of the righteousness of a faith already possessed by the one circumcised ; not a seal of the ex- pectation, or probabilit}', or pos- sibility of that person's believing at some future day. Col. ii. 12. " Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen, with him through the faith of the operation of God, who raised him from the dead." " Here baptism is explained in a sense which suits believers only." They who are baptized "are viewed afl already risen with him through faith. Can anything be Col. ii. 11. " In whom also ve are circum- cised, with tlie circumcision made without hands, in put- ting off the body of the sins of the fleph, by the circum- cision of Christ." Here the circumcised are viewed as in their circumcision, putting off the body of the sins of the flesh. Can anything be more ex- press than that? Was it true of 140 Tiie Doctrine of Baptisms. more express than this? Are infants, when presented by their infants risen with Christ through parents, at eight days old, that faith of the operation of God? they had put otf the body of the If not, they are not among the sins of the flesh? If not, then number of those that were bap- must we conclude that they had tized." Carson, p. 212. no right to be counted among the number of the circumcised. And thus we might go on, quoting passage for passage with the Baptist ; for just as explicitly as the Scriptures teach us the spiritual import of baptism, j ust so explicitly do they teach a similar truth respecting circumcision. In no way could this be more clearly set forth than in Col. ii. 11, 12, the two passages last quoted, in which Paul makes use of the known and acknowledged spiritual import of the earlier rite, circmncision, to illustrate that of the latter, baptism. And to mark their identity, in this particular, the more clearly, he calls baptism " the circumcision of Christ," or Christian circumcision. The very same course of reasoning, then, which from the passages of Scripture teaching the spiritual import of baptism, would give us a prohibition of infant baptism, will, when applied to passages of similar import respect- ing circumcision, give us as positive a prohibition of in- fant circumcision. And yet, there is nothing clearer from Scripture, than that circumcision was, by God's direction, administered to the child eight days old (see Gen. xvii. 12). Here, then, as in the case of our Lord's words, re- corded in Mark, xvi. 16, we say to the Baptist — Your argument proves too much, since it proves that which no man, with the Word of God in his hands, can admit to be true. There must be some fault in that argument. That we may see just where the fallacy in the Baptist's argument lies, let us ask the question, On what principle was circumcision — a rite symbolizing regeneration, " the putting oS of the body of the sins of the flesh," that change of heart, in consequence of which we " love the Lord our God with all our soul, that we may live" — ad- ministered to infanls ? To this question, we answer : 1. Circumcision, viewed as a symbolic rite, simply ex- hibited grace , did not confer it. The doctrine of circum^ Baptij^m and Circumcuion. 141 cisional regeneration, like the analogous doctrine of bap- tismal regeneration, is a doctrine which finds no support from the Word of God. Now, grace may be exhibited, either (1), as something actually bestowed of God; or (2), as something brought near, by God's covenant relation to the recipient of the rite. To Abraham, cLrcumcision was " the seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised," i. e., of righteousness by faith, in actual possession. To Isaac, circumcised when eight days old (Gen. xxi. 4), it was, from the first dawn of his intelligent moral agency, a seal, or certification, of God's peculiar willingness to bestow upon him that same "right- eousness of faith " by which his father Abraham was justi- fied. And who will venture to say that this rite, in its symbolic import, was of less practical importance to Isaac than it was to Abraham ? 2. Viewing circumcision as sealing or certifying an ob- ligation on the part of the recipient; to Abraham, it was a seal of his obligation to " put off the body of the sins of the flesh," to walk by faith before God, an obligation which he had personally acknowledged in his reception of the rite, for the obligation is one growing out of Abra- ham's position as a sinner, placed under a dispensation of grace ; and viewed simply as an obligation, it would have been perfect had no rite been given as a certification there- to. In his circumcision he had personally acknowledged that obligation, and thus rendered it the more solemnly binding upon him. To Isaac, it was a seal or certification of this same obligation, to walk by faith before God ; an obligation which rested upon him as it did upon his father Abraham, as a sinner placed under a dispensation of grace, and an obligation which his believing father, by God's di- rection, acknowledged on his behalf. And who shall say that circumcision, viewed in this aspect of it, was of less importance in the one case than in the other. The fallacy in reasoning from the passages of Scripture which teach the spiritual import of circumcision, in such a way as to prohibit its administration to infants, lies, 1. In the groundless assumption that grace can be ex- hibited only as grace bestov)ed ; whereas God chooses to 142 Tiie Doctrine of Baptisms. exhibit it as grace brought near, or ready to he bestowed, also : the groundless assumption that a seal can be affixed to a deed only ; whereas God chooses (and men in the or- dinary business of life, act in the same way) to affix his seal to promises as well as deeds. 2. In the unscriptural idea, that circumcision created the obligation to walk by faith, whereas it was simply a public acknowledgment of an obligation already existing, and growing immediately out of man's relation to God, as a sinner placed under a dispensation of grace. Of just the same character is the fallacy of the Baptist's reasoning from a similar class of passages respecting baptism, " the circumcision of Christ," And here let us correct the error into which many Bap- tist writers have fallen respecting the nature of circumci- sion : 1. In representing it as belonging to the politico-eccle- siastical state of the Jews, Circumcision was given of God to Abraham, four hundred and thirty years before the politico-ecclesiastical state of the Jews was estab- lished ; and was given for the confirmation of a promise, in which we Christian Gentiles have as direct and deep an interest as ever had a Jew. " Now, to Abraham and his seed " (subsequently explained by Paul, in the words — " And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise " v. 29) " were the promi- ses made. And this I say, that the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." (Gal. iii. 16, 17.) 2. In representing it as intended to be a mark of na- tural descent and temporal privileges, rather than of a religious relation. In proof of this, we are told that the Ishmaelites and Edomites were circumcised. " The Ish- maelites and Edomites were apostates from the faith of Abraham. And will it be pretended that the abuse of circumcision by apostates, proves that it was not the initia- tory rite of the Church ? Why not argue that since Mor- mons practice baptism, and yet do not enter into the Baptism and Circumcidon. 143 Christian church, baptism cannot be an initiatory rite. "' And what clearer proof can we have that circumcision was not intended as a mark of natural descent, than the fact that by God's appointment the Gentile proselyte was cir- cumcised as well as the Jew ? " And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it ; and he shall be as one that is born in the land ; for no uncircumcised person shall eat there- of." (Ex. xii. 48.) And now, we ask — Shall we accept as proof of the " mind of the Spirit," that baptism, under the new dispen- tion, shall not be administered to infants, an argument which proves at the same time, and just as decisively, that circumcision was not to be administered to infants under the Old Testament dispensation, when God from heaven has said, and placed it upon record before our eyes, " He that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you — the uncircumcised man-child shall be cut off from his people ; he hath broken my covenant ? " (Gen. xvii. 13, 14.) » N. L. Rice on Baptism, p. 220. 144: The Doctmie of Baptisms. CHAPTER IV. THE CHURCH. §48. Essential Character of the Visible Church. §49. Nature of Church Mem- beryhip. Having completed our examination of the arguments (in so far as they are arguments from the Scriptures), urged against infant baptism — before turning to the par- ticular examination of the arguments on the other side, and as preparatory to such examination, we ask the reader's attention to what the Word of God teaches us, respecting the character of the visible Church, and what is implied in Church membership. And here we insist the more strenuously upon a direct appeal to the Word of God, because, if we mistake not, unscriptural notions on these points are entertained by many members of Pedo- Baptist churches. § 48. Tlie essential Character of the Visible Church. The visible Church has, from its own institution, pos- sessed the character of a school. " What advantage, then," writes Paul, " hath the Jew ? Or what profit is there of circumcision ? Much every way : chiefly, because unto them were committed the oracles of God." (P\.om. iii. 1, 2), i. e., the Holy Scriptures. For what purpose were these " oracles of God " com- mitted to the circumcised — the Old Testament Church ? Let the Scriptures answer. God says : " Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him. For I know lijm, that he will comrnand his children and Essential Character of the Visible Church. 145 his household after him, and tliey shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment, that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.'- (Gen. xviii. 18, 19.) By Moses God gives direction to Israel : " And these words which I command thee this day, shall be in thy heart : and thou shalt teach them diligently to thy children, and shalt talk of them when- thou sittest in thy house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates." (Deut. vi. 6-9.) Can any one doubt that under the Old Testament dispensation, the visible Church was a school, in which disciples were to be trained for Heaven ? or that, by God's direction, these disciples — scholars- — were to be entered in this school in early childhood ? Under the New Testament dispensation, the visible Church retains this same character. " Go ye, therefore, and teach, i. e., (make disciples — scholars — of) all nations, baptizing them in 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 always, even unto the end of the world." (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20.) Such is the commission of the Church, as given by her Lord and Master himself. So plainly is this set forth as the great office of the Church, in these words, that on this point all Protestant com- mentators aorree. § 49. Nature of Church Membership. The visible Church being, by God's appointment, his school, the essential right of membership — the only right which is necessarily imphed 'in affirming the Church ijaem- bership of a person — is the right to instruction " in all things which God hath commanded." There are other rights and privileges which may belong to members "of the Church upon certain conditions, and these may be' spoken of (when speaking looselv) as rights of member- 7 146 The Doctrine of Baptisms. ship. But the right to instruction, and what is neces- sarily implied in it, can alone be regarded as an essential right of membership. This whole subject may be illustrated by the rights of citizenship under a civil government. As a citizen of the United States, I am entitled to the protection of my country against illegal or unjust oppression, both at home and abroad. As a free male citizen, over twenty- one years of age, I am entitled to vote in the election of those who are to be my civil rulers ; and both of these rights are often spoken of as rights of citizenship. My infant child, from the hour of its birth, is as truly a citizen of the United States as I am, and all the rights which are essential to citizenship must belong to it. Let any one, at home or abroad, attempt to oppress that child, and the civil government is bound to interpose for its protection, and secure to it the enjoyment of its rights. Yet that child, if a female, will never be entitled to vote ; and if a male, not until twenty-one years of age. Civil government is an institution for securing to its subject the enjoyment of his rights ; and hence the right to protection is the essential right of citizenship. The right to vote, although often spoken of as a right of citizenship (when speaking loosely) is, in fact, a right which belongs to a citizen, upon certain conditions, which are prescribed in the Constitution of the country ; and a person to whom that right is denied (my infant child, for example), may be as truly a citizen as one to whom that right is granted. Just so in the visible Church. As a member of that Church, I am entitled to be " taught all things whatsoever Christ hath commanded." As a believing member, I am entitled to a place at the Lord's table. This latter right is often spoken of as a right of membership, just as a right to vote is often spoken of as a right of citizenship. Yet, in fact, it is a right belonging to members upon certain conditions only — conditions prescribed in the Word of God. " Faith to discern the Lord's body " (1 Cor. xi. 49) is de- clared to be essential to a right participation in the Lord's supper; and until a member of the Church gives credible evidence of the possession of such faith, he cannot claim a Nature of Cliurch Memhcr-^hip. 147 place at the Lord's table, in virtue of his membership, any more than an infant child can claim a right to vote in virtue of his citizenship. As already remarked, the essential right of church mem- bership is the right to instruction " in all things whatso- ever Christ hath commanded." Hence, in admitting an inlant by baptism, we require the parent, already a believ- ing member of that Church, to covenant with God and with his Church, that he " will teach the child to read God's Word ; that he will instruct it in the principles of our holy religion, as contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments ; that he will set an example of piety and godliness before it ; and endeavor, by all the means of God's appointment, to bring up the child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." (Presbyterian Directory for Worship, chap, vii.) In the first instance, the religious instruction of the infant member is commit- ted to the beheving parent, in baptism, recognized as the representative of the Church, in his entering into a cov- enant with that Church ; but in the case of the removal* of the believing parent by death, then the duty of " teach- ing the child all things whatsoever Christ hath com- manded," devolves upon the Church, and the Church is bound to see to its instruction. By neglecting the obvious distinction between the Church visible and the Church spiritual, and applying what in Scripture is said of the latter to the former, Bap- tist writers would make the Church visible to consist of believers only. Certainly such was not the case under the Old Testament dispensation : nor do the Scriptures give any countenance to the attempt to make a change in this particular. The visible Church of Christ, according to his own declaration, " is as a net, which was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind; which, when it was full, they drew to share, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away." (Matt. xiii. 47, 48.) 148 The Doctrine of Baptisms. CHAPTER V. RELATION OF THE CHURCH UNDER THE NEW TO THAT UNDER THE OLD TESTAMENT DISPENSATION. 1 60. The Charter of the Church unchanged, g 51. Scriptural Representations. g52. The first Christian Church but the Old Testament Church purged of the Apostasy. § 50. The Charter of the Church unchanged. The visible Church first assumed, distinctly, its form as a Church {i. e., a sealed company, separated from the world) under the operation of God's covenant with Abra- ham. " Before this time, the Church of God had existed in the patriarchal form. Every pious family was a little Church, of which the father was the officiating priest. By him the morning and evening sacrifices were offered ; and he led the family devotions. Thus, we find that Abram, wherever he spent a night, built an altar and called upon the name of the Lord. And as every pious family was a little Church, so were the children members of that Church, trained by the father for God's service." ^ But it was under the operation of God's covenant with Abraham, that the visible Church first assumed, distinctly, its form as a Church. That covenant is recorded in Gen. xvii. 4-8. " As for me, behold my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be the father of many nations. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham ; for a father of many nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make na- tidns of thee ; and kings shall come out of thee. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an everlasting > N. L. Rice on Baptism, p. 213. Charter of the Church Unchanged. 149 covenant , to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after theo. And I will give unto thee and thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession ; and I will be their God." This covenant is a record, at once, of God's promises to his Church, and of that Church's obligations. In some of its particulars, its promises and obligations are addressed to Abraham's descendants through Isaac: — But under- stood as we are taught in God's words to interpret its terms, and as the men of faith in every age have under- stood it, from the time that Abraham, having " seen the promises afar off, embraced them, and confessed that he was a stranger and a pilgrim on earth, and desired a bet- ter country, that is a heavenly " (Heb. xi. 13, 16), this has constituted the charter of the Church of God. This truth is presented to us in many forms in the New Testament Scriptures. " Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day," says Christ, "and he saw it, and was glad " (John viii. 56). " Know ye, therefore," writes Paul, " that they which are of faith, the same are the chil- dren of Abraham. And the Scriptures, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached be- fore the Gospel unto Abraham, saying. In thee shall all nations be blessed. So, then, they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham, For ye are all the chil- dren of God, by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female : for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abra- ham's seed, and heirs according to the promise " (Gal. iii. 7-9, 26-29). Christians are never called the children of Enoch, of Noah, of David, or of any other eminent be- liever, but they. are called "children of Abraham" and " Abraham's seed." Evidently, therefore, they sustain to him a peculiar relation. What constitutes this relation ? I answer, the covenant into which God entered with Abra- ham, to which Paul refers in the passage just quoted, Christians are " heirs according to the promise." 150 Tlie Doctrine of Baptisms. This matter Paul argues at some length in his Epistle to the Komans. " And he (Abraham) received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised ; that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not cir- cumcised, that righteousness might be imputed unto them also ; and the father of the circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had, being yet uncircumcised. For the promise that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham or his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. Therefore, it is of faith, that it might be by grace ; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed : not to that only which is of the law, hut to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all : (as it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations) be- fore him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth the things which be not as though they were. They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God ; but the children of the pro- mise, are counted for the seed." (Kom. iv. 11, 13, 16, 17 ; ix. 8.) After reading such expositions of God's Covenant as these, can a.ny one doubt that it is in fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham, that he should be " the father of many nations," '' the heir of the world," the Church re- ceived her great commission, " Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature " (Mark xvi. 15)? Is the promise which accompanied that commission, '•' Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world " (]\Tatt. xxviii. 20), anything else than the promise of that covenant, " I will establish my covenant between me and thee, for an everlasting covenant, to he a God unto thee and thy seed after thee ? " (Gen. xvii. 7») Hence, we say, this covenant of God with Abraham, according to the plain representations of Scripture, is as truly THE CHARTER of the Church, i. e., the written in- strument, declaring the privileges and obligations of the Church now, as it ever was under the Old Testament dis- Scriptural BejJtreseyitations. 151 pensation. And those that become Christ's do thereby- become "Abraham's seed accordmg to the promise " iii ^vhat has ever been the true sense of that promise. §51. Scriptural Representations. From among many Scriptural representations of the nature of the change which took pUice in the visible Church, in the days of Christ and his Apostles, we will ask the reader's attention to two only: one from Paul's Epistle to the Romans, the other from his Epistle to the Ephcsians. Romans xi. 18-26. "Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then. The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; be- cause of unbelief, they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear : For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold, therefore, the goodness and severity of God ; on them which fell, severity ; but toward thee goodness, if thou con- tinue in his goodness : otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in un- belief, shall be graffed in : for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed con- trary to nature into a good olive tree, how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree. For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery (lest ye should be wise in your own conceits) that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the full- ness of the Gentiles be come in. And so, all Israel shall be saved." In this passage, by "the wild" and "good olive trees," the Apostle cannot mean the natural state of the parties before God ; for he has fully proved in a previous part of 152 The Doctrine of Baptisms. this epistle, that in this respect, between the Jew and the Gentile, there is no difference. Neither can he mean by the " good olive tree," the politico-ecclesiastical state estab- lished in the time of Moses; for that was then "vanishing away ; " and none more zealously than Paul resisted every attempt of Judaizing teachers, to lay its yoke upon the Gentiles. Nor can the " good olive tree " mean the true spiritual Church of God ; for, from that, these Jews were not cut off, for the simple reason that they were never members of it, as our Lord teaches in his words : " If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abra- ham, But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God : this did not Abraham. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your fither ye will do." (John viii. 39, 40, 44.) By the " good olive tree," Paul can mean nothing but thi visible Church. And what says he of it ? That the " good olive tree " was cut down or rooted up ? That it had withered, trunk and branch, or was no longer the care of the divine planter ? Nothing like it. He asserts the continuance of the " good olive tree " in life and vigor ; the excision of some worthless branches, and the insertion of new ones in their stead. " Thou " says he, addressing the Gentile, " partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree." Translate this into less figurative language, and what is its import ? That the visible church of God sub- sists without injury through the change of dispensation and of members. Branches indeed may be cut off, but the rooted trunk stands firm, and other branches occupy the place of those which are lopped away. The Jews are cast out of the Church, and the Church perishes not with them. There was still left the trunk of the old olive tree; there was still fatness in its roots ; it stands in the same fertile soil, the covenant of God ; and the admission of the Gentiles into the room of the excommunicated Jews makes them a part of that covenant Church ; as branches graffed into the olive tree, and flourishing in its fatness, are iden- tified with the tree." ^ > J. M. Mason's "Works, vol. ii., p. 309. Scriptural Reprcsentatioyvi. 153 But this is not all. The Apostle, in the light of pro- phecy, foresees the restoration of the Jews. These, says he, the " natural branches shall be graffed in again — shall be graflfed into their oivn olive tree." Their own olive tree, then, must have been preserved. Dropping the figure : they shall be brought into the same Church in which the Gentile Christians now are ; and this is their own Church. In coming into it, they are but coming back again into their own Church. How can this be, unless the visible Church be essentially one and the same under both dis- pensations ? Eph. ii. 11-14, 19-22. "Wherefore, remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called uncircumcision by that which is called the circumci- sion in the flesh, made by hands; That at that time, ye were without Christ, being aliens from the com- monwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. But now, in Christ Jesus, ye, who sometime were far off", are made nigh, by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle w^all of partition be- tween us." Can there be any doubt what " commonwealth of Israel " it is, in which the Gentiles, once "ahens," are now made '' citizens ? " Can it be any other than the visible Church to which Israel belonged ? or what " covenants of pro- mise," to which they, " once strangers," have been " brought nigh ? " Can it be any other than the "cove- nant of promise " upon which God's Church is built ? Or in what the Gentile and the Jew have now been made " both one," by " breaking down the middle wall of parti- tion between them?" Can it be anything else than the visible Church of God? The Apostle proceeds: — Ver. 19. — "Now, therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God." Fellow- citizens with what saints? The Old Testament saints, 7* lo-i The Doctrine of Baptisms. beyond a question : fellow-citizens with Abraham, Moses, David and Isaiah. Of what " household of God " does the Apostle speak? Of the household to which these Old Testament saints belonged. Ver. 20. — "And are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Proj^hets, Jesu.s Christ himself being the chief corner-stone ; 21. In whom all the building, fitly framed together, groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord. 22. In whom ye also are builded to- gether, for a habitation of God through the Spirit." Of what " holy temple " does the Apostle here speak ? Of the Church spiritual? No. For the Cliurch spiritual he declares, " other foundation can no man lay than is laid, which is Christ Jesus " (1 Cor. iii. 2). The visible Church alone, can be said to be built upon " the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone." And it is only the one visible Church which has existed under both the Old and the New Testa- ment dispensations, that can be said to embrace in its foundations, at once, the Apostles and Prophets. § 52. The first Christian Cliurch hut the Old Testament Church purged, of the Apostasy. The essential unity of the Church, under the Old and New Testament dispensations, appears just as plainly in the history of " The Acts," as it does in Paul's Epistles. The first Christian Church existed before the day of Pente- cost. " And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said (the number of the names together were about a hundred and twenty), men and brethren:'' (Acts i. 15, 16). These hundred and twenty disciples, brethren, formed the first Christian Church ever existing on earth ; and we find them exercising one of the highest functions of a Church, in the choice of an Apostle in the place of Judas (see Acts i. 16-26). This Church it was that gathered in Jerusalem, on the day of Pentecost. " And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place " (Acts ii. 1). And to this Church the three thousand converted on the day of Pentecost were added : " Then they that gladly received The first Christian Church Purged. 1 55 the "Word were baptized ; and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." (Acts ii. 41.) Now, these " hundred and twenty," incUiding the Apos- tles, never received Christian baptism. They had been baptized, in all probability, by John, or by Christ's dis- ciples ; but this baptism, as has been shown in § 29, and .as all modern Baptist writers admit, was not Christian baptism, nor could it take the place of Christian bap- tism ; as Paul decides in the case of certain disciples at Ephesus (see Acts xix. 1-5). They were also baptized " with the Holy Grhost and with fire'" (iVcts ii. 2-4) : but let the reader notice, (1,) they were a Church before this baptism, and exercised the functions of a Church in the choice of an Apostle ; and (2 ) baptism with the Holy Ghost was not Christian baptism, in the distinctive sense of that term, nor could it take the place of Christian baptism, as is evident from Peter's administering Christian baptism to those in the house of Cornelius, after they had been bap- tized with the Holy Ghost. (See Acts x. 44-48.) Admitting that these " hundred and twenty " never re- ceived Christian baptism, Mr. Alex. Campbell attempts to evade the force of the argument therefrom, by saying, " When a person is appointed by God to set up an institu- tion, he is not himself to be regarded as a subject of that institution. Some one must commence the institution — there must be some one to commence Christian baptism ; that could not be done till Jesus had died, was buried, and rose again." " This evasion of the difficulty will not an- swer. Abraham set up the institution of circumcision, and yet he was himself circumcised. Aaron, the first Jewish high-priest, was consecrated just as were his suc- cessors. Why, then, did not these hundred and twenty receive Christian baptism ? " ^ To this question we can give but one answer, if we an- swer it in accordance with the teachings of Scripture. The Jewish Church, as a body, had apostatized from God ; and this, their apostasy, was consummated by the crucifixion of Christ, their Messiah. This crowning act of apostasy > N. L. Rice on Baptism, p. 208. 156 The Doctrine of Baptisms. being the act of their rulers, was regarded by God, and treated, as the act of the people at large. " The God of our fathers hath glorified his son Jesus ; whom ye deliv- ered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go ; But ye denied the Holy- One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you ; and killed the Prince of Life, — And now, breth- ren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers " (Acts iii. 13, 14, 15, 17), is Peter's address to the Jews, at the gate of the temple, shortly after the day of Pentecost. In consequence of this apostasy, the Jewish Church, as a body, was cut off. Ere this apostasy was consummated, however, a few had received the Messiah, and " believed on his name ; and to them had he given power to become the sons of God " (John i. 12). They had no part in the guilty act which filled up the measure of the iniquity of their peo- ple (Matt, xxiii. 32). And, therefore, in the excision of that people, they were not included. God separated here, as he did in the days of Noah, and in the case of Sodom, The apostasy was cut off; the election remained. These "hundred and twenty" had been initiated into the Church, at eight days old, by circumcision; a rite which, from the days of Abraham to the day of Pentecost, was the only initiatory rite of the Church of God (for nothing is more certain than that neither "the " baptism of John," nor that of Christ's disciples whilst their master remained with them, were initiatory rites into any Church). At the time of the crucifixion, they were members of the Church, in good standing, and they never lost that standing. The excision of " the apostasy," simply purged the Church of God ; not affecting the integrity of that Church at all. The part not exscinded, remai ned, constituting the true, visible Church of God on earth. And around this purged Old Testament Church, as its nucleus, the New Testament Church was collected. Since the day of Pentecost, and the institution of Christian baptism, that baptism is the initiatory rite into the Church of God ; and all who enter that Church (including the circumcised Jews, who had lost their church-standing by being exscinded with " the The First Christian Church Purged. 157 Apostasy "), must receive it. These " hundred and twenty " never received it, for the simple and sufficient reason that they were already in the Church, inducted in infancy by circumcision, and they had no need to enter. How perfectly does this history in the book of Acts agree with the representations given us in other portions of Scripture, especially by Paul in his various Epistles. 158 Tlie Doctrine of BaptU-yns. CHAPTER VI {63. Christ'a Recognition of Infant Membership in the Church. Matt. six. 13-15. Mark x. 13-16. I,uke xviii. 15-17. g54. Christ's re-commission of Peter. John xxi. 15. §55. Peter's preaching of Christian Baptism. Acts ii. 38, 39 and iii. 24-26. g56. Significant Silence of the Jews. §53. Matt xix. 13-15. Mark x. 13-16. Luke xy'nl 15-17. Matt. xix. 13-15. *' Then were brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray ; and his disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not to come unto me ; for of such is the kingdoin of Heaven. And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence." Mark X. 13-16. " And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them; and his disciples re- buked tho.se that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them. Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not ; for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily, I say unto you. Whosoever shall not receive the king- dom of God as a little child, he shall not enter there- in. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them." Luke xviii. 15-17. " And they brought unto him also infants, that he should touch them; but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not ; for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you. Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall in nowise enter therein." Christ's Rccognitvon of Infant Membership. 159 As preliminary to an exposition of our Lord's words, " For of such is the kingdom of Heaven, (Cxod)," we asli the reader to remark : 1. The persons brought to Jesus were httle children, in the proper sense of that phrase. Matthew styles them " little children ; " Mark, "young children," and Luke, " infants," (breplie); and Mark records the fact, that " he took them up in his arms, and blessed them." 2. These infants were brought to Jesus, "that he should put his hands on them, and pray," (Matt.); "put his hands upon them, and bless them," (Mark) ; and not for bodily healing, as Dr. Gill imagines. 3. Our Lord's words must be understood in a sense in which they will convey a rebuke to his disciples ; and a rebuke correspondent to the conduct, on their part, which has called forth that rebuke. The offence committed by his disciples must have been a serious offence in our Lord's account ; for this is the only instance, in the whole course of his life, in which we read of him, "the meek and low- ly " one, that " he was much displeased " with his disci- ples. As the displeasure of Jesus must have been a righteous displeasure, nothing short of a rebuke will be the proper expression of it. Turn we now to an examination of our Lord's words, " for of such is the kingdom of Heaven, (God)." 1. ''Kingdom of Heaven, (God)." The word here translated kingdom, is a word of more extensive significa- tion than our English word kingdom; being used, as Campbell remarks, to express the ideas expressed by our two words reign and kingdom. Wherever it is used in connection with such phrases as "is come unto you," "is at hand," or the like, it is evidently to be understood in the sense of Messiah's reign, as in Matt. iii. 2. "Repent ye, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand." In other in- stances it is to be understood in the proper sense of our English word, kingdom ; and it is used to designate " the religious constitution, under which subjects were to be gathered to God by his Son, and a society to be formed, which was to subsist, first, in more imperfect circumstan- ces on earth, but afterwards to appear complete in the 160 The Doctrine of Baptisms. world of glory." (Doddridge.) Hence, " the kingdom of Heaven, or of God," is sometimes used as equivalent to the visible Church on earth, as in Matt. xiii. 47. " The king- dom of Heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind." At other times, it is used to signify the Church of God in her state of glory, as in 1 Cor. xv. 60. " Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." 2. " Of such." On this phrase. Dr. Carson remarks : "'The kingdom of Heaven is of such,' cannot possibly mean that the kingdom of Heaven is of them. The term such does not signify identity, cannot signify identity, but likeness.' " '' Let us see if Scriptural usage will bear out this positive assertion of Dr. Carson. Eom. i. 23. " Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things " {i. e., the very crimes which Paul has just before speci- fied), " are worthy of death ; not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." 1 Cor. v. 11. " But now, I have written unto you, not to keep compa- ny, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such an one" {i. e., with the very per- sons specified), " no, not to eat." Gal. v. 21. " Envy- ings, murders, revellings, drunkenness, and such like " (here, such signifies likeness ; but the word used in the Greek is different from the word used by our Lord, in the passage under examination), " of the which I tell you be- fore, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things " (here, the word used is the same with that used by our Lord, and evidently means, these very things, envyings, murders, and such like), "shall not in- herit the kingdom of God." 1 Tim. vi. 4, 5. " He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railing, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godli- ness. From siich," i. e., from the very persons just de- ' Carson on Baptism, p. 200. Christ's Recognition of Infant Memherahip. IGl scribed), " withdraw thyself." Ill Jno. 7, 8. " Because that for his name's sake they went forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles. We therefore ought to receive such" {i. e., these very persons, and others like them), " that we mio:ht be fellow helpers to the truth." Acts xix. 25. "Whom he," Demetrius, "called together, with men of like occupation " (the word here translated like is the same rendered such in the passage under examination ; and "like occupation " here means of the occupation of Demetrius, as is evident from what follows), " and said, Sirs, ye know that by this craft we have our wealth." These instances of the use of this phrase "of stich," have not been selected to serve a purpose ; but turning to KDbinson's New Testament Lexicon, we have given all the instances there cited, excepting one, viz. Mark ix. 37, a pxssaga very similar to the one under examination. And now we ask the reader, does Scriptural usage give any countenance to Dr. Carson's remark, "'The kingdom of H3avea is o/si4c/i,' cannot possibly mean that the king^ dom oiKea^vea is, of the)n?" On the contrary, Scriptu- ral usage will allow us to understand " the kingdom of Heaven is of sush," in no other way than either the king- dom of Heaven is of them, or of them and those like them. Dr. Gill explains the passage we are examining as fol- lows (and the explanation of every Baptist expositor, whose writings we have seen, is substantially the same,) " It is, as if our Lord would say, don't drive away these children from my person and presence ; they are lively emblems of the proper subjects of a Gospel Church-state, and of such as shall enter into the kingdom of heaven ; by these I may instruct and point out to you what converted persons should be, who have a place in my Church below, and expect to enter into my kingdom and glory above — they are, or ought to be, like such children, harmless and inoffensive, free from rancor and malice." To this exposition we object : 1. It assigns to the phrase of "such" an unusual meaning, and one which, we believe, it never has in Scripture. 2. It makes our Lord say that which is in no way pertinent to the occasion. The children were brought to him expressly, that he 162 The Doctrine of Baptisms. miglit pray for and bless them. 3. Thus understood, our Lord's words convey no reproof to his disciples, and yet they are spoken when he is " much displeased " with them. We would understand by "the kingdom of heaven or God " here, the visible Church ; and most Baptist writers agree with us on this point. That Church, however, was the Old Testament Church, for '^the " day of Pentecost had not yet come. These children being tlie children of Jewish parents, had, doubtless, been introduced as infant members into that Church, by their reception of circumcision when eight days old, and this, it is admitted on all hands, was by divine appointment. If, now, we understand our Lord's words " for of such is the kingdom of heaven " simply to assert the church-membership of these " little ones, infants," they assert nothing but what is confessedly a fact ; and just the very fact, of all others, which is per- tinent to the occasion. What more conclusive reason can he assign, why parents should be encouraged to bring their infant children to him, the Messiah, the Son of God, that he may bless them, than that God himself has in- cluded them in his precious covenant? What more solemn rebuke can he administer to his disciples than by saying in substance, God does not disdain to notice these little ones ; and in casting them off ye are making your- selves wiser than God, and setting yourselves in opposition to him ? Thus understanding our Lord's words, how naturally does the declaration follow, " Verily, I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God, as a little child " (i. e., in the teachable spirit of a little child), he shall not enter therein." It was the overweening confi- dence of the disciples in their own judgment, which had led them to do that for which our Lord has reproved them ; because they were guided by their own sense of what was fit and proper, rather than by the plain instructions of God's Word, they had fallen into this error. And now, he would guard them against such danger for the future. But, after all, it may be said, these children were not baptized. Certainly not. Christian baptism had not Christ's Iic-coni7nissio7i of Peter. 1G3 been instituted. These infants were, in virtue of their cir- cumcision, members of the visible Church (the Jewish Church, not as yet finally cast off, for the Jews had not then, by the crucitixion of their Messiah, " filled up the measure of their iniquities,") and on this account, even had Christian baptism then been practised, there would have been no propriety in administering it to them. In the words of the Lord Jesus, " Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven," we have his distinct and emphatic re- cognition of infant membership in the Church of God (the Old Testament Church, it is true, but not on that account the less the Church of God) as existing toward the close of his public ministry, and this, without the slightest intima- tion that such membership was ever to cease in that Church. On the contrary, the recognition is made in circumstances strongly implying its continuance, since it is made in re- buking the disposition manifested by his disciples, those by whom the requisite changes in that Church were to be carried forward and perfected, to account such member- ship of little value. §54. John xxi. 15. John xxi. 15. — " So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him: Yea, Lord: thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs." It is agreed on all hands that in these words and those recorded in the two verses immediately following, we have " our Lord's renewal of Peter's appointment to the ministerial and apostolic office." Peter's denial of his master "had, undoubtedly, rendered him unworthy of the Apostleship ; for how could he be capable of instructing others in the faith, who had basely revolted from it ? He had been made an Apostle, but it was along with Judas, and from the time when he had abandoned his post, he had likewise been deprived of the honor of Apostleship. 164: The Doctrine of Baptisms. Now, therefore, the liberty as well as authority of teach- ing is restored to him. Such a restoration was necessary, both for Peter and for his hearers. For Peter, that he might the more boldly execute his office, being assured of the calling with which Christ had again invested him. For his hearers, that the stain which attached to his per- son, might not be the occasion of despismg the Gospel. To us, also, in the present day, it is of very great import- ance that Peter comes forth to us as a new man, from whom the disgrace that might have lessened his authority has been removed." (Calvin's Commentary.) Let the reader notice now the terms in which this re- newal of Peter's apostolic authority is first given — " Feed my larabs." And let him remember, at the same time, that in the Old Testament Scriptures, Christ is described as one who " shall feed his fiock like a shepherd ; shall gather the lambs with his arms, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young." (Isa. xl. 11.) And let him remember, too, the rebuke which, a little while before, Christ has given Peter, in common with other disciples, in his words, "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." (Mark x. 14.) And then ask himself, How must Peter have understood his Lord's words — " Feed my lar/ibs ? " Do they not contain a very strong intimation, to say the least of it, that infant- membership is to continue in the Church of God, under Peter's apostleship? Are they not unaccountable, on the supposition that such membership is, from that time, to cease? §55. ^cts ii. 38, 39; iii. 24-26. Acts ii. 38, 39. " Then Peter said unto them, Eepent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you. and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." Peter's Preaching of Christian Baptlfrn. 165 Acts iii. 2-4-26. " Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel, and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. Ye are the child- ren of the prophets, and of the covenant whicn God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you first, God having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you in turnmg away every one of you from his iniquities." The passage first quoted above is the conclusion of Peter s address to the multitude, on the Day of Pentecost. The other is the conclusion of a public address of his, de- livered a few days later, in very similar circumstances. In each case, he is evidently urging upon his hearei-s an immediate repentance, for the reason that this was em- phatically their day of grace, and a day of grace granted them in fulfillment of God's covenant with Abraham. (Acts iii. 2-5, 26.) "When, then, in his first address, he says, "the promise is to you and to your children, and to all that are afar ofi"," to what promise does he refer? Undoubtedly, we think, to the promise which God had included in his cove- nant with Abraham. And when we turn to that promise, "we find it answering, in every particular, to Peter's words, as here recorded. "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their gfnerations,for an everlasting covenant; to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." (Gen, xvii. 7.) There is the promise, "to you and to your children;" "for a father of many nations have I made thee." (Gen. xvii. 5.) There is the promise, as Paul explains it in Rom. iv. 13- 17, "to all that are afar ofi", even as many as the Lord our God shall call." Let the reader notice now, that this address was made by Peter, on the occasion when Christian baptism was first preached to the people. That it was addressed ex- clusively to Jews and Jewish proselytes, at Jerusalem, and by Peter, himself a Jew. That the only way into the Church of Christ, of which any of the parties had a know- 166- The Doctrine of Baptisms. ledge then, was througli the Old Testament Church, for it was not until some time after this, at the house of Corne- lius, that the first Gentile was received directly into the Church; and from Peter's conduct on that occasion, it is evident, that up to that time, neither he nor the other apostles understood God's purposes in this particular. And we ask, is not Peter's paraphrase of God's promise to Abraham, " for the promise is to you and to your child- ren," unaccountable, if the initiatory rite in the Church of God is now, for the first time, to be refused to the children of the believer? How must the Jews have understood Peter, when he calls upon them, by repentance and bap- tism, to enter the Christian Church, assigning as the special reason why they should do so, God's promise to Abra- ham, which was made, says he, " to you and to your children?" It would be strange indeed, had they under- stood him to speak of any other way than that in which they and their fathers had always entered into the Church of God, from the time that promise was given — i. e., the infant children entering in company with the believing parent. § 56. Significant silence of the Jews. Supposing that the change in the constitution of tho Church of God, for which the Baptist contends — viz., the abrogation of infant membership in that Church — had been made, the question at once arises, " How must such a measure have operated upon the feelings of a believing Jew ? " "Tenacious, in a high degree, of their peculiarities, re- garding their relation to Abraham as momentous to their individual happiness, and as the most prominent feature of their national glory ; knowing, too, that their children- were comprised with themselves in the covenant of God;' it is not possible that the Hebrews could have submitted, without reluctance, to a constitution which was to strip them of their favorite privilege, to dissever their tenderest ties, to blot the names of their little ones out of the regis- ter of God's people, to treat them afterwards, from gene- ration to genex'ation, as the little ones of the heathen man Significant Silence of the Jcios. 167 and the publican ! On every other prerogative, real or imaginary, their suspicion was awake, their zeal'was in- flammable, their passions intractable; but toward this, their grand prerogative, they evince a tameness which re- quired them to forget, at once, that they were men, and that they were Jews. " Search the records of the New Testament from one end to the other, and you will not find the trace of a remon- strance, an objection, or a difficulty on this subject, from the mouth of a believing or an unbelieving Israelite ! The former never parted with a tittle of even the Mosaic law, till the will of God was so clearly demonstrated as to remove every doubt ; the latter lay constantly in wait for matter of accusation against the Christians. Nothing could have prompted him to louder clamor, to fiercer resistance, or to heavier charges, than an attempt to overturn a fundamental principle of the covenant with Abraham ; nothing could have more startled and dis- tressed the meek and modest disciple. Yet that attempt is made ; that fundamental principle of the covenant with Abraham is overturned ; and not a friend complains, nor a foe resents ! What miracle of enchantment has so in- stantaneously relieved the conscience of the one, and calmed the wrath of the other ? "Where is that wayward vanity, that captious criticism, that combustible tempera- ment, that insidious, implacable, restless enmity, which by night and by day, in country and in town, haunted the steps of the Apostles, and treasured up actions, words, looks, for the hour of convenient vengeance ? All gone ; dissipated in a moment! The proud and persecuting Pharisee rages at the name of Jesus Christ; fights for his traditions and his phylacteries ; and utters not a syl- lable of dissent from a step which completely annihilates the covenant with Abraham ! that very covenant from- which he professes to derive his whole importance ! We can believe a good deal, but not quite so much as this. " Should it be alleged that the Jews did probably op- pose the exclusion of their infants from the New Testa- ment Church, although the sacred writers have omitted to mention it: we reply, i68 The Doctrine of Baptisms. " That although many things have happened which were never recorded — and, therefore, that the mere si- lence of an historian, is not, in itself, conclusive against their existence — yet no man may assume, as proof, the existence of a fact which is unsupported by either history or tradition. On this ground, the plea which we have stopped to notice is perfectly nugatory. " In the present case, however, the probabilities look all the other way. We mean, that if the Jews had made the opposition, which, on the supposition we are com- bating, it is inconceivable they should not have made, it would have been so interwoven with the origin, constitu- tion, progress and transactions of the primitive Church, as to have rendered an omission of it almost impossible. " The question about circumcision and the obligation of the Gentile converts to keep the law of Moses, shook the Churches to their centre; and was not put at rest but by a final decision of the Apostles and elders (see Acts XV.) Now, as circumcision was the seal of the Abrahamic covenant, which expressly constituted infants members of the Church, is it to be imagined that so hot a contro- versy should be kindled about the ensealing rite, and none at all about the privilege sealed ? or that a record should have been carefully preserved of the disputes and decision concerning the sign, and no record at all of the thing signified, which imparted to the former all its in- terest and value ? " It is, therefore, utterly incredible that the resistance of the Jews to the Christian arrangement for shutting out their children from the Church of God, should have passed unnoticed. But no notice of any such resistance is contained in the New Testament. The conclusion is, that no such resistance was ever offered : and the conclu- sion again is, that no cause for it ever existed ; that is, that the infants of professing parents were considered as holding, under the new economy, the same place and rela,- ti'on which they held under the old."^ 1 J. M. Mason's Works, vol. ii. pp. 367-371. lafani Membership Recognized. 169 CHAPTER VII. INFANT MEMBERSHIP RECOGNIZED BY GIVING TO CHIL- DREN THE PECULIAR TITLES BELONGING TO CHURCH MEMBERS. §57. Names ^ven to Church Members in Scripture. g58. Eph. i. 1, and vi. 1-3; Col. 1. 1, 2, and iii. 20. g 59. Titus i. 6. g 60. 1 Cor. vii. 12-14. § 57. Names given to Church Members in the days of Christ and the Apostles. The name " Christian' was not given to the followers of Jesus, until some years after the death of our Lord (see Acts xi. 26). It eventually became the common name by which the members of the Church were designated, yet such was not the case during the days of the Apostles. It is a name used but twice in the whole New Testament ; once by Agrippa, when he addresses Paul, "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian " (Acts xxvi. 28), and once by Peter, in his first epistle, written about A. D. 63, " Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed " (1 Peter iv. 16). The names which the Jews gave them, were intended as names of reproach ; such as Galileans (Acts ii. 7), and Nazarenes (Acts xxiv. 5). The names which Christians assumed for themselves, and by which they are ordinarily designated in the New Testament Scriptures, are, disciples (Acts i, 15), brethren (Acts i. 16), faithful or believers (Acts ii. 44), saints or holy ones (Acts ix. 13), elect (II John 1), and people of God (1 Peter ii. 10). Of these, the names most commonly used in the New Testament are (agioi) saints or holy ones, and (pistoi) 8 170 The Doctrine of Baptisms. faithful, believers, or (pi pisteuontes or pisteusantes) those believing or those that believed. These titles were in use among the Jews before the coming of Christ, and are fre- quently to be met with, especially the title saints, in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament Scriptures. " Originally, these terras were descriptive of moral quality, but in process of time, the common acceptation of them be- came so different from their original application, that they implied nothing more than the distinctive appellation of the Christian community, composed both of Jews and Gen- tiles," ' i. €., they were used to designate the Church mem- bership of those to whom they were applied. No more conclusive evidence of this could be given, than that afforded in the fact, that whilst Paul addresses seme of his epistles to the Churches, e. g., his Epistle to the Galatians (Gal. i. 2), his first and second Epistles to the Thessaloni- ans (I Thes. i. 1, and II Thes. i. 1), he addresses others to " the saints," or " saints and faithful " e. g., his Epistle to the Romans (Bom. i. 7), his first and second Epistles to the Corinthians (I Cor. i. 2, and II Cor. i. 1), and his Epis- tles to the Ephesians (Eph. i. 1), the Philippians (Phil. i. 1), and the Colossians (Col. i, 2). In this, the earlier Christian Fathers followed the usage of the Apostles. The titles Sauit and Faithful or Be- liever, were given by them to very young children, not as persons regenerated by the Holy Spirit, or who had be- lieved to the salvation of the soul, as the advocates of baptismal regeneration contend, but as those who had been separated unto God's service, and admitted to the visi- ble Church. For abundant evidence of the use of these terms, in this sense, the reader is referred to " Taylor's Facts and Evidences," pp. 100-113.^ And here, we ask the reader to notice just what it is for which we contend, respecting the use of the terms saints 1 Colman's Ancient Christianity, p. 102. ' Among other instances, Taj'lor quotes certain sepulchral inscriptions, copied from the Catacombs at Rome, dating back to the time of the primitive persecutions, such as, " Cyriacus, a faithful or believer, died, a,ged eight days less than three years." Infant Memhership li^cognlzed. 171 ii,nd faithful or believers. It is not that they are always used in the sense of Church members ; but that they are often used in this sense (as when used by Paul in the ad- dress of several of his epistles), and that we are to de- termine, in each particular instance, whether they are used in this or their original sense, by an examination of the context. In other words, that these titles were used in the Apostles' day very much as we use the title Chris- tian at the present day. As instances of the use of the terms (agioi) saints or holy om's and (pistoi) faithful or believers, in the sense of Church members, and their application to children, we .quote, Eph. i. 1 ; Col. i. 1, 2; Titus, i. 6, 7 ; 1 Cor. vii. 14. § 58. Ephesians i. 1, and Colossians i. 1, 2. Eph. i. 1. " Paul, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to ih.e faithful" (pistois, believers), "in Christ Jesus." Eph. vi. 1-3. " Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. Honor thy father and mother (which is the first commandment with promise). That it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest live long on the earth." Col. i. 1, 2. " Paul, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, by the will of G-od, and Timotheus our brother. To the saints and faithful" (believing) "brethren in Christ which are at Colosse." Col. iii. 20. " Children, obey your parents in all things ; for this is well pleasing unto the Lord." These two passages are here placed together, because the case presented in both is substantially the same, and that case may be thus stated : Paul addresses an epistle to certain persons at Ephesus, " Eu'tafia, the mothftr, places this in commemoration of her son Poly- chromio, a, faithful or believer, who lived three years." " Urcia Florentia, a, faithful or believer, rests here in peace. She lived five years, eight months and eight days." Taylor's "Facts and Evidences" p. 106. 172 The Doetrine of Baptisms. whom lie styles " saints and faithfuls " ' in Christ Jesus. After explaining certain Gospel truths, in which he deems it important that they should be more fully instructed than they have yet been ; — toward the close of the Epis- tle he takes occasion to give some advice and admonition of a more practical character. This advice, instead of being addressed to the Church as a body, is addressed specifically to the several classes of persons who make up the Church, or the body of saints and faithfuls at Ephesus. He first addresses himself to wives and husbands. Is, now, the question asked, What wives and husbands? we answer. Those that are saints and faithfuls ; as is deter- mined by the address of the Epistle. And this, our con-, elusion, is confirmed, by the arguments with which Paul enforces the duties enjoined. " Therefore, as the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave himself for it." (Eph. v. 24, 25.) For Paul to address such arguments as these to the heathen, or to any other husbands and wives than such as were " saints and faithfuls," would be folly. He afterwards addresses himself to servants and masters. Is now the question asked, What servants and masters ? we answer as before. Those that are " saints and faithfuls," as is determined by the address of the epistles. And here, again, the arguments by which Paul enforces the duties enjoined confirm the conclusion. " Servants, be ot)edient to them that are your masters, according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart as unto Christ. And ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening ; knowing that your Master also is in heaven ; neither is there any respect of persons with him." (Eph. vi. 5, 9.) Such arguments could have no influence with heathen servants and masters. And, as if to make this matter more plain, he follows up his address to these several classes of persons with, *' Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might" (v. 10). 1 We use the terms faithful &nd faithfuls as nouns, in conformity with the use of the corresponding terms in the Greek. '^ Infant Mcinhevship RecognUed. 173 Between his address to wives and husbands, and that to servants and masters, Paul addresses himself to chil- dren and parents. Does any one ask, What children and parents ? we answer in this, as in the other cases, to such as are saints and faithfuls, as is determined by the address of the Epistle. And this, our conclusion, is confirmed by Paul's arguments, " Children, obey your parents in the Lord ; for this is right. Honor thy father and mother (which is the first commandment with promise). And ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath ; but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." (Eph. vi. 1, 2, 3.) Let us siqipose an analogous case. A person who has long been interested in the growth of the city of Norfolk, and has labored so much and so faithfully to promote its growth, as to be regarded with great respect by the in- habitants of that city, has, in his old age, published a let- ter addressed To the Citizens of Norfolk. In this letter, after dwelling upon certain matters which concern the general growth of the city, and to which it becomes all alike to give heed ; toward the clo^e of his letter, he gives certain specific advice, to " merchants and mechanics," to " the rich and to the poor," to " masters and servants." -Would any one hesitate to understand the advice " to merchants and mechanics," as intended for such merchants and mechanics as were citizens of Norfolk ? Supposing, now, that two thousand years after this let- ter is written, the question should arise, Were mechanics admitted to the rights of citizenship in Norfolk two thou- sand years ago ? This letter is produced ; no one ques- tions its genuineness or its authenticity. The letter bears the superscription. To the Citizens of Norfolk. Attention is called to the fact, that in the course of the letter, not only " the rich and the poor," " masters and servants," are specifically addressed, but also " merchants and me- chanics." Would not this fact alone be decisive oi the question with every ingenuous inquirer ? To the idea that the children here addressed were such as had been received into the Church upon their own credible profession of faith, we object. 174 The Doctrine of Baptisms. 1. Tlie duty enjoined upon children, "obey your parents in the Lord," is a duty binding upon children from the first dawn of moral agency, and is enforced by reference to the fifth commandment, " Honor thy father and thy mother," a commandment confessedly binding from the same period of life. And both the duty enjoined, and the commandment by which it is enforced, have an especial reference to early childhood. 2. The exhortation addressed to fathers, which is but the counterpart of that addressed to children, would be out of place if the children were grown, or nearly so. " And ye fathers, bring them up in the nurture and ad- monition of the Lord." If they were already intelligent believers, prepared to be received into the Church upon their own credible profession of faith, "bringing up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord " would be no longer needed by them ; the time for such treatment on the part of the parent would be passed. But understand Paul to speak of children in the ordinary acceptation of that term, and children who had been brought into the Church, entered in the school of .Christ, as children were under the Old Testament dispensation, and no more appropriate ex- hortation could be addressed to their believing parents than " bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." This is just the sum and the substance of the parent's covenant engagements with respect to his chil- dren, in taking Jehovah to be " the God of his seed after him," as well as " his God." As already remarked, the case presented in the Epistle to the Colossians is substantially the same with that pre- sented in Ephesians, the case which we have been examin- ing. In these two Epistles, then, and they are the only ones in which Paul specifies different classes of persons as making up the churcnes addressed, he mentions children among those classes. § 59. Titus i. 6. Titus i. 6, 7. " If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful {believing) children, not accused ' Infant Membership Recognized. 175 of riot, or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God." Compare with this, 1 Timothy, iii. 4, 5. A bishop then must be, I Timothy iii. 4, 5. " One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all g ravity : (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the Church of God ? ") Doddridge paraphrases this passage, " And let him be one that hath believing children, if he have any that are grown XLjp!' The interpolation of a phrase which so completely sets aside the natural meaning of the text, as this does, is taking a liberty with the Word of God, which nothing but the most obvious necessity can justify ; and for which, even then, we should have very clear authority from the context. If we disregard this plain rule of interpretation, the "Word of God may be made to teach whatever the ex- positor pleases. No such necessity exists in the case before us. If we understand ^'faithful children'' here, in the sense of children that are Church members, we get an intelligible interpretation of the text without adding one word to what Paul has written, or taking one word from it. In favor of this interpretation, we urge : 1. It assigns to the word " faithful " a common Scrip- tural sense of that word ; and to the word " children " its most common signification. 2. It harmonizes Paul's directions respecting the quali- fications of a bishop, given to Titus, with those given to Timothy, directions which were undoubtedly intended io be one in meaning. To " rule well one's own house, hav- ing his children in subjection with all gravity," in the Scriptural sense of the word, rule (see Pom. xiii. 3) is to " bring up one's children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord," and this is what a parent covenants to do 176 The Doctrine of Baptisms. when his children are made " faithful," are entered as in- fant members in the Church of God. 3. It makes the fitness of a person, for the office of a bishop, to depend upon something lor which he can pro- perly be held responsible, and not upon something which rests with a sovereign God alone. No parent can be held directly responsible for the true conversion of his child to God. But every parent may most properly be held re- sponsible for entering into covenant with God on behalf of his children, and for the faithful discharge of his covenant obligations. There can be no clearer evidence that such is the common view of parental responsibilities entertained by the Church at large, tlian the fact that no Church has ever obeyed this injunction of Paul in the sense which Doddridge and most Baptist expositors give it. There are bishops (in the Scriptural sense of the term bishop) in all our Christian Churches, having children " that are grown up " and yet unconverted, and no one thinks of this as disqualifying them for holding the office of a bishop. § 60. 1 Corinthians vii. 12-14. 1 Cor. vii. 12-14. " If any brother have a wife that be- lieveth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman that hath a husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the un- believing husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband : else were your children unclean, but now are they holy " [agia, saints or holy ones). The law of Moses expressly prohibited the intermarriage of the Jews with the heathen Canaanites. This law is re- corded in Deut. vii. 2-4. " And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee, thou shalt smite them and utterly destroy them, thou shalt make no covenant with them nor shew mercy upon them ; neither shalt thou make marriages with them ; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto Infant Memhershij) Recognized. 177 thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods." Under this law, Ezra required the Jew who had married a wife from among the Canaanites, not only to put away his wife, but required that the children be sent away with their heathen mother (Ezra x. 3.) Such a law as this was in perfect keeping with the spirit of the Mosaic economy, one great object of which was, to keep the Israelites apart, a separate nation in the earth, until the coming of Christ. Most of the differences about doctrine which harassed the Church in the days of the Apostles, originated in the over-zealous, and often mistaken attachment of the con- verted Jews to the law of Moses. Bearing these facts in mind, it will be no matter of surprise to us that in the Church at Corinth — a Christian Church, in the midst of a heathen city, and yet embracing among its members many converted Jews (see Acts xviii. 1-17) — the diffi- culty, which Paul is here resolving, should have arisen. That difficulty is about the continuance of the marriage connection between a believing husband or wife, and an unbelieving partner. That difficulty Paul resolves in vers. 12, 13, " If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman that hath a husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him." Then, in ver. 14, as we understand him, Paul gives — 1st. A reason for this decision of his, " for the unbelieving hus- band is sanctified by " (or to — McKnight) "the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by " (or to) " the husband." And, 2d. A statement of a fact, which, upon admitted Jewish pnnciples, proved his reason for his decision to be a valid one, " else were your children unclean, but now are they holy:" — the expression " else" {epei ara, other- wise, certainly, McKnight) marking this connection be- tween the latter clause and the one preceding it. The use of the word ^'sanctify (ac/iazo) in the sense of purify, cleanse, is veiy common in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament Scriptures (see Lev. viii. 10, 15, 30), and in the same sense it is frequently used by Paul (see 1 8* 178 The Doctrine of Baptisms. Tim. iv. 5; Heb. ix. 13). An unclean [unsanctified) person was one who might not be associated with by God's peo- ple. "And Peter said unto them" — i. e., Cornelius and those assembled in the house — -" Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company with, or come unto, one of another nation, but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or un- clean " (Acts X. 28). When, then, Paul affirms, " the un- believing husband is sanctified bi/" (or to) "the wife;" he means that such a husband is rendered fit for intimate as- sociation with, to the wife. This is just what he needs to affirm in solving the difficulty which has been proposed to him. Then follows Paul's proof of what he has just affirmed; "else" (otherwise, certainly) ''were your children unclean, but now are they hoh/." The law of Moses, which had given rise to the difficulty, both by the terms of the law and the decision of Ezra, includes the child with the heathen parent in the same condemnation. As both stand or fall together, the condition of the one may be in- ferred from that of the other. Now, it is the unquestioned practice of the Church to treat the children of such a marriage not as unclean, i.e., unfit to be associated with, but as clean; they are admitted to membership in the Church of God, and thus become holi/ {agia, saints). Upon Jewish principles, then, it is evident from this fact, that the unbelieving husband or wife ought to be ac- counted "sanctified bi/" (or to) the believing partner. It has been objected to this interpretation, that as the words holt/ (agia), and sanctify {agiaza), are words from the same root, they must have the same signification ; and, consequently, if the application of the terra holi/ to the children teaches their Church membership, the application of the term sanctify to the heathen parents must teach their Church membership also. To this we reply, such a con- sequence as this by no means follows. It is a very com- mon thing, in every language, for a noun to acquire a secondary meaning, whilst the corresponding verb retains its primitive meaning alone ; and so also for a verb to be used in a secondary sense, in which the corresponding Infant Membership. 179 In the case before us, we assign to the noun agia a secondary sense. Of its use in the New Testament, in this sense we have already given abundant proof (see § 57). In this sense the verb agiazo is never used, we believe, by the sacred writers. In support of the interpretation which we have given this passage, we urge: (1,) It assigns to the words "sanc- tify, unclean, holy," a sense in which they are frequently used in the New Testament. (2,) It gives to the whole passage a meaning, which is not only pertinent to the po- sition which it occupies in Paul's solution of the difficulty proposed to him (and this cannot be said of any other in- terpretation which we have seen), but it makes, v. 14, a decisive argument in support of that solution. (3,) It presents us, in this passage, an eminently Pauline argu- ment; a solution of a Jewish difficulty upon admitted Jewish principles. ^ Thus, in English, as secondary meanings of the noun Wash, Webster fives, " 2, A bog, marsh or fen. 3, A cosmetic. 6, "Waste liquor of a itchen, for hogs. 10, The blade of an oar." The verb wash has no secondary meanings corresponding to these. 180 The Doctrine of Baptisms. CHAPTEE VIII. § 61. FAMILY BAPTISMS. Acts xvi. 14, 15, and 32-34; 1 Cor. i. 13-17. § 61. Family Baptisms. Acts xvi., 14, 15, 32-34. " And a certain woman, named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thya- tira, which worshipped God, heard us : whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household {oikos), she besought us, saying. If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us." "And they spake unto him (the jailer) the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house (oikia). And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes ; and was baptized, he and all his straightway. And when he had brought them into his house (oikos), he set meat before them, and re- joiced, believing in God with all his house " (literally, ''he rejoiced with all his family {oikos), he believing in the Lord." ) 1 Cor. i., 13-17. "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul ? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gains ; lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household (oikos) of Stephanas; besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the, Gospel." Family Baptisms. 181 1. In examining the account of the baptism of the jail- er, in Part II. (see § 44), we had occasion to remark that there were two different words in the Greek, which, in our English version, are indiscriminately translated house and household. The one, oikos, in its primary sense, sig- nifying a house, in our English use of that word, and in its secondary sense, meaning a family, excluding servants and attendants. The other, oikia, in its primary sense corresponding, very nearly, to our English ^wordi premises, and, in its secondary sense, meaning a family, including servants and attendants. The first-mentioned of these words, (oikos) is the word used to designate those who were baptized with Lydia, the jailer, and Stephanas. Such is the common use of the word oikos ; it is never used in a more extended sense, but sometimes in the more restricted sense of children, i. e., the family, excluding the parents. " And Dathan and Abiram came out and stood in the door of their tents, and their wives, and their sons, and their little children. And the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up, and their houses (oikos), and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods." (Numb. xvi. 27, 42.) ''Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee (David) out of thine own house " (oikos). (2 Sam. xii. 11.) A threaten- ing fulfilled in the rebellion of David's son Absalom. '•' One that ruleth well his own house (oikos), having his children in subjection with all gravity." (1 Tim. iii. 4.) Such is the word used by the sacred writers in recording the family baptisms, which accompanied the baptism of Lydia, the jailer, and Stephanas. 2. In the words of Dr. N. L. Rice, " "We do not under- take to prove that there were infants in these families. We simply call attention to the remarkable fact, that the inspired historian mentions the conversion of the head of the family, and says nothing of the conversion of the family, but does say they were baptized. If he was a Pedo-Baptist, and if the infants of those families were baptized, he wrote just as he might have been expected to write. The fact is truly remarkable, that amongst anti- Pedo-Baptists we find no such records of the baptism of 1 82 Tlie Doctrine of Bapthms. families. Some years ago, I took occasion to present to the consideration of some Baptist editors this singular discre- pancy between the manner of recording baptisms adopt- ed by Luke and that adopted by Baptists, and called on them to produce among their accounts of baptisms a re- cord like that in the case of Lydia. They succeeded in finding a few baptisms of whole families, but they had been so unfortunate as to mention the conversion of the members of the families, as well as their baptism. They, therefore, failed to find any record like that of Luke. One thing is certain, we write as Luke wrote, and our anti- Pedo-Baptist friends do not. Would it not be truly won- derful, should it turn out to be true, that those who write like Luke, do not act like him ; whilst those who do not write like him are the very persons who do act like him?" " But," says Dr. Carson, in reply to this argument, " there are not now any examples of the abundant success that the Gospel had in the Apostles' days. We do not find that men believe by households more than they are baptized by households. I suppose that the Baptist mis- sionaries have a baptized household as often as they have a believing household." Just so. But the Apostles had household baptism, in cases where, so far as the record shows, there were no • believing households. This, pre- cisely, is the difference between the Apostles and the Bap- tists. The latter, it is true, have baptized families ; but then, in giving an account of these baptisms, they always mention the faith, not only of the head of the family, but of all the members. The Apostles baptized families : and in their account of them they mention the faith of the .heads, but not of the members. Dr. Carson entirely fails to account for this difierence. If the Apostles were Pedo- Baptists, all is plain ; if not, the fact that they wrote so little like Baptists, and so much like Pedo-Baptists, is un- accountable." ^ 3. The number of these records of family baptisms is sometimes spoken of as if it were inconsiderable, when Dr. N. L. Rice on Baptism, pp. 245, 256. Family Baptisms. 183 compared with the whole number of baptisms recorded in the Word of God. And tlie question is asked, Why is it, if family baptism was practised in the days of the Apostles, like family circumcision under the Old Testament dispensation, that we have so few recorded instances of it in the New Testament Scriptures ? To this we reply — The number of such records (when the matter is fairly examined), docs not appear inconsiderable. So lar from it — in every in- stance in which we have a right to expect such a record, on the supposition that the Apostles were Pedo-Baptists in practice, in every instance in which, at the present day, and under a Presbyterian ministry, there would be occa- sion to make such a record, we find a record of a family baptism in the Word of God. In the Acts of the Apostles, the only book in the New Testament in which we have any particular narrative of Christian baptisms, we have nine records of baptisms, less or more, particularly given us. Now let the reader notice : 1. Two of these are records of the baptism of persons having no children, no family (oikos) to be bap- tized, viz. : The Ethiopian eunuch, and Paul. (See 1 Cor. vii. 7.) 2. Five are records of the baptism of large num- bers at the same time, and on the spot where they have been hopefully converted, under the preaching of the Gospel, viz. : The three thousand on the day of Pentecost — the people of Samaria, including Simon Magus — the disciples of John at Ephesus — the " many Corinthians," including Stephanas — and Cornelius and those gathered in his house to hear Peter. In such cases as these, at the present day, and under a Pedo-Baptist ministry, there would be no family baptisms at the time (men do not carry their infant children into crowded assemblies with them), although there would be afterwards. And this is just what we find to have been the fact, in one of these five cases, viz. : The baptism of the " many Corinthians." By comparing Acts xviii. 8, with 1 Cor. i. 16, it will be seen that the household of Stephanas was baptized by Paul, in all probability on a different occasion, and shortly after Stephanas himself, with the " many " other converted Jews, had been baptized in the synagogue. 3. The re- 184 The Doctrine of Baptisms. maining two, viz., the baptism of Lydia and of the jailer, are distinctly recorded as family baptisms. SUMMING UP — CONCLUSION. We have now examined all the passages of Scripture, thought, either by Baptists or Pedo-Baptists, to throw light upon the question respecting the proper subjects of baptis7n. Let us bring together the results of this ex- amination. First In tracing back the history of the Church, as given us in the Word of God, we find infant-members in- cluded in that Church, even before the days of Abraham ; each pious, family constituting a little Church, of which the father was the ofiiciating priest, and all the children mem- bers. AVhen God gave his Church her formal charter, in the covenant with Abraham, this right of infant member- ship was expressly and solemnly established ; and this, without any intimation that it should ever cease. § 50. Second. The visible Church of God has ever been essentially one and the same ; has had the same charter — God's covenant with Abraham; has possessed the same character — a school of Christ; — ihe^r si Christian Church ever existing upon earth being simply the Old Testament Church, purged of the Apostasy, as is evident from the history of that Church, as it is given us in the Acts, and the inspired representations contained in the Epistles, §§48,49, 50,51,52. Third. Of this right- of infant membership, thus ex- isting as far back as we can trace the history of the Church, and expressly and solemnly established in the one only written charter, ever given of God to the Church, the Scriptures contain no repeal. Baptist writers have attempted to show a repeal by implication. 1. In Christ's commission to his Church, recorded in Mark xvi. 16. This commission, as we have seen, is simply the foreign missionary commission of the Church, and correctly interpreted, gives no countenance to the idea of any repeal of infant-membership: nor can it be made to countenance Baptist views, without making it Summing up — Coiidutsion. 185 teach infant-damnation, and infant-damnation for lack of baptism — doctrines which the Baptist will be as unwilling to admit as we. §46. 2. In those passages of Scripture which teach the spiritual import of baptism. The spiritual import of circumcision, as we have seen, is the same with that of baptism, " the circumcision of Christ." The same reasoning, then, which would give us hence, a repeal of infant-membership in the days of the Apostles, would carry back that repeal to the days of Abraham; the same argument which will prohibit infant baptism under the Christian dispensation, will just as strongly prohibit infant circumcision under the Old Testament dispensation. The same in their spiritual im- port, the two, in so far as all such reasoning is concerned, must stand or fall together. §47. Fourth. The Lord Jesus, the one head of the Church, recognizes infant membership in the Church of God, as existing in his day, and toward the close of his public ministry ; and this, not only without any intimation that it was shortly to cease, but in such a way as clearly to imply its continuance. §53. Fifth. The Lord Jesus, in renewing Peter's apostolic com- mission, does it in terms which could not but have recalled to Peter's mind the rebuke he had received for " forbid- ding little children " to be brought to Christ ; and which seem utterly inexplicable upon the supposition that child- ren are now, for the first time, to be thrown beyond the range of the Church's pastoral care. §54. Sixth. Peter, on the day of Pentecost, when for the first time Ch-ristian baptism was preftched among men, preached it in the very terms of God's covenant with Abraham ; a covenant in which the right of infant membership is ex- pressly acknowledged and established. §55. Seventh. The first Christian Church ever existing upon earth, was constituted of members received into the Church in infancy, and by circumcision — was, in fact, but the Old Testameut Church (a Church in which the right of infant membership has never been questioned) purged — the apostasy cut off, the election remaining. If then I, an adult, having a standing in the Church of God, in virtue 186 The Doctrine of Baptisms. of my infant membership, this much is certain; my stand- ing is just such as the "hundred and twenty" — including the Apostle, excepting Paul — occupied to the day of their death. Does any Baptist object to my Church standing — you were not baptized when you believed in Jesus — my answer is, Neither were the Apostles. It is enough for me that I came into the Church, and now stand in the Church as they did. § 52. Eighth. Children are expressly spoken of as Church memJbers, in the New Testament ; in defining the qualifi- cations of a Bishop (§ 59) ; in deciding a question about the continuance of a mjrrage relation between a believ- ing husband or wife and an unbelieving partner (§60); and in two of Paul's epistles (and these let it be remarked, the only two in which he addresses himself to particular classes of Church members), he addresses himself specifi- cally to children as one of these classes (§ 58). That under this our Christian dispensation, baptism is the di- vinely-appointed rite of initiation into the Church, just as circumcision was under a former dispensation, all are agreed. Infant membership, then, infers infant baptism; the two stand or fall together. Ninth. We have express records of family baptism in the New Testament, and these records made in just such terms as Pedo-Baptists are accustomed to make their re- cords at the present day. And the number of these re- cords is not inconsiderable. So far from it, in every in- stance in which a Christian baptism is recorded, and not recorded as a family baptism, the Scriptures themselves give us a reason why it wa's not a family baptism. CONCLUSION. That infant membership in the Church was established by God, in the days of Abraham, no one questions. That it has ever been repealed, the Scriptures contain not one particle of proof; but, on the contrary, the New Testa- ment is full of evidence, and this of various kinds, that this right continues as of old. The two grand characteristic truths of Christianity are Summing up — Conclusion. 187 — Atojument and Regeneration. And these two truths have been presented to the faith of the Church, not only on the written page of revelation but by symbol also, under every dispensation. The great truth of Atonevient, once symbolized in bloody sacrifices before Christ's death, under this our better dispensation, is set forth in the bread and wine in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The other great truth of Regeneration, under the Old Testament dispensation symbolized in all the purifying rites appointed of Grod, but especially in circumcision, a rite most appropriate whilst the hope of the world's regene- ration rested upon the coming of " a blessed and blessed- making seed,"^ is now, that the promised seed has come, and prepared the way for the coming of the Comforter," the abundant outpouring of the regenerating, sanctifying Spirit of God as appropriately set forth in water baptism. In its essential character, the visible Church of God has ever been the depository of " the oracles of God " (Eom. iii. 2), the school of Christ, in which' disciples are to be taught "all things whatsoever he has commanded " (Matt, xxviii. 20). The end in view, in all this, is that the disci- ple may be sanctified through the truth ; and hence the ' " The general purport of the covenant" (i. e., God's covenant with Abraham) " was, tnat from Abraham, as an individual, there was to be generated a seed of blessing, in which all real blessing was to centre, and from which it was to now to the ends of the earth. There could not, therefore, be a more appropriate sign of the covenant than such a rite as circumcision — so distinctly connected with the generation of off- spring, and so distinctly marking the necessary purification of nature — the removal of the filth of the flesh — that the offspring might be such as really to constitute a seed of blessing. It is through ordinary gene- ration that the corruption incident to the fall is propagated ; and hence, under the law, which contained a regular system of symbolic teaching, there were so many occasions of defilement traced to this source, and so many means of purification appointed for them. Nov;, therefore, when God was establishing a covenant, the great object of which was to re- verse the propagation of evil, to secure for the world a blessed and a blessed-maKing seed, he affixed to it this symbolic rite, to show that the end was to be reached, not as the result of nature's ordinary productive- ness, but of nature purged from its uncleanness — nature raised above itself, in league with the grace of God, and bearing on it the distinctive impress of his character and working." — Fairbairns Typology of Scrip- ture, vol. I, pp. 321, 322. 188 The Doctrine of Baptisms. initiatory rite of the Church has ever been a symbol of re- generation. Under this our Christian dispensation, the child is born as much a sinner, and as ignorant a sinner, as under the old ; and therefore, needing to be entered a disciple at as early an age now as then. And until it can be shown that God has changed the character of his Church, or has forbidden us to bring our children to Jesus, the great Prophet, Teacher of our profession (and the Scriptures give no countenance to any stich ideas), we claim the right of Church membership, secured by charter in Abraham's day and never repealed, to enter our little ones disciples in Christ's school. To him who would forbid the Christian parent thus to do, we commend the careful study of Christ's rebuke, ad- ministered to his disciples, "Suifer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God." §53. PART IV. BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. CHAPTER I. RITES AND CEREMONIES OF ROMISH BAPTISM. § 62. Romish Baptism ; its Rites and Ceremonies. " All the ceremonies and prayers which the Church uses " in the administration of baptism, are to be reduced to " three heads. The first comprehends such as are observed " before coming to the baptismal font — the second, such as " are used at the font — the third, those that immediately " follow the administration of the Sacrament. " In the first place, then, the water to be used in bap- " tism should be previously prepared ; the baptismal water " is consecrated with the oil of mystic unction ; and this " cannot be done at all times, but according to ancient " usage, on the vigils of certain festivals, which are justly " deemed the greatest and most holy solemnities in the " year, and on which alone, except in cases of necessity, it "was the practice of the ancient Church to administer " baptism. But although the Church, on account of the " dangers to which life is continually exposed, has deemed " it expedient to change her discipline in this respect, she " still observes with the greatest solemnity the festivals of 191 192 The Doctrine of Baptisms. " Easter and Pentecost, on whicli the baptismal water is "to be consecrated." " After the consecration of the water, the other cere- " monies that precede baptism, are next to be explained. " The person to be baptized is brought or conducted to " the door of the Church, and is forbidden to enter, as un- " worthy to be admitted into the house of God, until he " has cast off the yoke of the most degrading servitude of " Satan, devoted himself unreservedly to Christ, and "pledged his fidelity to the just sovereignty of the Lord "Jesus." " The priest then asks what he demands of the Church " of God ; and having received the answer, he first in- " structs him catechetically, in the doctrines of the Chris- " tian faith, of which a profession is to be made in bap- " tism. This practice of thus communicating instruction "originated, no doubt, in the precept of our Lord, ad- " dressed to his Apostles : ' Go ye into the whole world, " and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the " Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching " them to observe all things whatsoever I have com- "manded you; ' (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20,) words from which " we may learn that baptism is not to be administered un- " til at least the principal truths of religion are explained. " But as the catechetical form consists of questions and " answers ; if the person to be instructed be an adult, he " himself answers the interrogatories ; if an infant, the " sponsors answer according to the prescribed form, and " enter into a solemn engagement for the child." " The exorcism comes next in order : it consists of words " of sacred and religious import, and of prayers ; and is " used to expel the devil, to weaken and crush his power. " To the exorcism are added other ceremonies, each of " which, being mystical, has its clear and proper significa- " tion. When, for instance, salt is put into the mouth of " the person to be baptized, it evidently imports, that by " the doctrines of faith, and by the gift of grace, he shall " be delivered from the corruption of sin, shall experience " a relish for good works, and shall be nurtured with the "food of divine wisdom. Again, his forehead, eyes, RomisJb Baptism; its Rites and Ceremonies. 193 " breast, shoulders, ears, are signed with the sign of the " cross, to declare, that by the mystery of baptism, the " senses of the person baptized are opened and strength- " ened, to enable him to receive God, and to understand " and observe his commandments. His nostrils and ears " are next touched with spittle, and he is then immediately " admitted to the baptismal font : by this ceremony we " understand that, as sight was given to the blind man, " mentioned in the Gospel, whom the Lord, having spread " clay on his eyes, commanded to wash them in the waters " of Siloe ; so by the efficacy of holy baptism, a light is " let in on the mind, which enables it to discern heavenly " truth." " After the performance of these ceremonies, the person " to be baptized approaches the baptismal font, at which " are performed other rites and ceremonies, which present " a summary of the obligations imposed by the Christian " religion. In three distinct interrogatories, he is formally " asked by the minister of religion, — Dost thou renounce " Satan ? — and all his works ? — and all his pomps ? — to " each of which he, or the sponsor in his name, replies in "the affirmative. Whoever, then, purposes to enlist un- " der the standard of Christ, must, first of all, enter into " a sacred and solemn engagement to renounce the devil " and the world, and, as his worst enemies, to hold theih " in utter detestation." " He is next anointed with the oil of catechumens on " the breast and between the shoulders — on the breast, " that by the gift of the Holy Ghost he may lay aside " error and ignorance, and receive the true faith ; for ' the "just man liveth by faith ' — on the shoulders, that by the " grace of the Holy Spirit he may be enabled to shake ofF " negligence and torpor, and engage actively in the per- " formance of good works ; for ' faith without works is "dead.'" " Next, standing at the baptismal font, he is interro- " gated by the minister of religion in these words : Dost " thou believe in God, the Father Almighty ? to which is " answered : I believe ; a like inteiTogatory is proposed " with regard to the other articles of the creed, succes- 9 194 The Doctrine of Baptisms. " sively ; and tlius is made a solemn profession of faith. " These two engagements, the renunciation of Satan and " all his works and pomps, and the belief of all the articles " of the creed, including as they do, both faith and prac- " tice, constitute, it is clear, the whole force and discipline " of the law of Christ." " When baptism is now about to be administered, the " priest asks him if he will be baptized ; to which an answer " in the affirmative being given by him, or, if an infant, by " the sponsor, the priest performs the ablution, in the " name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy " Ghost. As man, by yielding the assent of his will to " the wicked suggestions of Satan, fell under a just sen- " fence of condemnation ; so God will have none enrolled " in the number of his soldiers, but those whose service is " voluntary ; that by a willing obedience to his commands " they may obtain eternal salvation." " After the person has been baptized, the priest anoints " with chrism the crown of his head, thus giving him to " understand, that from the moment of his baptism, he is " united as a member to Christ, his head, and ingrafted " on his body ; and that he is, therefore, called a Chris- " tian, from Christ, as Christ is so called from Chrism. " "What the Chrism signifies, the prayers offered by the ".priest, as St. Ambrose observes, sufficiently explain." " On the person baptized the priest then puts a white " garment, saying, receive this white garment, which " may est thou carry unstained before the judgment-seat of " our Lord Jesus Christ ; that thou mayest have eternal " life. Amen. Instead of a white garment, infants, be- "cause not formally dressed, receive a white kerchief, " accompanied with the same words. According to the " doctrine of the Holy Fathers this symbol signifies the " glory of the resurrection to which we are born by bap- " tism, thd brightness and beauty with which the soul, " when purified from the stains of sin, is invested, and the " innocence and integrity which the person who has re- " ceived baptism, should preserve through life." " To signify that faith received in baptism, and inflamed " by charity, is to be fed and augmented by the exercise Hoynish Baptism; its Rites and Ceremonies. 195 " of good works, a burning light is next put into his "hands." " Finally, a name is given, which should be taken from " some person, whose eminent sanctity has given him a " place in the catalogue of the saints ; this similarity of " name will stimulate to the imitation of his virtues and *' the attainment of his holiness ; and we should hope and " pray that he who is the model of our imitation, may " also, by his advocacy, become the guardian of our safety " and salvation." {Catechism of the Council of Trent, "pp. 133-136.) "To make these (rites and ceremonies) understood, " therefore, and to impress the minds of the faithful with " a conviction that although not of absolute necessity, they " are of very great importance, and challenge great ven- " eration, are matters which solicit the zeal and industry " of the pastor. This, the authority of those by whom " they were instituted, who were, no doubt, the Apostles, " and also the object of their institution, sufficiently prove. " That ceremonies contribute to the more religious and " holy administration of the Sacraments, serve to exhibit " to the eyes of the beholder a lively picture of the exalted " and inestimable gifts which they contain, and impress " on the minds of the faithful a deeper sense of the bound- " less beneficence of God, are truths as obvious as they are " unquestionable. . . . Baptism may be administered by " immersion, infusion, or aspersion ; and administered in "either of these forms is equally valid." (Catechism of the Council of Trent, pp. 117, 133.) From the above-cited extracts from the Catechism of the Council of Trent, it will be seen that the Church of Rome agrees with the great body of Protestants — (1) In teaching infant baptism. (2) In declaring that the mode of baptism, whether by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling, is a matter of indifference, — baptism in any of these ways being equally valid, and — (3) In making the rite of bap- tism to consist, essentially in the application of water to the person of the baptized. It differs from them, in add- ing to, what it confesses to be, the simple rite as instituted bv Christ, numerous " rites and ceremonies," which it 196 The Doctrine of Baptisms. teaclies " are of great importance," viz. : tlie consecration of the water, the exorcism, the putting of salt in the mouth, the signing with the cross, the touching with spit- tle, anointing with the oil of catechumens, anointing with the oil of chrism, the clothing in a white garment, and the placing in the hand of the baptized a burning light. Of these rites and ceremonies, the Catechism of the Council of Trent affirms that " they were instituted, no doubt, by the Apostles." Archbishop Kenrick modifies this statement very materially. " All these rites — writes he — which are used in the administration of baptism, are derived from venerable antiquity, and are full of significa- tion. Some of them, such as the interrogations, exor- cisms, imposition of hands, signing with the cross, and unctions, may, without temerity, be considered of Apos- tolic origin. To censure them, would be to condemn the whole Christian Church in the earliest and brightest ages, and, indirectly at least, the Apostles themselves." [Ken- rick on Baptism, p. 213). This modified statement of the Archbishop agrees far better with the results of historical investigation than that of the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Romanists do not pretend that they have direct Scrip- ture precept for any of these rites and ceremonies ; and that they were not practiced by Christ and his Apostles is, we think, abundantly proved by the fact that there is no mention of them, nor any reference to them, even in the latest books of the Xew Testament ; and some of these books were written but a few years before the death of the last of the Apostles. In his commentary on 1 Cor. xi. 21, where we have a record of the abuses which obtained in the administration of the Lord's Supper in the Church of Corinth in those " earliest and brightest ages," as the Archbishop calls them ; Dr. Hodge has this note : " It is wonderful, and well nigh portentous, says Calvin, that Satan could have accomplished so much in so short a time. "We may learn from this example, what is the worth of mere antiquity ; that is, what authority is due to custom unsustained by the word of God. Yet this is the firmest foundation of lioviis'h Baptism; its Rites and Ceremonies. 197 Popery ; it is ancient ; it was done of old, therefore it has divine authority ! If, within twenty years of its institu- tion, the Corinthians turned the Lord's Supper into a dis- orderly feast, although the apostles were then alive, we need not wonder at the speedy corruption of the Church after their death." " The Sacraments are . . . immediately instituted hy God!' {Con. of Faith, eh. xxvii. sec. 1.) To this, which is the common doctrine of the Protestant Church, the deliv- erance of the Council of Trent agrees — " If any one saith, that the Sacraments of the New Law were not all insti- tuted by Jesus Christ, our Lord, ... let him be anath- ema." (Session Seventh, Canon 1.) A second point in which Protestants and Eomanists agree is, that the Sacraments are symbolic representations of divine truth : — They are as truly a part of God's rev- elation as the Holy Scriptures are. Hence the obligation of the rule in this case which Paul set forth in his words, and enforced by his example — " I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you." (1 Cor, xi. 23.) To observe these sacraments, then, in all essential, in all important particulars, just as the Lord has delivered them unto us, is plainly our duty. We may grant, for argument's sake, that the truths symbolized in the rites and ceremonies added by the Church of Rome to the sim- ple rite of water baptism are all truths ; and truths which it is right and proper should be taught at other times and in other ways ; but we deny emphatically, that the Church has any right to make the teaching of them by symbol a part of the Sacrament. They are the inven- tion of men, good men it may be ; — they were not " insti- tuted by Jesus Christ," and therefore, cannot form a part of the Sacrament. 198 The Doctrine of Baptisms. CHAPTER II. BAPTISMAL REGENERATION TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. §63. Baptismal Regeneration defined. ? 64. John iii. 3-7. 265. Eph. v. 25-27. §66. Titus iii. 5, 6. §67. Acts xxii. 16. §68. Acts ii. 37,38. §69. Rom. v. 12, 14. § 63. Baptismal Regeneration defined. In its decree concerning Original Sin the Council of Trent declares — " 3. If any one asserts that the sin of Adam, — which " in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by pro- " pagation, not by imitation, is to each one as his own, — " is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or " by any other remedy than the merit of the one medi- " ator, our Lord Jesus Christ, (1 Tim. ii. 5), who hath " reconciled us to God in his own blood, being made unto " us justice, sanctification, and redemption, (1 Cor. i. 30), " or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is " applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacfament " of baptism rightly administered in the form of the " Church ; let him be anathema. " 4. For that which the Apostle has said. By one man " sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so " death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned, " (Rom. V. 12) is not to be understood otherwise than as " the Catholic Church, spread everywhere, hath always " understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from " a tradition of the Apostles, even infants, who could not " as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause " truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them " that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they "have contracted by generation. For unless a man be Baptismal Regeneration Dejiiied. 199 " born again of water and of tlie Holy Ghost, he cannot " enter into the kingdom of heaven. (John iii. 5). "5. If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord " Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of '" original sin is remitted ; or even asserts that the whole "" of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is " not taken away ; but says that it is only rased, or not " imputed ; let him be anathema. For in those who are " born again, there is nothing that God hates ; because, " There is no condemnation to those who are truly buried " together with Christ by baptism into death ; (Eom. viii. 1, " vi. 4) who walk not according to the flesh, but putting off " the old man, and putting on the new who is created "according to God, (Eph. iv. 22) are made innocent, " immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs " indeed of God but joint-heirs with Christ, (E,om. viii. " 17) so that there is nothing whatever to retard their en- " trance into heaven. But this holy synod confesses and " is sensible that in the baptized there remains concu- " piscence, or an incentive (to sin) ; which, whereas it " is left for our exercise, cannot injure those who con- " sent not, but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus " Christ ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be " crowned (2 Tim. ii. 5.) This concupiscence, which the " Apostle sometimes calls sin, (Rom. vi. 12, vii. 8) the " Holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never " understood it to be called sin, as being truly and pro- " perly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin " and inclines to sin. And if any one is of a contrary " sentiment, let him be anathema." {Session Fifth.) In its decree on justification the Council declares — " Justification is not remission of sins merely, but also " the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through " the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, " whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a " friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of " life everlasting." " Of this justification the causes are these : the final " cause is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life " everlasting : while the efiicient cause is a merciful Go(] 200 The Doctrine of Bcqjtisyns. " who washes and sanctifies (1 Cor. vi. 11) gratuitously, "signing, and anointing with the Holy Spirit of pro- " mTse, who is the pledge of our inheritance ; (Eph. i. 13, " 14) but the meritorious cause is his most beloved only- " begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were " enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved " us, (Eph, ii. 4) merited justification for us by his most " holy passion on the wood of the cross, and made satis- " faction for us unto God the Father ; the instrumental " cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacra- " ment of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever "justified." {Session Sixth, ch. vii.) " If any one saith, that baptism is fi'ee, that is, not " necessary unto salvation : let him be anathema." {Council of Trent, Session Seventh ; Canon v, 07i Baptism.) According to the above quoted deliverances of the Council of Trent, the Komish doctrine of baptismal re- generation is : — that " the instrumental cause of justifica- tion " — meaning by justification, " not remission of sins merely, but also sanctification, and renewal of the inward jQan," — " is the sacrament of baptism ; " — That " by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in bap- tism, the baptized" are "made innocent, immaculate, pure, harmless and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, and joint-heirs with Christ, so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven ; " That " infants are baptized for the remission of sins, that in them, may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have con- tracted by generation ; — and hence — That baptism is ne- cessary to salvation." The doctrine of baptismal regeneration as taught in the Oxford Tracts, is substantially the same with that of the Church of Eome. In the language of those tracts : "The relation of sonship to God is imparted through baptism, and is not imparted without it." . . . "Herein are we jus- tified, or both accounted and made righteous ; and have a new principle of life imparted to us ; since having been made members of Christ, we have a portion of his life." . . . "Water, sanctified by our Lord's baptism, is the womb of our new birth." ..." In baptism the old man is Baptismal Regeneration Defined. 201 laid aside, the new man taken ; ho entereth a sinner, he ariseth justified." {Oxford Tracts, vol. ii. pp. 31, 24, 43, 47). The Protestant Episcopal Church, in her Ofice for In- fant Baptism, " thanks God that it hath pleased him to regenerate this infant with his Holy Spirit," and in her Ofiice for Confirmation declares that God hath " vouch- safed to regenerate this his servant with Water and the Holy Ghost." In explanation of this language, the late Bishop H. U. Onderdonk, in his Essay on Kegeneration, maintained that the word regeneration is properly used in two senses. In one it means " a change of state or re- lation; in the other, a change of nature. The first is baptismal, the second is moral. The first, or baptismal, is a new birth, since it constitutes us sons of God, as the Jews were made his peculiar people by that covenant, the seal of which was circumcision. The second, is a new birth or creation in a higher sense, being a gradual sanc- tifying change wrought in the moral character by the Holy Ghost, and not necessarily connected with baptism." {Hodge's Outlines of Theology, p. 344.) This is sub- stantially the doctrine as it is held by the Evangelical, as contradistinguished from the Ritualistic party, in the Epis- copal Church in the United States ; and does not amount to baptismal regeneration in the ordinary acceptation of that term. Having given the reader a distinct statement of the doctrine, let us turn now to an examination of the Scrip- ture proofs by which its advocates seek to establish it. §G4. Johnm. 3-7. John iii. 3-7. "Jesus answered apd said unto him. Verily, verily, I say unto thee. Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him. How can a man be born when he is old ? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb and be born ? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee. Except a man be born of Water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 9* 202 The Doctrine of BajMsms. That which is born of the flesh, is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee. Ye must be born again." The words especially dwelt upon by the advocates of baptismal regeneration are — " Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," ver. 5. And we may add, — This verse may fairly be regarded as, by way of eminence, the proof-text of the doctrine. For this reason it should receive a care- ful examination. 1. In his words, " Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God," our Lord is, as was frequently his wont, answering a question which he saw was in Nicodemus' mind ; the great question in all reli- gion, "How shall man be just with God?" (Job ix. 2.) Had Nicodemus given expression to the question, just as it lay in his mind, he would have said, as did another "Ruler in Israel " — "Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?" (Matt. xix. 16.) Upright in his dealings with his fellow-men, and puncti- lious in his observance of the ceremonial of religion as established by Moses, he lacked but little, in his own esti- mation, of what God would require as a condition of eternal life ; — a.nd yet, like many in every age who have sought salvation by " the deeds of the law," he is not satisfied with his condition; his life does not meet the requirements of the law so completely, that his conscience suggests no doubt of his acceptance with God. Some good thing there may be — probably is — to be done before heaven is secure. And as our Lord, by his miracles, has shown himself to be "a teacher come from God," like the old prophets, he comes to him for a solution of his difli- culty. 2. Nicodemus' plan of salvation, by " the deeds of the law," is utterly at variance with the Gospel plan, — that which Christ came to teach ; and to teach him this truth in a way that he cannot possibly misunderstand him, our Jjord meets him with the startling declaration, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he Baptismal Regeneration Defined. 203 cannot see the kingdom of God : " As if he had said — What you need is, not some " good thing " in addition to the many " good things " you ah-eady have, — your re- ligion is rotten, dead to the very core. What you need, and must have, if you would see the kingdom of God, is a change as radical and entire as a being " born again." And when Nicoderaus, half in cavil, half in misapprehen- sion, putting a gross, material interpretation upon his words, asks, " Can a man enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born ? " our Lord replies, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit : " — as if he had said, Even if you could enter a second time into your mother's womb and be born, that would not meet the difficulty. Being born a second time by the process of natural birth, you would be born as fatally estranged from God and as far from the kingdom of heaven as you were when born the first time. The change you need is a spiritual change, and must be wrought by the Spirit. 3. With this additional declaration before him, Nicode- mus could not well misunderstand our Lord's words re- specting the nature of the new birth declared to be neces- sary in order to salvation. As a master in Israel, he had been accustomed to speak of the change of which the hea- then were the subjects when they became proselytes to the Jewish religion — turned from dumb idols to the worship of the living God — as a new birth ; and this, because the change was a radical one; a change affecting the whole heart and life. And so, when our Lord says " Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God : I say unto thee, ye must be born again," he could not well understand him otherwise than as as- serting that he (Nicodemus), if he would have eternal life, must be the subject of as thorough and radical a change as that of which the heathen were the subjects when they became true proselytes to the Jewish religion. Thus far, all commentatoi's, Romish as well as Protestant, substan- tially agree. That by the new birth here spoken of, our Lord meant (1) a thorough, radical change, and (2) that " the efficient 20-i The Doctrine of Baptisms. cause " of this cliange is God ; God the Spirit, the Council of Trent distinctly affirms. It is in the interpretation of the words "born of water," that the peculiar doctrine of the Romanist and Tractarian appears. They assert that these words are equivalent to born of baptism — of course Christian baptism is meant — and teach that "the instru- mental cause of regeneration is the Sacrament of Bap- tism; " and this, in such a'sense, that even in the case of new-born infants, " baptism is necessary to salvation : " That whilst the efficient agent in regeneration is the Spir- it, his operations in the case are so indissolubly tied to baptism, that (1) They are never put forth except in con- nection with baptism, so that there is no regeneration without baptism ; and (2) That unless the baptized per- son, in the exercise of his free agency," opposes an obsta- cle " (and this the infant cannot do) they always accompa- ny baptism ; so that in the orderly course of things, to be baptized is to be regenerated. According to this view, verse 5lh may be fairly paraphrased. — Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be regene- rated by Christian baptism, as " the instrumental cause " of that regeneration, and by the Spirit, as " the efficient cause " — and the operation of the latter is indissolubly tied to the former — " he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." In opposition to this interpretation, we take the ground that our Lord, in his words " born of water," is not speak- ing of Christian baptism; and we take this ground for several reasons. 1. Christian baptism had not been instituted at the time of this interview with Nicodemus, nor had any in- timation been given of our Lord's purpose to institute such a rite in the Church. As we learn from the closing portion of the chapter, the interview occurred before the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and so some two, pro- bably nearly tliree years before the close of our Lord's ministry. Christian baptism was not instituted until after the resurrection. The Old Testament Jewish Church was the true, visible Church of God at the time, and so con- tinued until it consummated its apostasy in the crucifixion Baptismal Rcjoieration Defined. 205 of its Lord. John's baptism, as well as the baptism ad- ministered by Christ's disciples — for "Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples " (Jno. iv. 2) were of essen- tially the same character, viz. : Jewish rites of purification, (see § 29), and differed so essentially from Christian bap- tism, that Paul, at Ephesus, administered Christian baptism to a number of disciples who had already received that of John, (Acts xix. 1-5) as doubtless did Peter and the other apostles, on " the day of pentecost," for among the three thousand who were then "added to them," there must have been many who had previously been the disciples of John. For this reason, had our Lord by his words "born of water" meant Christian baptism, Nicodemus could not possibly have understood him aright, and the words spo- ken to remove perplexity, could but have increased that perplexity. 2. Christ's words are a personal address to Nicodemus. For, although his form of address is general, yet all agree that he meant, and that Nicodemus understood him to mean — Except you, Nicodemus, be born of water and of the Spirit, you cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Nicodemus, be it understood, was "a Pharisee and ruler of the Jews," — a ruler in the Church, and not in the State — and had undoubtedly received circumcision in his in- fancy. Now, circumcision under the Old Testament dis- pensation was what baptism is under the New ; and hence baptism is called by Paul " the" circumcision of Christ," (Col. ii. 11) or Christian circumcision. Whatever baptism accomplished for Paul and the saints of his day, circum- cision accomplished for Abraham, and Moses, and David, and Isaiah. For this reason it was that the apostles, with the exception of Paul, never received Christian baptism, but to the day of their death, occupied a place in the visi- ble Church of God on the strength of their circumcision in infancy. (See § 52.) As the Jewish Church was the true, visible Church of God at the time, and was recog- nized as such by Christ up to " the night in which he was betrayed," for Christ to have enjoined upon Nicodemus Christian baptism, would have been, virtually, to have enjoined a second baptism, and a second baptism the 206 The Doctrine of Baptisms. Council of Trent condemns under the pain of anathema. (See Session vii. Canon ix.) Had Nicodemus held the doc- trine of baptismal or circumcisional regeneration — and the two must stand or fall together — and had he under- stood our Lord, in his words " 6o?'?^ of water," to enjoin a regeneration by baptism, his instant reply would have been : — I have already been regenerated, and how can I be regenerated a second time ? 3. "If by 'born of water' our Lord meant regenerated by Christian baptism, and this was the doctrine held by the Apostles as received from the Master's lips, is it not passing strange that so little is subsequently said by them on the subject ? That there is in the Gospel nothing more than a brief account of its institution is satisfactorily ex- plained by the fact that it was not instituted until the time at which tht3 Gospel narrative closes ; but the Epis- tles were written afterward, and were intended to explain and supplement the teaching of the Gospels. Li Romans, baptism is only twice mentioned, and in 1 Corinthians, seven times ; in Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, Hebrews, and 1 Peter, we find it named once in each Epistle. In thirteen of the remaining Epistles it is neither named nor referred to. In the two pastoral Epistles to Timothy, where we might expect something about baptism, if any- where, there is not a word about it. In the Epistle to Titus, the only text which can possibly be applied to bap- tism, is by no means clearly applicable. (Tit. iii. 5.) Nor is this all. In the one Epistle which mentions baptism seven times, we find the writer saying that ' Christ sent him not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel,' and actu- ally ' thanking God ' that he had ' baptized none of the Corinthians, save Crispus and Gains.' (1 Cor. i. 14, 17.) He could surely never have said this, if all whom he bap- tized were at once born again. Imagine St. Paul saying ' I thank God I regenerated none of you ! ' Moreover, it is a startling fact, that this very same Apostle in the very same Epistle, says to these same Corinthians, ' I have be- gotten you through the Gospel.' (1 Cor. iv. 14.) My de- liberate conviction is, that St. Paul would never have written these sentences, if he had believed that the only BaptLmal Regeneration Defined. 207 way to be born of the Spirit was to be baptized." (Hyle on Jno. iii. 5.) For all those reasons we reject the idea that our Lord is here speaking of Christian baptism. What, then, did he mean when he said to Nicodemus — " Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he can- not enter into the kingdom of God?" In order to a true aaswer, let us place ourselves as far as possible, in the circumstances of Nicodemus at the time he heard them. All agree that our Lord uttered these words in order to explain his previous declaration at which Nicodemus was stumbling, " Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God ; " — And if he honestly meant to explain, he must use words in the sense in which he has reason to believe his hearers will understand him. Nicodemus was familiar with " the divers washings " (baptisms) prescribed by Moses' Law. He must have heard of, if he had not witnessed — possibly he had received — John's baptism with water. He could hardly have been ignorant of the fact that Christ, by his disciples, was ad- ministering water baptism to multitudes (Jno. iv. 1, 2.) What did he understand these "purifications" — for they were all "purifications" in the Old Testament sense of that word — to be ? We answer, if he studied the Old Testament Scriptures, or listened to John's own exposition of the rite he administered, he understood them to be sim- ply symbolic rites, by which the recipient was formally set apart to God's service ; either his service in general, or to some particular service that the circumstances of the case called for. (See §29.) And so, when our Lord said to him " Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" he would understand him to mean — Except a man be set apart to God's service by a work of the Spirit wrought in his soul, such as is symbolized in baptism with water, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. With water baptism as a consecrating rite, and the symbol, the shadow, of a better baptism he is well acquainted. Of a water baptism any other than this he knows nothing. That the regenerating work of the Spirit, now that Christian baptism has been established in the Church, is 208 The Doctrine of Bajjtisms. symbolized in tliat rite, we do not doubt, but this by no means implies the admission that Christ speaks of that ordinance here. In our Lord's words "Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life " (Jno. vi. 54,) there is the same truth expressed which was after- wards incorporated in the symbolic teaching of the Lord's Supper. So here, in his words "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God" there is the same truth expressed which was after- wards incorporated in the symbolic teaching of Christian Baptism. Li both cases alike, the similarity in the figure of the language, and the symbolism of the subsequently instituted sacrament, is explained in the fact, that both alike are traceable to a common fountain-head in the or- dinances of the Old Testament dispensation, — the one, in the ordinance of sacrifice, especially the feast upon the sacrifice : the other in the ordinance of purification. Our interpretation of our Lord's language is confirmed by comparing it with similar language used in the New Testament. Li Matt. iii. 11, it is foretold of Christ that " he shall baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire." There was undoubtedly a literal fulfilment of this declara- tion of John, at Jerusalem, on. the first Christian Pente- cost, when the Holy Ghost was shed forth upon the as- sembled disciples in the visible form of tongues of fire (see Acts ii. 3) but this is not all the words mean. The visible tongues of fire symbolized a purifying influence wrought by the Holy Ghost in the soul, similar to that wrought by fire in the mass of dross and metal submitted to its action, — and the subsequent life of the disciples gave evidence of the reality of such a work: — and so John's words are generally understood to mean, " he shall con- secrate you to God's service by a work of the Holy Ghost, fitly symbolized by the purifying work of fire." So, in 1 Cor. ii. 4, Paul's words " my preaching was ... in de- monstration of the Spirit, an^inal sin. All hold that regeneration is necessary to salvation. The Church of Rome teaches baptismal re- generation; that is — taking the doctrine in its least objectionable form— that whilst regeneration is properly the work of the Spirit, yet is the agency of the iSpirit so tied to the sacrament as always to accompany baptism properly administered, and never to be put forth without this sacrament. The doctrine of Knox, and Craig, and the Westminster Assembly is, that there is no such bond between regeneration and baptism ; — that in regeneration the Spirit " worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth," and therefore, in the case of infants, and "all other persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word," e. g., deranged per- sons and idiots, regeneration, and consequent salvation is dependent upon the electing love of God, and upon nothing else. Now, it was to express this truth, and to repudiate the Romish doctrine of baptismal regeneration, and especially "the cruel judgment against infants de- parting without the sacraments," that the Westminster Assembly stated their faith in the words — " Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being called by the ministry of the word." And this purpose, accounts for the fact that the section just quoted is found, not in ch. iii. of "God's Eter- nal Decrees," but in ch. x. of " Effectual Calling," which treats of the way in which the salvation of all the saved is accomplished. § 72. Baptismal Regeneration Contradicted hy Experience and Observation. In his conversation with Nicodemus, recorded in the third chapter of John's Gospel, our Lord says : " If I have told vou of earthly things and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things ? " (Jno. iii. 228 The Doctrine of Baptbims. 12.) He here speaks of two classes of truths or doctrines, — "earthly things," such as the doctrine of regeneration, of which he had just been speaking, and at which Nicode- mus was then stumbling, as is evident from his words — "How can these things be?" — and " heavenly things," such as his own divinity, salvation through his death on the cross, and God's love to man as the true source of that salvation, of which things he goes on to speak in the sub- sequent portion of the discourse. Why does our Lord call regeneration an "earthly thing ? " Because it is a change which is wrought in man here on earth ; and though a spiritual change, it af- fects the whole outer life of man so as to become known to us in the same way in which other earthly things do. Paul was a very different man after his regeneration from what he was before. When born again he not only be- lieved what he before regarded as a vile imposture, and loved what he before hated ; but he preached the very Gospel he once destroyed, and took as his dearest friends the very ones he before persecuted unto strange cities. Faith, hope, love, the results of regeneration, are Christian graces which cannot be hid ; and they are awakened of God, in the soul, that they may manifest themselves in the life. " Men do not light a candle and put it under a bushel ; " — and if men are not guilty of such folly, surely God will not be — " but on a candlestick ; and it giveth light to ail that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works, and glo • rify your Father which is in heaven." (Matt. v. 15, 16.) If regeneration, in the Scriptural sense of the word, is effected in baptism — if he who was born " a child of Adam," has been made, by baptism, " a child of God," his subsequent life should declare the change. Yet, as a matter of fact, experience and observation bear testimony to no such effect as this. Infants are incapable of offer- ing any obstacle to the production of the full effects of baptism ; yet, the child of the pious Eomanist, baptized with all possible attention to even the ceremonial of bap- tism, when he reaches the age at which the character ! shows itself in the life, is no better than the child of the ''Another GospeV 229 pious Presbyterian, who, in the view of the Komanist, has received an exceedingly irregular baptism ; or the child of the pious Baptist, who has never received the sem- blance of baptism. So the child himself will confess, and universal experience testifies to the truth of this confes- sion. Numbers of those regularly baptized, never, in life nor in death, exhibit any evidence of regeneration. Is baptism, then, in the case of infants, without effect? By no means. It places the child within the pale of the visible Church, and so secures to him an interest in the care, and instructions, and prayers of the Church. It is a solemn recognition on the part of the Christian parent, of his obligation to " bring up the child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord," (Eph. vi. 4,) and so, secures a Christian education to the child, in so far as a solemn vow can secure it ; but above all, it places a child in covenant with God, as the "little ones" of Israel were by the act of their parents, (see Deut. xxix. 10-12) and so secures to him all the blessings of the covenant, on the conditions of that covenant. And the result of all this we see in the fact that where God's Church is established, piety is seen to descend as a sort of inheritance ; as in the case of Tim- othy, of whom Paul writes : " The unfeigned faith that is in thee, dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mo- ther Eunice." (2 Tim. i. 5.) But this is something very different fi'om baptism uniformly effecting regeneration ex opere operato. § 74. " Another Gospel" In so far as any work or act of the sinner is concerned, the Bible everywhere teaches that the only indispensable condition of salvation is faith in Jesus Christ. Our Lord himself says, " As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wil- derness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up ; that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have eter- nal life. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish, but have everlasting life. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him." 230 The Doctrine of Baptisms. (Jno. iii. 11, 15, 16, 36.) "Then said they unto Lim, what shall we do that we may work the works of God? Jesus answered them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. I am the bread of life; he that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. This is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life ; and I will raise him up at the last day." (Jno. vi. 28, 29, 35, 40.) " He that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live : And whosoever liveth, and believeth in me, shall never die"." (Jno. xi. 25, 26.) Such is " the Gospel of the grace of God," as it fell from the lips of our Lord himself. " Alien as the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is, from the whole letter and spirit of Scripture ; it has an element of popularity, which will always secure numerous votaries, until grace undeceives them. It chimes in with the super- stition natural to a soul dead in sin. It is delightful to the soul which hates true repentance, and loves its spiritu- al laziness, and abhors thorough-going heart religion, and yet dreads hell ; to be taught that it can be equipped for heaven, without these arduous means, by an easy piece of ecclesiastical legerdemain." ' {Dabneys Theology, p. 743.) The fatal error in the religion of the Pharisees in our. Lord's day, was just the doctrine of " sacramental grace; " "salvation by the deeds of the law," — not the moral, but the ceremonial law ; — as Paul styles it in his Epistle to the Galatians. Of this it is, he writes — " I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel : which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again. If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." (Gal. i. 6-9.) SCRIPTURAL INDEX TO THE DOCTRINE OF BAPTISMS. OLD TESTAMENT. X, 13-16, 2 '^3 " 35-40. 2 21 Genesis, xvii. 4-8, 12, ^ 50 XI. 30, 2 29 Deuteronomy, xxx. 6, § 47 XVI. 15, 16. 2 46 2 Kings, V. 14, 3 14 Isaiah, xii. 7, ^ 17 ImU. APOCBTPHi III. 3, " 7, 8, 12, 2 29 2 29 Ecclesiasticus, xxxiv. 25, 2 15 " 16, 2 24 Judith, xii. 7, 2 16 " 21 22 VII. 29730. XI. 37, 38, \ 30 2 29 2 18 KEW TESTAMENT. XII. 49, 50, 2 21 XVIII. 15-17. 2 53 Matthew. XX. 4, XXIV. 47-49, 2 29 2 46 III. 1-6, 1 38 " 7, 8, 11, |24, 1 29 " 13-17, 2 30, ^ 38 John. XIX. 13-15, 2 53 XX. 20-23, 2 21 I. 19-25, 2 6 XXI. 25, 29 " 26, 2 24 XXVIII. 19, 20, 246. ^ 48 " 32, 33, " 33, " 28, 2 30 • 2 24 2 38 Mark. III. 3-7, '■ 22-30, 1 64 2 5 I. 4-10, 229, 2 38 " 23, 2 39 " 9-11, 2 30 IV. 1, 2, 2 5 " 8, 2 24 X. 40, 2 38 VII. 1-4, 2 18 XXI. 15. 2 54 231 232 Scriptural Index. Acts. 1.4-8, " 22, II. 1-4, " 16-18, " 32, 33, " 38^1, "41, III. 24-26, VIII. 12, 13, 16, " 36-39, IX. 17-18, X. 37, '•44-48, XI. 15, 16, XIII. 24, XVI. 14. 15, " 32^-34, XVIII. 8, " 24-26, XIX. 1-7. XXII. 12-16, I 42, 2 41, ?55, 24, Romans. n. 28. 29, III. 1, 2, IV. 11, " n 17, V. 12-14, VI. 1 -6. IX. 8, XI, 18-24. I 24 24, I 29 ? 24 I 24 § 21 ? 68 I 31 I 55 § 31 § 40 I 42 I 29 I 43 I 24 ? 29 I 01 2 44, I 61 1 31 2 29 I 29 ? 47, 2 67 ? 47 § 48 I 47 ? 50 ? 69 § 35 § 50 I 51 2 34, 1 Corinthians. I. 13-17, VII. 12-14, X. 1, 2, XII. 12. 13, XV. 29, 1 61 § 60 2 22 25, § 47 2 37 III. 7-9, " 26-29 Galatians. Uphesians. 2 50 2 47 1. 1, 2 58 II. 11-14, 2 51 " 19-22, 2 51 V. 25-27, i 65 IV. 3-6. i 27 1 58 V. 1-3. CoZossians. I. 1, 2, 2 58 II. 10-12, 2 34, § 36 " 11, 2 47 " 12, 2 47 III. 0, § 258 1.6, III. 5, VI. 1, 2, IX. 9, 10, Titus. Hebrews. 1 Peter. III. 18-22, 2 20 § 19 I 23 THE DOCTRINE LORD'S SUPPER, SET FORTH IN THE WORD OF GOD. TO WHICH IS ADDED AN EXAMINATION OF THE ROMISH SACRAMENTS OF CONFIRMATION, PENANCE, EXTREME UNCTION, MATRIMONY AND ORDERS. CONTENTS, PRELIMIXA R Y S TA TEMENT. THE LORD'S SUPPER. CHAPTER I. l\. The several accounts of the institution of the Sacrament. §2. The time of its institution. §3. The names given it in Scripture. J 4. A summary view of its nature 1 CHAriER II. The Lords Supper a Commemorative Rite. la. Commemorative Rites. §G. The Rite Commemorative of our Lord's Death. ?7. The Need of this Commemoration. §8. The Effect of this Commemo- ration 9 CHAPTER III. Tlie Lord's Supper a Symholie Rite. §9. Sj-mbolic Rites. §10. The Lord's death sacrificial. 1 11. Christ "the hread of life." §12. This truth as expressed in Protestant Confessions 17 CHAPTER IV. The Lords Supper a Covenanting Rite. gl3. The New Testament (diatheca). ?14. The Covenant with Abraham. Gen. xv. 8-l«. gl5. Tlie Covenant at Sinai, Ex. xxiv. 3-8. gl6. "The salt of the Covenant of thy God." ^^7 "Vain Oblations." §18. Relation of the Lord's Supper to Old Testament sacrifices. §19. The New Covenant, Heb. viii. 8-12 27 CH.\PTER V. The Lords Supper a Eurharistie Rite. §■20. Origin of the name Eucharist. §21. Development of Sacrificial Worship in Moses' Law. §22. The Passover as observed in our Lord's day. §23. The New_ ft better Covenant than the Ol 1 3a Contents. CHAPTER VI. The Lords Supper a Communion. §24. 1 Cor. X. 16-21. §25. Scriptural use of the word Communion. §20. John xiii. 34, 35. Tlie New Commandment. § 27. John xvii. 20, 21. Christian Unity. §28. The Lord's Sapper adapted to exhibit this Unity 61 CHAPTER A^I. Cdo&e Communion. I 29. Close Communion defined. §30. Does Sacramental Communion with a Church involve approval of its error.s? §31. Is the Communion of the Lord's Sapper that of a particular Church? §32. Dous Baptism necessarily precede the Lord's Supper? §33. 2 Thess. iii. G-15. " Walking disorderly." §31. Prac- tical views 63 \hx\ Irrnnlr. THE MASS. CHAPTER I. Transuhdantiation. §35. Transubstantiation defined. §30. Transubstantiation irreconcilable with the testimony of the Benses §37. Lord Buckingham and the Priest. §3S. Thetes- mony of the senses, and not " reason and common sense." §39. The test of Chemical Analysis. §40. The senses sometimes deceive us. §41. Transubstan- tiation not a miracle. §42. God's estimate of the testimony of the senses. Conclusions 91 CHAPTER II. Our Lords Discourse at Capernaum, John vi. § 43. Introductory words. Vs. 1-34. § 44. Jesua " the bread of life." Vs. 35-47. g 45. Eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of Man. Vs 48-59. §40. The effect of this discourse upon His hearers. Vs. 60-69. § 47. Cardinal Wiseman on "ths established and conventional signification of ' eating my flesh.'" §48. Car- dinal Wiseman on the Jews' cavils. §49. Is John vi. 51-58 a promise of the Lord's Supper 1"' CHAPTER III. The Words of Institution. g .50. The Words of Institution. §51. How would the Apostles understand the words of Institution? §52. Does this method of interpretation invalidate the Scripture testimony to the Trinity ? ? 53. The elements called bread and wine after consecration ■ ^^^ Contents. V CHAPTER IV. PauVs reproof of disorders in the Church of Corinth. 2.13. The nature of the disorders charged? 1 Cor. xi 17-22. g54. Eating and drinking unwortliily. ¥.27. §5o. Eating and drinking damnation (judgment) to themselves. Vs. 28-31. gr>6. Romisli views of vs. 27-29. g.07. Romisli views of V. 28 150 CHAPTER V. The Doctrine of the Eeal Presence. g58. The doctrine of the Real Presence defined. g59. Tlie waj' in which Transub- stantiation and the Real Presence are accomplished. §G0. Examination of the Scripture proofs of the Real Presence 163 CHAPTER VI. Communion under one species. ?ei. Statement of the doctrine. ? 62. History of this doctrine. ? 63. Doctrine of Scripture. §61. Rome's appeal to Scripture. § 6fi. 1 Cor. xi. 27 172 CHAPTER VII. The Worship of the Host. ?66. The worship of the Host. §67. Dr. Milner's defence. ?G8. The Romanist can never be certain that his adoration of the Host is not idolatry, g 69. Modern and Ancient Idolatry. §70. The Real Presence not a doctrine of the primitive Church 186 CHAPTER VIII. Priesthood under the New Testament. I 71. The Priests of the Church of Rome. §72. Did Christ institute a priesthood in hi.-* Church? §73. Presbuteros translated Priest. §74. The priesthood recog- nized in the New Testament. §75. An "external priesthood " not recognized in the New Testament 199 CHAPTER IX. The Sacrifice of the Mass. §76. The sacrifice of the Mass. §77. Ps. ex. 4, Heb. vii. 17. §78. Malachi i. 11. §79. Heb. vii. 12. §80. Heb. xiii. 10. §81. Acts xiii. 2. §82. Christian sacrifices recognized in the New Testament. §83. Christ's sacrifice on Calvary the one perfect propitiatory sacrifice 211 CHAPTER X. The Sacrifice of the Mass {continued). §81. The sacrifice of the Mass defined. §8.^). Tlie sacrifice of the Mass propitiatory. §86. The Mass an unbloody sacrifice. §87. The propitiatory worth of the Mass practically illustrated. §88. Masses in honor of V.ic Saints 227 vi Contents. CHAPTER XI. Consuhstantiation. §89. Consubstantiation defined. g90. Wherein Consubstantiation and Transub- stantiation differ. ?9l. Objections to the doctrine of Consubstantiation 240 f art (KliirL THE FIVE ADDITIONAL SACRAMENTS OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. CHAPTER I. Co nfi rmation. g 92. Confirmation defined. ? 93. Acts viii. 14-19, xix. 1-7. ?04. Heb. vi. 1, 2. §95. Confirmation in the Protestant Episcopal Church 251 CHAPTER II. Renance. §96. Penance defined. §97. Contrition. §98. Confession. §99. Jamesv. 16;2 Cor. V. 18-21 ; 1 John i. 9, 10. § 100. Satisfaction. §101. Absolution. §102. John xx.22,23. § 103. Acts ii. 38 263 CHAPTER III. Matrimony. §104. Matrimony a Sacrament. §10.5. The state of Celibacy better than that of Marriage. §106. Celibacy of the Clergy. §107. Inconsistency of Romish doc- trine 281 CHAPTER IV. Extreme Unction. § 108. Kxtreme Unction defined §109. James v. 14-18 292 CHAPTER V. The Sacrament of Orders. gllO. The Sacrament of Orders defined. §111. Matt. xvi. 19, and xviii. 15-19. §112. 1 Tim. iv. 14, and II Tim. i. 6 298 CHAPTER VI. The Romish Sacraments. §113. The term Sacrament defined. §114. The Seven Sacraments. §115. The scheme of salvation through the Sacraments a failure, its advocates being judges 304 PART I. THE LORD'S SUPPER. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. In Part I. of the following treatise, the author has en- deavored to set forth the nature of the Lord's Supper just as it is presented in Scripture. This has been done with the greater care, because Protestants too often look upon this Sacrament as little more than a commemorative rite, in which the memorials of Christ's death are so ordered as to teach by symbol certain great truths of our holy religion ; whilst Eomanists, in their doctrine of *' the mass," have lost almost all trace of the original character of the ordinance. In the Scriptures, the Lord's Supper is presented as, (1) A commemorative rite, (2) A rite of symbolic instruction, (3) A covenanting rite, (4) A Eu- charist, and (5) A communion, and in each of these char- acters it has received particular consideration. In con- nection with the last mentioned, the Lord's Supper as a communion, the question of " close " and " open " com- munion is discussed, as a difference on this point is of long standing in the Church, and any examination of this Sacra- ment would be incomplete without such discussion. In Part II. " the Mass," the teachings of the Church of Piome respecting the Lord's Supper, are examined at length. In this examination, the author has endeavored — 1. By quotations from the Standards of the Church of Ptome, especially from " The Canons and Decrees of the X The Doctrine of the Lords Supper, Council of Trent," the Council which settled, finally, the doctrine of that Church on the subject of the Sacraments, and " The Catechism of the Council of Trent," a work prepared by order of the Council, and sanctioned and pub- lished by Pope Pius V. for the instruction of Komish Priests in their interpretation of " The Canons and De- crees," to enable the reader to judge for himself respecting the fairness of the representations of Eomish doctrine he has given. 2. By quotations from the writings of leading Koman- ists of the present day, — the works which have recently been published or republished in this country, — to put the reader in possession of the arguments by which the faith of the Church of Rome is defended in this our day. Like all other controversies of long standing, this has changed its grounds in many important particulars, and so, the treatises which were all-sufficient a century ago, do not fully meet the necessities of our times. These quotations, both those from the standards, and those from the leading modern writers of the Church of Eome, have been carefully made ; none of them at second-hand, but in every instance from the originals ; and none of them are quotations so garbled as to change or misrepresent the meaning of their authors. That the reader may be able easily to verify our quotations, we append to this Pre- liminary Statement a list of the works quoted, carefully stating the editions from which the quotations have been made. 3. To give a careful examination of every passage of Scripture, cited by the standards, or adduced by Romish writers in the works quoted, in support of the doctrine of the Mass. As the Council of Trent teaches " that the Sacraments of the New Law were all instituted by Jesus Fi'diniiiiary Stataiicnt. xi Christ, our Lord," there is a special propriety in bringing every question respecting them to the test of Scripture ; receivino- reverently all that the Scriptures teach, and re- jecting all else. The gospel of the Cliurch of Konie is a gospel of salva- tion by the Sacraments, and the doctrine of the Mass is the living heart of Romish religion. On this ponit, IVo- testant ministers who have had occasion to labor among Romanists, and Romanists themselves agree. Seymour, in his " Evenings with the Romanists," writes, — " There are few subjects at issue between the Church of Rome and ourselves, upon which I have been more fre- quently engaged in discussion, than on the sacrifice of the Mass. Its own innate importance, arising out of the principles it involves — the great value placed upon it by its votaries — its being regarded as their ' morning and even- ing sacrifice,' the greatest and highest of all their rites, and the most efficacious, and precious, and important of all the mysteries of their faith, always invests its discus- sion with a prominence and an interest peculiarly its own. The most essential and characteristic elements of Roman- ism are all interwreathed and involved in it. And all the grandest truths of a Protestant Christianity are drawn out and engaged against it. It has thus naturally become in my intercourse with Romanists, a constant subject of controversial as well as of amicable conversation." (p. 273.) And Nampon, in his "Catholic Doctrine," writes, — " All the splendor and dignity of our worship, the mag- nificence of its temples, the beauty and variety of its cere- monies, the choice works which it unceasingly demands from architecture, sculpture, painting, music, poetry, eloquence, and g,ll the arts ; those efforts so prodigious in the coun xii The Doctrine of the Lord's Supper. tries and ages of faith, efforts to raise up to the very clouds the dwelhng of God on earth, to surround the Eu- charistic victim with incense, hymns and flowers ; all these monuments of a faith and love which never says, That is enough, have their foundation in a belief in the Eeal Pres- ence and in the sacrifice accomplished upon our altars. We pray, we prostrate ourselves, we adore, we chant, bo- cause He is there ! It is because He is there that thj lamp burns, the clouds of incense rise, the organ malied its thousand voices heard. His j)resence tolerates not in His temple anything profane. His sacrifice calls for the pomp, the majesty, the gravity of the most imposing cere- monies. To the accents of the deacon who proclaims the Gospel, to the solemn tones of the Preface, and the affect- ing chaunt of the Pater, the assembly can only reply by unanimous and prolonged acclamations." " Is it then" — asks M. Vinet, — "is it then solely owing to the Eeal Presence that the Catholic Temples are real Temples? Yes, assuredly ; . . . and do what you will, your Protes- tant chapels will never be more than lecture-rooms." {pp. 422, 423.) It is for this reason that so large a portion of the pres- ent work is devoted to an examination of the doctrine of " The Mass." Part III. is occupied with an examination of the five remaining sacraments of the Church of Eome, viz.: (1) Confirmation, (2) Matrimony, (3) Extreme Unction, (4) Penance, and (5) Orders. This examination is briefer than it otherwise would have been, because many of the points involved, and many of the passages of Scripture appealed to, had already been examined in our discussion of the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. The author has aimed, however, to make the discussion full Prdiiniiiary Statcinciit. xiii enough to give the reader a disiiuct knowledge of the nature of these lloniish Saeraments, and the Scripture proof upon which they rest. ROMISH WOKKS QUOTED IN THIS TREATISE. "The Canons and Dogmatic Decrees of the Council of Trent," as contained in "SchafF's Creeds of Christendom." Vol. II. N. York, 1877. " The Catechism of the Council of Trent." New York, Catholic Publication Society. "The Douay Bible, with annotations, revised and corrected according to the Clementine edition." Philadel- phia, 1824. Published by E. Cummiskey." " Missale Eomanum." The copy from which the quo- tations are made had a part of the title page missing, but had been used for years in conducting the worship of a Catholic Church in Virginia. "Short Catechism of the Christian Doctrine on the basis adopted by the First Plenary Council of Baltimore. By the Right Rev. Augustin Verot, Bishop of St. Au- gustine, Baltimore. 1879." " The Real Presence of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ in the blessed Eucliarist, proved from Scrip- ture, in eight lectures, delivered in the English College, Ptome, by Cardinal "Wiseman. Baltimore, 1852." " Catholic Doctrine as defined by the Council of Trent," by the Rev. A. Nampon, S. J. Approved by the Arch- bishops of Baltimore, New York and Cincinnati. Phila- delphia, 1870. "The Sincere Christian instructed in the Faith of Christ from the written word," by the Rt. Rev. Bishop Hay, No. 2 of Cummiskey 's Catholic Library. Philadelphia. "The End of Religious Controversy, by the Right Rev. xiv The Doctrine of the Lord's Supper. John Milnor, D.D. Marpliy's Stereotype Edition. Bal- timore." "A Treatise on Baptism, also a treatise on Confirma- tion, by Francis Patrick Kenrick, Archbishop of Balti- more." 1852. "The Faith of our Fathers." By the Most Eeverend James Gibbons, D.D., Archbishop of Baltimore. Eleventh Edition. Baltimore, John Murphy & Co. 1879. THE LORD'S SUPPER. CHAPTER I. THE INSTITUTION OF THE LORD's SUPPER. g 1. The several accounts of its institution. g2. The time of its institution. §3. The names given it in Scripture, g 4. A summary view of its nature. § 1. The several accounts of its Institution. Of the institution of the Lord's Supper we have four separate accounts in the Scriptures ; one by each of the three evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and one by the x^postle PauL Matthew, as one of " the twelve," was present at the in- stitution of the Supper. His account, therefore, is that of an eye-witness of the transaction. " It was universally believed in the ancient church, that Mark's Gospel was written under the influence, and almost by the dictation of Peter." {Alfoi'd). If this be so, in his account we have the testimony, at second hand, of another eye-witness of the transaction. Luke says of his Gospel, that he had therein " set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us; even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eye-witnesses, and ministers of the Word." (Luke i. 1, 2.) Paul intro- duces his account with the words, " I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you." (1 Cor. xi. 23.) "In using the words 'I have received of the Lord,' the whole context shows that Paul intended to claim for his narrative the direct authority of the Lord himself. As 1 2 The Doctrine of the Lord's Supper. witli regard to his doctrines generally, so with regard to the institution and design of this ordinance, he disclaims all indebtedness to tradition, or to the instructions of men, and asserts the fact of a direct revelation to himself." [Hodges Com. in loo.) From this it will be seen that these four accounts are not only separate, but independent also. All were written under inspiration of God, and therefore they must all be true accounts of the transaction. But written as they were, by different men, at different times, and under different circumstances, they present just such differences — not discrepancies — as we would naturally ex- pect. " Different writers, of course, with perfect accuracy, represent different details of the same occurrence, or difl'er- ent views of the same fact, and different elements and re- lations of the same great doctrine. Instead of this course proving inconsistency, it is precisely God's plan for bring- ing the whole truth most fully and clearly to our know- ledge." {A. Hodges Outlines of Theology, p. 77.) The four Gospels are illustrations of this truth throughout. In the Gospel according to John there is no record of the institution of the Lord's Supper. This gospel was evidently written some years later than the other three, and with the purpose, not of repeatingthe record contained in them, but of supplementing that record. Hence, in this matter of the Lord's Supper, whilst John gives us no account of its institu- tion, he alone gives us our Lord's discourse addressed to his disciples, as they sat at the supper table, to comfort them, in prospect of his departure, and to prepare them for the new order of things which his death would introduce; and our Lord's wondrous prayer for them, offered just before quitting the upper chamber in which the supper had been eaten. (See John ch. xiv.-xvii.) He gives no account of the institution of the Supper, because "he evidently assumes its being sufficiently known by means of the three other Evangelists, the Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, and the long established usages of the churches. Nevertheless, he has given us elsewhere in his Gospel, in a very detailed manner, the essential features of the ordinance in its simple and sublime emblematic signification. The whole of that discourse delivered by Jesus, in which he declares that he The Insiiiution of the Lord's Supper. 3 himself is ' the bread of life,' and that ' whosoever eateth his flesh, and drinketh his blood, hath eternal Hfe,' (see John vi.) is it not in oral words what the Lord's Supper represents to, and gives to us, in visible action ? " {Da Castas Four Witnesses, p. 353.) § 2. The Time of its Institution. Luke's account of the institution of the Lord's Supper is as follows, viz. : " And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer : For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this and divide it among yourselves : For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took bread and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying. This is my body which is given for you : this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying. This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you." {Licke xxii. 14-20. See also Matt. xxvi. 26-30 ; Mark xiv. 22-2G.) From this account it appears, that the institution of the Lord's Supper followed immediately upon the celebration of the Passover, — without rising from the table, — the bread and wine used on the occasion being that which remained from the Paschal Supper. This would naturally suggest a very intimate relation between the two ordinances, and Paul's words in his First Epistle to the Corinthians con- firms the suggestion. " Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us : There- fore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness ; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." (2 Cor. v. 7,8.) In what does this intimate relation consist ? Without attempting at the present time, a full examination of this 4 The Doctrine of the Lords Sapper. subject, since it can better be discussed in another place, it is sufficient for our present purpose to remark, that they are both sacraments, and that the Lord's Supper under the New Testament dispensation takes the place of the Paschal Supper under the Old. " As to the number of sacraments under the Old Testa- ment dispensation, Calvinistic divines are not agreed. Some seem inclined to regard any and every symbolic rite there found as a sacrament. Others, far more cor- rectly, as I conceive, limit them to two; circumcision and the passover. The claim of these two to be sacra- ments need hardly be much argued, inasmuch as it is not disputed. They are symbols instituted of God ; they have each their elements, bearing a significant relation to the grace represented ; the thing represented was in each case federal, so that they not only signified, but sealed or pledged the benefits of a covenant. But the various typical sacrifices of the Hebrews cannot be pro- perly regarded as sacraments, for the very reason that they were mere types. The Passover also was a type, in that it was a sacrifice proper, but it was also more than a type, a commemorative and seahng ordinance." {Dah- neys Theology, pp. 734, 5.) As we compare the two sacraments under the New Testament dispensation with the two corresponding ones under the Old, we cannot but notice the similarity in the change, made by our Lord in each. Circumcision was a bloody rite of purification, and pointed to the coming of "a blessed and blessed-making seed." For this, our Lord substitutes the simpler form of purification, purifi- cation by water, a form which had been in use, side by side with circumcision, from the very days of Abraham, but without any proper sacramental character until it received it at the lips of our Lord himself. So, in the Passover; the bloody sacrifice, the lamb slain and eaten, disappears. The great event foreshadowed in the bloody sacrifice has been accomplished, even to the minute par- ticular— "a bone of him shall not be broken." (Ex. xii. 46 ; John xix. 36.) Henceforth the simplest form of sacri- fice, the meat-ofiering, which had long been in use side by Tlcc Institution of the Lord' a Supper. 5 side with the bloody rite, takes its place, and serves sub- stantially the same purpose in the Church under the New Testament dispensation which the other did under the Old. § 3. The Names given it in Scnpture. "Breaking of bread." " And they continued steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine, and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. . . . And they continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread fr"om house to house, (in the house, or at home — Alexander) did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart." Acts ii. 42, 46. "And upon the first day of the week, when the disci- ples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow." Acts xx. 7. In his exposition of Acts ii. 46, Alexander writes — " Breaking bread at home, or in private houses, exclusive- ly, denotes neither social repasts nor sacramental services, but both, in that intimate conjunction, which was one of the characteristic features of the infant Church, but which can no more be revived by us, than the innocent simplicity of childhood, or the habits of a father's house, can be continued in mature age and in distant homes. That the reference to the eucharist is at least not exclusive, may be seen from the ensuing phrase, 'they took their meat,' or more exactly, 'they partook of 7iourishment.' " (Alexander on Acts.) This view of the meaning of the phrase " breaking bread" is confirmed by Acts vi. 1, 2. "And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the HebrcAvs, because their widows were neglected in the daily minis- trations. Then the twelve called the multitude of the dis- ciples unto them, and said. It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables." " The daily ministrations," and " serving tables " here spoken of un- questionably refers to the state of things described in Acts ii. 44-47, i. e., to the provision and distribution of food among the disciples, at the time " they had all things 6 The Doctrine of the Lord's Supper common." In the phrase serving tables, as Alexander remarks, "there is no reference to \sdiat we call commu- nion tables, except so far as sacramental and charitable distributions were connected in practice." [Alexander on Acts.) From all this it will be seen, that whilst the breaking of bread spoken of in Scripture, probably included the Lord's Supper, it included a great deal more, and there- fore, cannot be considered, properly, a distinctive name of the ordinance. "The Communion." "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The Wead which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? . . . the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God; and I would not that ye should have fellowship (communion) with devils." 1 Cor. x. 16, 20. That the name of " the Communion " was given to this rite at a very early day cannot be doubted. That the language of the apostle, quoted above ; or rather, the truth to which that language gives expression, gave rise to this designation of the rite as "the Communion," is we think equally clear : — but that Paul did not intend so to designate it, — that he does not here use "the Commu- nion " as a name of the ordinance, is plain, from the fact that he speaks separately of " the communion of the blood of Christ," and "the communion of the body of Christ," and then, a little after, speaks of " communion with devils." He evidently uses the word, not as a name of an ordi- nance, but in its general sense of fellowship. The name of "the Communion," though a most appropriate name, and one which came into use in the Christian Church at a very early day, is not, strictly speaking, a scripture name of the ordinance. "The Lord's Supper." "When ye come together, therefore, into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken." 1 Cor. xi. 20, 21. That the expression "the Lord's Supper" is here used TJiC Institution of the Lords Supper. 7 as a name of the sacramental rite Christ instituted in "the upper chamber" at Jerusalem, on "the same night in which he was betrayed," is plain, from the context. The application of the name "the Lord's Supper" {kuriakon deipnon) to this ordinance is usually accounted for by saying it was "the Supper instituted by the Lord." [Alford). This is but a part of the truth. The name of supper {deipnon) is given to the Paschal feast (see Jno. xiii. 2, 4; xxi. 20). The Passover was a feast of a pecu- liar character, — "a feast upon a sacrifice." (§ 22.) When our Lord instituted the Lord's Supper to take the place in his Church of the Paschal Supper, he evidently intended that the spiritual character of the ordinance should re- main unchanged; that the later ordinance should be "a feast upon a sacrifice " as the former had been ; and to give expression to this truth, the title Supper (deipnon) commonly given to the one, was under inspiration of God given to the other. As administered by our Lord himself, and as Paul directed it to be administered at Corinth, it was not a Supper in the ordinary sense of that word, i. e., a meal parta.ken of at the close of the day, and for the purpose of satisfying hunger ; but a supper in the ecclesi- astical sense which the word deipnon had acquired in the days of Christ and his Apostles. This title of the Lord's Supper is the only distinctive title given the ordinance in the Scriptures. "The cup is called 'the cup of blessing,' (1 Cor. x. 16), but this is evi- dently not a name for the whole ordinance. And in 1 Cor. x. 21, communicating is called partaking of 'the Lord's table.' This hardly amounts to a calling of the ordinance by the name of ' table ;' but it is instructive, as showing no favor whatever to the notion of altars and sacrifice, as connected with the Lord's Supper." {Dah- neys Theology, p. 800.) § 4. J. Summary view of the nature of the Lords Supper. 1. "This do in remembrance of 7ne." Luke xxii. 19. " Take, eat ; this is my body, which is broken for you : this do in remembrance of m,e. . . . This do ye, as oft 8 The Doctrine of the Lord's Siqjper. as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." 1 Cor. xi. 24-26. In these words the Lord's Supper is distinctly set forth as A COMMEMORATIVE RITE, a memorial of his death. 2. " Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it." Matt. xxvi. 26. See also Mark xiv. 22, 23 ; Luke xxii. 19 : 1 Cor. xi. 23-25. In these words the ordinance is presented as a symbol- ic RITE : a rite in which under a sensible form is set forth spiritual truth. 3. "This is my blood of the Neio Testament [Covenant) which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Matt. xxv. 28; Mark xiv. 24. "This is the Neio Testament {Covenmit) in my blood." 1 Cor. xi. 25 ; Luke xxii. 20. Here the ordinance is presented as a covenanting RITE; the "seal of the New Covenant." 4. "Jesus took bread and blessed it. . . . And he took the cup and gave thanks." Matt. xxvi. 26, 27; Mark xiv. 22, 23; Luke xxii. 19, 20; 1 Cor, xi. 24, 25. In these words the ordinance is set forth as A Eucha- rist; i. e., an ordinance in which the participant blesses God and gives thanks for the benefits signified and sealed to him in his participation of it. 5. "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ ? For we being many are one bread, and one body : for we are all partakers of that one bread." 1 Cor. x. 16, 17. In these words of Paul, we have an inspired interpreta- tion of our Lord's acts in breaking the bread, so that all ate of the same bread, and causing all to drink of the same cup. They were intended to signify the participants' communion with him, their common Lord, and through him, their communion one with another. Hence it is, that this ordinance, from a very early day, has borne the name in the Church of the holy communion. The Lord's Siq->pcr a Commemorative Bite. CHATTER II. THE lord's supper A COMMEMORATIVE RITE. J5. Commemorative Rites. {6. The Rite Commemorative of our Lord's Death. ?7. The Need of this Commemoration. §8. The Effect of this Commemo- ration. §5. Commemorative Rites. " And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave it unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me." Luke xxii. 19. " For I have received of the Lord, that which also I de- hvered unto you. That the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you : this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood : this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remem- brance of me." 1 Cor. xi. 23-25. In these passages of Scripture, the Lord's Supper is dis- tinctly set forth as a commemorative rite ; to keep alive his memory in the world. The practice of keeping alive the memory of great events by means of commemorative rites is very ancient, and has prevailed to a greater or less extent among all nations, and in every part of the world. The Passover, the place of which the Lord's Supper takes under the New Testament dispensation, was a com- memorative rite. The account of its institution is given us in the words : — " Draw out, and take you a lamb, ac- cording to your families, and kill the passover. And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and strike the lintel and the two side-posts 1* 10 The Doctrine of the Lord's Supper, with the blood that is in the basin ; and none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning. For the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians ; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two- side-posts, the Lord will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you. And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons forever. And it shall come to pass when ye be come unto the land which the Lord will give you, according as he hath promised, that ye shall keep this service. And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service? That ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the Lord's passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians and delivered our houses." Ex. xii. 21-27. Instituted more than three thousand years ago, this Passover is observed to-day, by the Jews, long scattered abroad though they have been, in every part of the world : — and so the memory of the event it was designed to com- memorate is kept fresh among men: — and whilst most other contemporary events have been forgotten, or if an indistinct recollection of them remains, are looked upon with doubt and distrust, all thoughtful men believe in the deliverance of Israel from bondage in Egypt with firmest faith ; — feel as certain of it as if it had occurred but a short time ago. § 6. The Rite Commeinorative of our Lord's Death. " As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Ljord's death till he come." 1 Cor. xi. 26. " 0 foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently setfo rth , crucified aviong you. ' ' Gal . iii. 1 . " Ye do show (katangellete) the Lord's death." Katag- gello means, literally — " to bring word down to any one, to bring it home to him : hence to announce, to publish, to show forth." [Rohinson). By partaking of the broken bread and the ^NmQ poured out, we set forth visibly before our own eyes, and the eyes of others, the death of our Lord. The Xced of this Commemoration. 11 " Evidoith/ set forth (prcegraphe) crucified." The word prographo was used among the Greeks to signify the writing upon tablets, to be hung up in public view, for the information of all. And the event which the Apostle de- clares is thus published in the Lord's Supper is the death, by crucifixion of our Lord. For some reason, — we will not now stop to inquire what that reason is — throughout the Scriptures, in the Old as well as in the New Testament, the death of Christ ever presents itself as the great event in history. Not only is it foretold by the prophet Isaiah with a minuteness of cir- cumstance such as characterizes no other prophetic record : — but it has been more or less distinctly foretold by all God's prophets from the beginning. After it occurs, it furnishes the grand theme of the Apostle's preaching. " I determined," writes Paul to the Corinthians, " not to know anything -among you, save Jesus Christ, and him cruci- fied." (1 Cor. ii. 2.) The vision of a spotless lamb, bleed- ing upon God's altar, as faithful Abel worshipped ; not by his blood to wash away sin, but as a type to foreshadow the death of Jesus, is one of the first visions that breaks upon our sight, as in the light of revelation, we attempt to trace the history of our race back to the beginning : — and the same vision of the " lamb slain " is seen upon the throne, in the midst of the New Jerusalem, when " the mystery of God is finished," and the " mighty angel, lifting up his hand to heaven, swears by him that liveth for ever and ever, that there shall be time no longer." This event, — the death of Christ Jesus, — is the event specially commemorated in the Lord's Supper. § 7. The need of this Comm^cmoration. When we remember who Christ Jesus was, the incar- nate Son of God, Emmanuel, his death, as recorded in the gospels, will appear the strangest event in all history. We are not surprised at the record contained in the sixteenth chapter of Matthew ; — That when Peter had come to un- derstand his character well enough to say — " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God ; " and " Jesus began 12 The Dodr'me of the Lord'd Supper. to show unto his disciples, how he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders, and chief priests, and scrii>es, and he killed, and be raised again the third day. then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, *' Be it far from thee Lord : this shall not be unto thee." Matt. xvi. 21, 22. Christ's death appears the strangest event in all history for two reasons. I. It is the death of incarnate Deity. The fact of an incarnation of Deity, of God's assuming a human nature into union with his divine, has incorpo- rated itself into the religious faith of many nations. This is owing, probably, in part, to the preservation by tradi- tion of some remnant of the earlier promises respecting redemption and the redeemer ; and in part, to man's con- scious need of divine interposition on his behalf;' taken in connection with many facts which mark him as a sinning, yet not a heaven-forsaken creature. That the Son of God incarnate should have spoken " as never man spake; " that amid the selfish strifes and con- tentions of earth he should have taught to all, the lesson — " As ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise," (Luke vi. 31) : — that to suffering, sorrow- ing, sinning man, he should have said — " Come unto me, all ye that labor, and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest," (Matt. xi. 28,) is easy of belief. The divine origin of such lessons as these is apparent in their own light. That the Son of God should have wrought the great and gracious miracles recorded of Jesus ; and that he should have appealed to these as attestations of his divine mission, as he does in his answer to John's question, by his disciples — " Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see : the bhnd receive -their sight; and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them," (Matt. xi. 4, 5,) is just what we would expect in the circumstances of the case. Some infidel phil- osophers have contended that miracles are incredible ; or that, at the least, it is impossible they should enter into a rational faith upon historic evidence. In this, they have but shown their ignorance of human nature, and tne laws TJiC Need of this Commemoration. 13 of belief which govern the human mind. The belief in incai-nations, whether false or true, has been indissolubly united with the belief of miracles; and the working of miracles, among all nations, has been regarded as the appropriate attestation of a divine mission. That the Son of God incarnate should have been born in humble life, and even that he should have lived in such poverty as to say — " The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests ; but the Son of Man hath not where to lay his head," (Matt. viii. 20,) though it is far from what we would have chosen; yet does it not seem so very strange when we reflect that the stoop from the tallest palace of earth to the dunghill of the beggar, is as nothing, when compared to the stoop from the throne of God in heaven to the tallest palace ; — and remember that the greatest and best of men have ever cared but little for the power, and honor, and wealth of the world. But that the Son of God incarnate should have died the death of a malefactor, the accursed death of the cross, at the hands of wicked men, is a statement which, if it is to be received as true, must be established by the most irrefragable proof. II. " Awake, 0 Sword, against my Shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts ; Smite the Shepherd." (Zech. xiii. 7.) In these words of the prophet Zeehariah, a second strange feature in the death of our Lord, stranger than that already considered, is brought to our attention, viz. : that in his death the Lord of Hosts appears against him. Not only is it true, that against God's " holy child Jesus, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to he done," (Acts iv. 27, 28,) but God himself is heard crying — " Awake, 0 Sword, . . . Smite the Shepherd," and in his bitter agony, the dying sufferer cries — " My God, my God, why hast thou, forsaken me ? " (Matt, xxvii. 4G.) In the story of his life, as given us in the gospels, nothing appears more marked than the perfect sinlessness of Jesus. At the commencement of his public ministry^ 14 The Doctrine of the Lords Siir>j^er. a voice from heaven is heard, saying to him, in the hear- ing of a great multitude gathered on the banks of the Jordan — " Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Mark i. 11.) At his death, Pilate, the judge who condemned him, '' took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood oi this just person." (Matt, xxvii. 24.) The Centurion who executed him, '' and they that were with him watching Jesus, when they saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, feared greatly, saying. Truly this was the So7i of God." (Matt, xxvii. 54.) The idea of the sinless- ness of Jesus pervades the whole gospel narrative, and renders it unlike the story of any other life that has ever been written by man. Let the reader consider one single illustration of this remark : — the illustration afforded by his wonderful prayers. Unlike the prayers of all other men, his contain no confessions of sin, betray no conscious- ness of sin. He teaches his disciples to pray, he prays for them ; but even when he prays in their company, as at the table when he instituted the Lord's Supper, (see John xvii.,) they cannot unite with him in the prayer. The cry of his sinless soul unto God is one in which sinful man cannot participate; it is as much his individual prayer, though uttered in the midst of his disciples, as the one he uttered alone upon the mountain-top. This suffering at the hand of God of the sinless Son of Man, is without parallel in the history of our race. History, inspired and uninspired, contains the record of many a wicked man's suffering for his sins. It is true, heaven's final judgments are not executed here ; yet here has God, as a just God, not left himself without witness. " There is scarcely a sin which has not been singled out as the object of God's wrathful displeasure. Ham, that could mock his father, surprised into intoxication, is accursed. Lot's wife, full of worldly cares, and looking back upon the loss of her property with regret and repining, is turned into a pillar of salt. Envy and aspiring pride bring down immediate destruction upon Korah, Dathan and Abiram. In Achan's fate and Gehazi's leprosy, we see how God ab- horreth covetousness. Behold thou infamous advocate of Tlic Xccd of this Commemoration. 15 fornication, the javelin of Phineas avenging GocVs quarrel upon Zimri and Cozbi ; renounce thy fond conceit that it will not be judged by God — fgr see; three and .twenty thousand persons aie cut off by him for it -in one day. Be astonished at the patience of God toward thee, thou false and lying tongue, when thou readcst that Ananias and Sapphira perished with the breath of falsehood upon thcii' lips ! Take notice, thou despiser of Jesus the doom of thy fellow criminal, Elyraas the sorcerer, and of the judicial bhndness with which he was smitten, while he perverted the way of truth. Understand ye vain and haughty, from the ignominious death of Herod, that a proud heart is an abomination to the Lord; and that self-exaltation, on ac- count of gifts, or prominence of any kind, is what he can- not endure ; for behold the royal deified orator, after the shout of blasphemous applause from the multitude, is im- mediately smitten by the angel of God, because he gave not God the glory, and he was eaten of worms and gave up the ghost." {Venn 8 Duty of Man, p. 50.) History contains, also, the record of many a good man suffering; yet this, too, is but the record of the sinner suf- fering for his sins, as their confessions prove. "All that is come upon us, is for our evil deeds, and for our great tres- pass, seeing that thou our God hath punished us less than our iniquities deserve," (Ezra ix. 1), is Ezra's confession on behalf of himself and his people, with reference to the captivity in Babylon. Job, of whom God declares, " there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil," (Job i. 8,) was a remarkable sufferer, and for a time seemed disposed to charge God foolishly ; yet in the end, when God drew near and reasoned with him, exclaims — " I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear; but now, mine eye seeth thee; wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and aahes." (Job xlii. 5, 6.) David, often smarted under the chastening hand of God. Yet he declares, as re- membering his sufferings and his sins, — " Out of the depths have I cried unto thee, 0 Lord. ... If thou Lord shouldst mark iniquities, 0 Lord, who shall stand." (Pa. cxxx. 1, 3.) " God hath not dealt with us after our 16 The Doctrine of the Lords Supper. sins; nor rewarded us according to our iniquities." (Ps. ciii. 10.) The case of an intelligent moral agent, suffering at the hand of God, though sinless, is without parallel in the history of our world. And neither heaven nor hell can furnish such a case. Heaven is peopled with myriads of sinless beings, but there is no suffering there. Hell is full of suf- fering beings, but there is no sinless one among all those who " gnaw their tongues for pain, while they blaspheme the God of heaven." In the case of Christ crucified, we have a sinless sufFerer> suffering immediately at the hand of God; and the story of that suffering, if it is to be believed, calls for the clearest possible proof. § 8. The effect of this Commemoration. We have already alluded to the fact, that the universal observance of the Passover by the Jews, scattered as they are, and have long been, among all the nations of the eartjj, is regarded by thoughtful men, as affording such proof of the event it was intended to commemorate, viz. : the deliv- erance of Israel from bondage in Egypt, that of all the events in the past history of the world this is regarded as among the most certain : — and this, though that deliver- ance occurred more than three thousand years ago ; so long ago that most other events of contemporary history have been lost to human knowledge. A similar result has followed the commemoration of our Lord's death in the sacrament of the Supper. This rite is, and for a long time has been, observed in every land into which Christianity has* extended. However much men may differ as to the precise nature of the rite, all agree that it was instituted to perpetuate the memory of Christ, and of "Christ crucified:" — and hence, Christ's death is received by all as an unquestionable fact ; and as a doctrine, it has incorporated itself in every creed that claims the name of Christian ; and this event, the most incredible in all history, is the most universally and most firmly believed of ail. The Lord's Supper a Symbolic Rite. 17 CHAPTEE III. THE lord's supper A SYMBOLIC RITE. g 9. Symbolic Rites. ? 10. The Lord's death Sacrificial. 1 11. Chrit^t "the Bread of Life." g 12. Tliis Truth as expresseel in ProtestaiU Confessions. § 9. Symbolic Rites. " And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, {Tale, cat, Matt.) this is my body, which is given for you. Likewise also, the cup after supper, saying, {Drink ye all of it, Matt.) This cup is the Now Testament in my blood, which is shedfor you." Luke xxii. 19, 20. " If we wish to understand an author, for instance the Xew Testament, we must transport ourselves from our age and country, and place ourselves in the position of those whom our Saviour or his disciples addressed. We must invest ourselves with their knowledge, their feelings, habits, opinions, if we wish to understand the discourses which were addressed primarily and immediately to them." (Lectures on the Eucharist, p. 41.) The substantial correctness of the above-cited law of in- terpretation, as laid down by Cardinal Wiseman, all must admit. Let as apply it in the case of the passage quoted at the head of this section. The disciples, to whom our Lord addressed himself in the institution of the Supper, wore all Jews, born and reared in the land of Judea. The Jewish Church pos- sessed, by divine appointment, a more extended and compli- cated ceremonial than has obtained in the religious wor- ship of any other people on the fiice of the earth ; and the prevailing tendency of religious thought in that day, as- 18 The Doctrine of the Lord's Sujypsr. cribed undue importance to this ceremonial. All their numerous sacrifices ; all their varied purifications — even the structure of their temples, the centre of their worship, were all full of symbolic teaching, representing under sen- sible forms spiritual truths ; — " were shadows of good things to come." (Heb. x. 1.) Our Lord's personal teaching partook largely of the same general character ; and this, doubtless, because the religious training of the j)eople fitted them to receive in- struction in this form. His miracles were, not only " signs," — proofs of his divine mission, but they were all fraught with lessons of divine truth. Did he restore bodi- ly sight to the blind, it was to set forth in symbol the truth that he had come to enable the sinner, by his Spirit, to comprehend the Gospel. Did he require faith as a con- dition of bodily healing, it was to teach men that through faith, and through faith alone, can Gospel salvation be rendered available to the sinner. His favorite method of public teaching was by parables ; and his parables, as all agree, are exhibitions of spiritual truth, under sensible forms. So he himself explained them to his disciples, when they asked of him their meaning. The Lord's Supper was instituted in immediate connec- tion with the Paschal Supper. As the Jews understood it, the Passover was, not only a commemorative rite, but a rite full of symbolic teaching ; — indeed, it was its sym- bolic teaching which fitted it to serve the purposes of com- memoration. The language which our Lord uses on this occasion, was language which long use had associated with the sac- rificial worship to which his hearers were accustomed. " This is my body, which is given (didomenoii) for you." Of this word, Robinson, in his New Testament Lexicon, writes : " used of sacrifice or homage, to give or off"er." Luke ii. 24 : " And to offer a sacrifice," &c. Jno. vi. 51 : " And the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I wall give for the life of the world." " This is my blood which is shed for you, (for many, for the remission of sins." Matt.) Compare this language with Heb. ix. 22 : " And almost all things are by the law purged with blood ; and The Lord's Siqypera Symholic Rite. 19 without shedding of blood is no remission." And we think the reader can have little doubt that the language here is sacrificial, and would naturally be so understood by our Lord's disciples ; and this, all the more readily, since the very cup he gave them was filled with the wine just before used in the Paschal Supper, where, beyond all question, its use was to represent the blood of the Paschal lamb, and the lesson it conveyed was taught in symbol. For a fuller examination of this point the reader is re- ferred to § 22. On our Lord's words, used on this occasion, Alexander remarks : " This is my body, common to all four accounts, appears so unambiguous and simple an expression, that it is hard to recognize in it the occasion and the subject of the most protracted and exciting controversy that has rent the Church within the last thousand years. That controversy is so purely theological that it has scarcely any basis in the exposition of the text ; the only word upon which it could fasten (the verb is) being one which in Aramaic would not be expressed, and therefore belongs merely to the Greek translation of our Saviour's language. Until the strong, unguarded figures of the early lathers had been petrified into a dogma, at first by popular mis- apprehension, and at last by theological perversion, these words suggested no idea but the one which they still con- vey to every plain unbiassed reader, that our Saviour calls the bread his body in the same sense that he calls himself a door, (Jno. x. 9,) a vine, (Jno. xv. 1,) a root, (Rev. xxii. 16,) a star, and is described by many other metaphors in Scripture. The bread was an emblem of his flesh, as wounded for the sins of men, and as administered for their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace." (Alexander's Notes on Mark xiv. 22.) The lessons which the Lord's Supper teaches in symbols are : 1. That in his " obedience unto death " he offers himself a propitiatory sacrfice for sinners : — That he gave up to God his life in the place of the forfeited life of the sinner, just as the life of the lamb slain in sacrifice was given in the place of the forfeited life of the offerer. " This is my 20 The Doctrine of the Lords Supper. body, ivhich is given for you; my blood, which is shed for you." 2. That as the natural Hfe of the body must be main- tained by feeding upon appropriate food, so must the spir- itual life implanted in regeneration be maintained, by con- stant dependence upon Christ, and the daily reception of grace through him." "Take, eat; Drink ye all of it." 3. That as it is of " one broken bread" we all partake, so are we all one in Christ. See 1 Cor. x. 16, 17. Leaving the last-mentioned of these lessons to be dis- cussed hereafter, (see Ch. vi.) let us direct our attention now to an examination of the other two. § 10. The Lord's Death Sacrificial. The effect of sacrifices under Moses' Law was two-fold. (1) They made complete atonement for the ceremonial guilt of the offerer. (2) They were all typical. They all foretold the one only perfect, atoning sacrifice for sin, which in the fulness of time, Christ should offer upon Calvary ; and through faith on the part of the offerer, — faith, not in a propitiation made by " the blood of bulls and of goats," but by the blood of Christ, of which that was but a shadow, they secured the pardon of sin and eternal life to the believing worshipper. They were simply the gospel in symbol; and they saved through faith, just as the gospel preached by the living minister saves through faith now. In the preceding chapter the reader's attention has been directed to the facts — (1) That the event commemo- rated in the Lord's Supper is in Scripture presented as the great event in the world's history; and (2) That this greatest event in history, is at the same time the strangest ; — it is the ignominious, accursed death of the Son of God, of God incarnate, — and it is the death of a sinless one at the hand of God. The only satisfactory explanation of this great, this strange event, the only explanation which can harmonize it with what we believe and know of God, is that contained in our Lord's words, " this is my body given for you . . . my blood which is shed for you." As his disciples, The LonVs DccUJl Sacnficial. 21 faniili;ir witli the symbolic lesson of sacrifice, would na- turally understand him, his words mean, — My life is given to redeem your life, — I take the place of you sinners, and suffer at the hands of divine justice the penalty of your sins, that you may have life through my death. The truth had been expressed long before by God's Prophet in the words, — " Surely ho hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows, ... Ho was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities ; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." (Isa. liii. 4-6.) This explanation harmonizes this strange event with the character of Grod. Is the question asked, — Y/hy did he, the sinless one, suffer at the hand of God ? The an- swer is; — He had taken the sinner's place, and a right- eous God must enforce the holy law which demanded the sinner's blood, even though his own Son became the sinner's substitute. "Why was he forsaken of God in his extremity? The answer is ; — He had taken the sinner's place, and must be treated as justice demanded that the sinner should be treated of God. Why is it that the incarnate Son of God is the sufferer ? The answer is ; — He alone, possessing an underived existence, is not under the creature's law of service to the Creator, and so, can rightfully cfo, what neither man nor angel can — offer his life in the place of the sinner's life, and yet not " offer robbery for burnt-offering." And again, because he is God, and all his sufferings have their fountain-head in the love of God, I can believe the wondrous story. That which woirtd be utterly incredible, if told of the love of a man or an angel, can be reasonably believed when told of the love of God " which passeth knowledge." The explanation of our Lord's death, given by the Socinian, that he died as he did to set us a perfect ex- ample of the way in which a good man ought to die, — not only fails utterly to reconcile his death with the justice of God, but is irreconcilable with what the Scrip- tures record as the sure promise of God. 22 The Doctrine of the Lord's Sapper. In Christ's case, the intensest suffering of the dj-ing hour, arose from his being forsaken of God. The bodily suffering he endured in being nailed to the cross seems not to have disturbed the quiet of his spirit, — the igno- miny of his death as a malefactor, and the jeers and mockery of the chief priests and scribes produced no im- pression upon him, — it is God's forsaking him which wrings from his lips the bitter cry, " My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ? " — which breaks his heart, for "when he had cried again, with a loud voice, he yielded up the ghost." (Matt, xxvii. 50.) In this, which is a characteristic feature of his death, Christ can be no example to the good man, unless God's sure word of promise fails: — For God's promise is — ''When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee ; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee ; when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned ; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee. . . . Fear not, for I am with thee," (Isa. xliii. 2, 5.) " I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee." (Heb. xiii. 5.) § 11. Christ the " Bread of Lifer In the Scriptures, and especially in our Lord's re- corded discourses, we read much of a life belonging to the Christian, which is evidently entirely distinct from, and in its nature, far above his natural life. To Nicodc- mus our Lord says — "As Moses lifted up the* serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up ; that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only -begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everloMing lifer (John iii. 14, 16.) At the pool of Bethesda, he said to the Jews assembled around him,' — "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my words, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God ; and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself." (John Chrisi ihc " Bread of Life:' 23 V. 24-2G.) To distinguish this everlasting Hfe from man's natural life which endures but three-score years and ten, or, at most, four-score years, as well as to mark its higher spiritual character, we are accustomed to speak of it as the Christian's spiritual life. From the words of our Lord, quoted aliove, we loarn — (1) That this spiritual life is not a necessary element in man's being, as natural life is : but that it is given to man already in being, but spiritually dead, "dead in trespasses and in sins." (Eph. ii. 1.) The hour is coming, and oiow is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live." (2) That the way for the bestowal of this eternal life was opened up by the "lifting up " {i. e., crucifixion, see Jno. xii. 33) of him wdio is at once, God's "only-begotten Son," and "the Son of man." " Even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whoso- ever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal hfe." (3) That in the divinely established economy of salvation, this life comes to the Christian through the hands of the Son. The fact that the immediate agent in imparting, and subsequently maintaining this life is the Holy Spirit, is in no way at variance with this doctrine ; since in this whole matter the Spirit acts as one sent of the Son (see Jno. xvi. 7-15), and what is done by an agent is always regarded as done by him whose agent he is. "As the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself." — " Jesus saith ... I am the resurrection, and the life ; he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live ; and whosoever liveth, and believeth in me, shall never die." (Jno. xi. 25, 2G.) (4) That man possesses himself of this everlasting life, through faith in Christ ; that faith is the hand which the sinner stretches forth to receive the gift. " God . . . gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." When our Lord instituted the sacrament of the Supper, while he y^et sat at table with his disciples, he addressed to them the words — " I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he taketh away ; and every branch that beai'eth 24 The Doctrine of the Lord's Supper. fruit, lie purge th it that it may bring forth more fruit. Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine ; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches. He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit ; for without me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." (Jno. XV. 1-6.) Here, our Lord teaches us these further lessons respect- ing this spiritual life. — (1) That this life is given of Christ to the Christian, not by a single act, — lilce a seed, to develop the whole plant out of itself, under the operation of the laws of na- ture ; but continuously, as life is imparted by the living vine to the living branch by the continuous influx of the life-giving sap which it imparts. To fix this idea the more distinctly in the minds of his disciples, our Lord says, not only — "he that abideth in me and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit," but he reverses the statement and adds — "if a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch and is withered." (2) That one great design of Christ in imparting this life to the Christian in this world is, that he may bring forth fruit. "He that abideth in me and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit." And he represents his Father as pruning the branch that bears fruit, " that it may bring forth more fruit." What the fruit here spoken of is, we learn from such scriptures as the following: — "The wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peace- able, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy, and the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace." (James iii. 17, 18.) "The fruit of the Spirit " — the Spirit working as se7it of Christ, — is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance." (Gal. v. 22, 23.) And of the effects of the "pruning of the Father," i. e., his fatherly This Truth as expressed in Protestant Confcssioiis. 25 cliastening of his children, we read, — " No chastening, for the present, seemeth to be joyous, but grievous ; neverthe- less, afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruits of righteous- ness unto them which are exercised thereby." (Heb. xii. 11.) What in the Scriptures are spoken of as the Chris- tian graces, are the fruits which the living branch brings forth through its connection with the living vine. § 12. This truth as expressed in Protestant Confessions. To Nicodemus our Lord said, — " That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must be born again." (Jno. iii. 6, 7.) Here representing the imparta- tion of this spiritual life as a new birth. One truth he intended to teach in the use of this figure, as the Scrip- tures interpret his language, is that "the new man," like "the natural man," is born in the condition of an infant, and he needs to grow and strengthen, if he is to attain unto the stature of a perfect man. In the words, "Take, eat . . . drink ye all of it," we are taught, that just as bread and wine, the common food of the people in that day, nourishes the living body, supplying the daily waste of that body, and providing material for its growth ; so believing with the heart in " Christ cnicified" will nourish the new man. In his discourse at Capernaum, our Lord uses the word believing, with reference to this spiritual life, as the equivalent of eating and drinking, used with reference to the natural life. "I am the bread of life; he that Cometh to me, shall never hunger; and he that be- lieve th on me, shall never thirst." (Jno. vi. 35.) Of the same general import is the language of the Apostle, — "As new-born babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby; if so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious." (1 Pet. ii. 2, 3.) The reader is now prepared to understand such lan- guage as that of the "Book of Common Prayer," where the administrator of the Lord's Supper is directed to address the communicant in the words — "Take, and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on 2 26 The Doctrine of the Lord's Supper. him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving." — And that of the Westminster Confession of Faith — " Worthy re- ceivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritual- ly, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death.'.' (Ch. xxix., Sec. vii.) The Lords Supper a Covenanting Rite. 27 CHAPTER IV. THE LORD S SUPPER A COVENANTING RITE. J 13. Tho New Testament (diatheca). ? 14. The Covenant with Abram. Gen. xt. 8-18. § 15. The Covenant at Sinai. Ex. xxiv. 3-8. I IC. "The Suit of the Cov- enant of thy God." g 17. "Vain Oblations." g 18. Relation of the Lord's Supper to Old Testament sacrifices. 1 19. The New Covenant- Heb. viii. 8-12. § 13. The Xew Testament, [diatheca.) " This is my blood of the New Testament, {diatheca) Matt. xxvi. 28, see also Mark xiv. 24, Luke xxii. 20, 1 Cor. xi. 25. The Greek diatheca in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament Scriptures, the version in common use in our Lord's day, is used to translate the Hebrew berith, a word which in our English version is uniformly rendered cove- nant. In his recorded utterances our Lord uses the word but once, and that is in the institution of the sacrament of the Supper. " The words of institution slightly vary in the accounts of the three evangelists and the apostle Paul, but in each of them he is represented as using the expression kaina diatheca. And using it as he does, without a word of explanation, we cannot doubt that he intended it to be taken by his disciples in its current acceptation; namely, in the sense of Covenant; for in that sense alone had it hitherto been employed." {Fairbairns Hermeneutical Ilanual, p. 343.) .Covenant is the most common rendering of diatheca in our English version of the New Testament, and is always used where the word designates the Covenants made with the Patriarchs or the Covenant entered into by Israel at Sinai; and as Fairbairn remarks, — "it had been better, in the words connected with the Lord's Supper, to have re- 28 The Doctrine of the Lord's Supper. tained the common rendering, and read — This is the new Cov- enant in my blood; — since all should then have readily- perceived, that the Lord pointed to the Divine Covenant, in its new and better form, as contradistinguished from that which had been brought in by Moses, and which had now reached the end of its appointment." [Hermeneutical Manual, p. 351.) Another, and a weighty reason for preferring the render- ing— New Covenant to New Testament in the words of insti- tution is, that in Jeremiah and the Epistle to the Hebrews, where this New Covenant is recorded, diatheca is rendered Covenant. " Behold the days come, saith the Loed, when I will make a new Covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah ; not according to the Cove- nant that I made with their fathers," &c. (Jer.''xxxi. 31, 32.) '' Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new Covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not according to the Covenant I made with their fathers, ... for this is the Covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their minds," &c. (Heb, viii. 8-10.) Rendering the word c^ia^Aeca testament in one passage, and covenant in the other, serves to obscure the connection between them, to the reader of the English Scriptures. This Covenant is styled new, in contrast with the Cov- enant entered into at Sinai, which in the days of Christ and his apostles was '' waxen old, and was ready to vanish away." (Heb. viii. 13.) § 14. Tlie Covenant with Abraham. Gen. xv. 8-18. " And he (Abram) said. Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it ? And he said unto him. Take me a heifer of three years old, and a she-goat of three yeaus old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtle dove and a young pigeon. And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece over against another ; but the birds divided he not. And when the fowls came down upon the carcasses Abram drove them The Cocciiait wi'li Ahiuha.n. 29 aAvny. And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram, and, lo, a horror of great darkness fell upon him. And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years. And also, that nation whom they shall serve, will I judge ; and afterwards shall they come out with great substance. And thou slialt go to thy fathers in peace ; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again; for the iniquity of the Araoritcs is not yet full. And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces. In that same day the Lokd made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates." (Gen. xv. 8-18.) In this account of God's covenanting with Abram, let the reader notice : — 1. Whilst sacrifices had been offered before this, and a particular record of the fact made in Scripture ; as in the case of the sacrifice of Cain and Abel (Gen. iii.) and that of Noah, after the flood (Gen. ix.) — this is the first in- stance in which the Scriptures tell us of God specifically directing a sacrifice, and prescribing the victims to be offered, and the ceremonial of their offering. Of the origin of sacrificial worship the Scriptures tell us nothing. They record the offering of sacrifice, shortly after the Ml, and of God's acceptance of sacrificial worship, as rendered by Abel and Noah; and from this it has been inferred that such worship was instituted by God ; but they contain no particular account of its institution. This should lead us to study the more carefully such passages, as that quoted above, which throw light, if not upon the origin, yet upon the early history of such worship. 2. From the passage quoted above, taken in connection with the fuller development of sacrificial worship under the law of Moses, we learn " that the idea of sacrifice was a complex one, involving the propitiatory, the dedicatory " (or covenanting) "and the eucharistic elements. Any one 30 The Doctrine of the Lord's Supper. of tliem taken by itself, would lead to error and supersti- tion. The propitiatory alone would tend to the idea of atonement by sacrifice for sin, as being effectual without any condition of repentance and faith ; the self-dedicatory taken alone, ignores the barrier of sin between man and God, and undermines the whole idea of atonement ; the eucharistic alone leads to the notion that mere gifts can satisfy God's demand of service, and is easily perverted into the heathenish attempt " to bribe " God by vows and offerings. All three, probably, were more or less implied in each sacrifice, each element predominating in its turn ; all must be kept in mind in considering the historical in- fluence, the spiritual meaning, and the typical value of sacrifice." [A. Barry, in Smith's Dictionary, Art. Sac- rifice.) 3. In the case before us, the covenanting element in sacrifice is particularly prominent. This appears, not only in the fact that the sacrifice is offered to ratify a covenant; but all the particular ceremonial is ordered with this end in view. The " smoking furnace " (or, oven, as the word tannoor is generally rendered), is doubtless intended to represent Jehovah, as the executioner of righteous judgment upon his, and his people's enemies. The " burning lamp " — " lamp of fire, the Shechina, as Maimonides explains it, represented Jehovah, in after . times, at least, in his guid- ing, protecting providence over his people. These ''passed between the pieces " of the divided victims. " In early times, covenants were made by dividing a beast, and by the parties covenanting passing between the parts of the beast so divided, signifying that so should they be cut asunder who broke the covenant." (Patrick's Commentary, in loc.) That this method of ratifying a covenant was practised in Israel in after times, we have proof in the writings of Jeremiah. " And I will give the men that have transgressed my covenant, which have not performed the words of the covenant which they had made before me, when they cut the calf in twain, and passed between the parts thereof, the Princes of Judah, and the Princes of Jerusalem, the eunuchs, and the priests, The Covenant at Sinai. 31 and all the people of the land, which passed between the parts of the calf; I will even give them into the hand of their enemies, and into the hands of them that seek their life." (Jer. xxxiv. 18-20.) This transaction, though expressly styled a covenant in ver. 18, yet is it rather a promise on the part of God, and for this reason it was, probably, that his symbol alone passed between the parts of the divided animals. Abram had asked a sign, — " Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it ? " — And God was pleased to give him a sign, by which, according to Eastern ideas, he bound himself to the fulfillment of his promise. That there was a corresponding obligation on the part of Abram, implied though not expressed, all will agree : — and for this reason, w^hilst its ceremonial of ratification was that belonging to a promise, the transaction is styled a covenant. § 15. TJie Covenant at Sinai. Ex. xxiv. 3-8. " And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the judgments ; and all the people an- swered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath said will we do. And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, accord- ing to the twelve tribes of Israel. And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offer- ings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the Lord. And Moses took half the blood, and put it in basins ; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the jieople ; and they said. All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you con- cerning all these words." " Whereupon neither the first testament {diatheca) was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and 32 The Doctrine of the Lord's Supper. all the people ; saying, this is the blood of the testaraeLt {diatheca — covenant, in Ex. xxiv. 8, from which the words are quoted) which God hath enjoined unto you." (Heb. ix. 18-20). On the word engkainidzo, here rendered " dedi- cated," Bloomfield remarks, " it is used in 1 Kings viii. 63, respecting the dedication of the temple. And as the dedication of any building was celebrated by solemn rites, which served to ratify the possession of the thing, so the word came to simply mean ratif)/ as applied to covenants." (Blooynfield's Nciv Testament, Heb. ix. 18.) It was this covenant between Jehovah and Israel, en- tered into at Sinai, which established the Theocracy, and by which Israel became " a peculiar treasure unto the Lord above all people, — a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation." (Ex. xix. 5, 6.) And this is the covenant which, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, is designated the old, in contrast with the neio covenant, of which our Lord speaks in the institution of the sacrament of the Supper. This covenant, like that with Abram, already examined, was ratified by sacrifice, though the ceremonial of ratifica- tion was different. The particular act by which Israel was consecrated, set apart as a " holy nation," a people in covenant with the Lord, was Moses' sprinkling them with the blood of the sacrifice. The words used by Moses on this occasion are very similar to those used by our Lord, when he gave the cup to the disciples, at the institution of the sacrament of the Supper. Moses says — " Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you." All expositors understand him to mean by " the blood of the covenant," the blood by which the covenant is ratified. So, when our Lord uses the words, " this cup is the New Testament (covenant) in my blood," he must be understood to mean, — the wine in this cup, which represents my blood, is given, and drunk in ratification of the new covenant. §16. " The salt of the covenant of thy God." " Gather my saints together unto me ; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice." (Ps, 1. 5.) " Vain Oblations." 33 " Every sacrifice shall be salted with salt." (Mark ix. 49.) " Neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from" thy meat offering ; with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt." (Lev. ii. 13.) In that fullest development of sacrificial worship which God gave to Israel by Moses, the covenanting element is expressed by the use of salt. " The sacrifices being God's feasts, and they that did partake of them his guests, who did, in a manner, eat and drink with him at his table, the salt that is cast upon all sacrifices, is called the salt of the covenant, to signify, that as men were wont to make cove- nants by eating and drinking together (where salt is never wasting at their tables, but a necessary appendix to any and everv feast) so God, by these sacrifices, and the feasts upon them, did ratify and confirm his covenant with those that did partake of them." (Fatnek's Commentary on Lev. ii. 13.) Among Eastern nations, salt, because of its preservative ])ropertie3, has long been an emblem of perpetuity. For this reason, as well as because of its use in sacrifices to re- present the covenanting element, a perpetual covenant is in Scripture spoken of as a " covenant of salt." " It is a covenant of salt forever before the Lord unto thee and to thy seed with thee." (Numb, xviii. 19.) " The Lord God of Israel gave the kingdom over Israel to David for- ever, even to him and to his sons by a covenant of salt." (2 Chron. xiii. 5.) §17. ''Vain oblations." " To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord. I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and of the fat of fed beasts ; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hands, to tread my courts ? Bring no more vain ob- lations ; incense is an abomination unto me ; the new- moons and Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with ; it is iuiquitv, even the solemn meeting. Your 2*. 34 The Doctrine of the Lords Supper. new-moons and your appointed feasts my soul liatetli ; they are a trouble unto me ; I am weary to bear them. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you ; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear : Your hands are full of blood. Wash ye, make you clean ; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well ; seek judgment; relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord : though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow ; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land ; but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be de- voured with the sword ; for the mouth of the Loed hath spoken it." (Isa. i. 11-20). " For I desired niercy, and not sacrifice ; and the knowledge of God more than burnt- offerings. But they like men have transgressed the cove- nant; there have they dealt treacherously against me." (Hosea, vi. 6, 7.) The ground of God's rejection of the sacrificial worship of Israel in the days of Isaiah, as expressed in the words of that prophet quoted above, is, that they have forgotten, or utterlv disregarded the covenanting character of the service. They held fast to the propitiatory character of the service; they had pushed this to the extreme of believing that the " sacrifices of bulls and of goats " made true atone- ment for sin, instead of simply symbolizing such atone- ment, to be made in God's good time, by the one, -only, true sacrifice, of which theirs was but a " shadow." They held fast to the eucharistic character of the service ; not in the true spirit of it, but in that expressed in the words — " God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I pos- sess." (Luke xviii. 11, 12). But they gave no heed to the fact, that sacrifice was a covenanting rite, in which the oficrer bound himself "to do all that the Lord had said, and to be obedient." (Ex. xxiv. 7.) For this reason, God declares, that he has no delight in their sacrifices, — their oblations are vain, — their incense an abomination, The New Covenant. 35 — their solemn meetings an iniquity, tlieir appointed feast, something which his soul hateth. § IS. Relation of the Lord's Siqjper to the Old Testament Sacrifice. The Lord's Supper, under the New Testament dispen- sation, sustains very much the same relation to the one only atoning sacrifice for sin, offered by Christ upon Cal- vary, that the bloody sacrifices of the Old Testament did. Neither the one nor the other can make any true atone- ment for sin, or is in itself a proper subject of thanksgiv- ing to God. Both alike are intended to keep alive in the world a knowledge of the one only true, propitiatoiy sacri- fice, and to present that sacrifice in lively symbol, to the faith of the Church, Both alike are records of the great event consummated on the cross, — the one the record of prophecy ; the other, that of history. Both alike are shadows of " Christ crucified," — the one a morning shadow, stretching away in advance of the coming event; the other, an evening shadow, belonging to these " last times," and bearing witness to an event that has already occurred. Seeing then, that the covenanting element entered so largely into the Old Testament idea of sacrifices, and was by the ceremonial which God estabhshed in Moses' day, and by the words of his prophets, kept before the mind of the Church, it can cause us no surprise, but on the con- trary, is just what we have a right to expect, that this same covenanting element should enter largely into the true idea of the Lord's Supper, as is plainly taught us, in the words — " This cup is the New Covenant in niy blood." And further, as we learn the flict that the sacrificial wor- ship of the Old Testament Church, became " a vain obla- tion," an " abomination " to the Lord, through the wor- shipper's disregarding its covenanting character : — may it not be well for us to take care that our worship in the sacrament of the Supper does not become profitless in the same way. § 19. The New Covenmit. Heb. viii. 8-12. "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will 36 Tlie Doctrine of the Lords Siqoper. make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah : Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day wlien I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt ; be- cause they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord ; I will put my laws in their minds, and write them in their hearts ; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people. And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, say- ing, know the Lord ; for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unright- eousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remem- ber no more." The substance of this new covenant is here, expressed in brief, in the words, " I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people." In this covenant God binds himself to Israel — the true Israel — to the one who is " of the faith of Abraham." (Rom. iv. 16) : — 1. To grant him the full forgiveness of all sin ; a for- giveness so complete that his " sins shall be no more remembered." They shall not be remembered against him in this present life, where unforgiven sin is the great obst.icle to the bestowment of God's blessings, both tem- poral and spiritual, and the one cause of enmity between God and man. They shall not be remembered against him in the day of judgment, when the guilt of unforgiven sin shall call down upon the head of the sinner the full measure of divine vengeance, and the remembrance of un- forgiven sin shall cover the sinner '^ with shame and ever- lasting contempt." The words of the covenant are, — "I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more." 2. To grant him renewing and sanctifying grace. ''' I will put my laws in their minds, and write them in their hearts ; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people." It is an easy thing to comprehend the law of God, — with the understanding — and the word law is here evidently used in its widest sense, as embracing the TJie New Covenant. 37 gospel, or new law, as well as what is distinctively termed the law— a use of which we have an illustration in cxix. Psalra — but by no human agency can that law be written in man's heart. The more fully the natural man comprehends that law, especially as to its exceeding breadth and holiness, the more thoroughly is his heart's hatred aroused against it. When we study God's character, especially the character of God in Christ, as set forth in Scripture, we are constrained to acknowledge that it is a })erfect character — that he is worthy to be loved with the heart's warmest affections ; but this conviction awakens no love to him in the sinner's " heart of stone." Who shall take away that " heart of stone " and give instead thereof, a " heart of flesh ? " God alone can do this. And it is just this which he covenants to do, for Christ's sake : — to become, not in name and in form alone, but in deed and in truth, and to our souls' apprehension, " our God " — the God we serve, the God we trust, the God we love. 3. To extend the knowledge of the gospel until it shall cover the whole earth. " And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord ; for all shall know me, from the least unto the greatest." To " disciple all nations " is the work which Christ has given his Church to do for him in the world. To do this effectually, the wisdom, and eloquence and pious zeal of an Apostle avails nothing, if alone. Paul may plant, and Apollos water, but it is God alone who can give the increase. And it is just this which in the new covenant he binds himself to do. Such are the obligations of the new covenant on God's part; and they are the only obligations expressly men- tioned in the text of the covenant. But that there are corresponding obligations on the part of man fairly im- plied, no one can doubt. The very term covenant, and it is a term which God has chosen to designate the transac- tion, places this beyond reasonable question, 1. Does God as " my God," covenant to forgive me my sins ; then as one of " his people," in accepting the cove- nant, I bind myself, to look to, to come to him, and to him only for the forgiveness of sin. 38 The Doctrine of the Lords Sapper. 2. Does God, as " my God," covenant to write his law upon my heart; then as one of "his people," in accepting the covenant, I bind myself, turning away from every other hope, to bring my '' heart of stone " to him, that he may do for me what I cannot do, and what no mortal power can do for me. And if, as he teaches me in Scrip- ture, I am to receive this grace as his blessing upon " means of grace," I bind myself to a diligent use of these means. 3. Does God, as "my God," covenant to bless with abundant success the effort to disciple all nations ; then as one of " his people," in accepting the covenant, I bind my- self, hopefully to labor, believingly to pray, that his king- dom may come throughout the world. Such is the new covenant, — that of which our Lord spake, when taking the cup he said, " This cup is the new covenant in my blood, — drink ye all of it." — Such are the obligations acknowledged as binding upon God and the communicant, when the wine, the symbol of the blood shed upon Calvary, is given and drunk in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The Lord's Supper a Eucharistic Bite. 39 CHAPTER V. THE lord's supper A EUCHARISTIC IlITE. §20. Origin of the name Eucharist, g'^1. Derelopment of Sacrificial Worship in Moses' law. J 22. The Passover, as observed in our Lord's day. i'2i. Tlie N«w a better Covenant than the Old. § 20. Origin of the name eucharist. " Jesus took bread and blessed it , . . And lie took the cup and gave thanks." (Matt. xxvi. 26, 27, and Mark xiv. 22, 23.) " And he took bread and gave thanks ; . . . likewise also, the cup." (Luke xxii. 19, 20.) " He took bread, and when he had given thanks, . . . After the same manner also he took the cup." (1 Cor. xi. 24, 25.) The two w^ords, eulogeo, to bless, and eucharisteo, to give thanks, are both used to designate the act of devo- tion, which, in our Lord's institution of the Supper, pre- ceded the giving of the bread to his disciples ; the first by- Matthew and Mark, the other by Luke and Paul. The same peculiarity in the use of these words appears in the account of the miracle of feeding the five thousand : Matthew writes, " And looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake," (Matt. xiv. 19,) while John writes, "And when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples." (Jno. vi. 11.) What our Lord really did on this occasion was both to give thanks and bless. As Brown remarks, "The one act includes the other. He 'gave thanks,' not 80 much here for the literal bread, as for that higher food which was couched under it ; and he ' blessed ' it as the ordained channel of spiritual nourishment." {Brown's Cominentary , Luke xxii. 19.) 40 The Doctrine of the Lord's Supper. From the Greek word eucharisteo, here used by Matthew" and Mark, respecting our Lord's consecration of the cup, and by Luke and Paul, respecting his consecration of the bread also, we have the word Eucharist, which word has been used as a name for the Lord's Supper from a very early date ; and in a large portion of Christendom it is the common name of the ordinance to-day. As its etymology points out, it is used to express the element of thanksgiv- ing which enters so largely into the sacrament ; — thanks- giving to God for all the benefits which are signified and sealed to the devout partaker in it. The objection to its use as the common name of the sac- rament, is that while it expresses a truth, it does not ex- press the whole truth.. The ordinance is a Eucharist, but it is at the same time more than a Eucharist. It is a memorial ; it is replete with symbolic instruction ; it is a covenanting rite, and a communion. The name commu- nion, as the common name of the sacrament, is objectiona- ble on the same ground. . The Lord's Supper, is a Scrip- tural name, and one to which no objection on this ground can be raised ; and so, is to be preferred to either of the others. § 21. Development of Sacrificial Worship in Moses' Law. In Gen. iii. 21, we read — " The Lord God made coats of skin and clothed them," i. e., Adam and Eve. On this record. Bush remai'ks : " That the beasts whose skins were allotted for a covering to our first parents on this oc- casion, had been slain, it is natural to suppose ; and there were no purposes for which they could have been slain, except those of food, or sacrifice, or clothing. That they were not slain for food is evident from the fact that the grant of animal food was not made till the days of Noah. (See Gen. ix. 3.) Neither can it be admitted that they were slain merely for clothing ; since it cannot be sup- posed that Adam would immediately after the sentence of the divine displeasure, have dared to kill God's creatures without his permission. Nor is it likely that God should order them to be slain solely for their skins, when man Development of Sacrificial Worsldj) in Hoses' Laio. 41 could have been supplied with garments made of other materials. It follows then that they must have been slain with a view to sacrifice. This alone supplies an adequate reason. The lohole of the animal (as the primitive offer- ings were all holocausts) would here be devoted to the use of religion, except the skin, which would be employed for purposes of clothing. And even this might not be with- out its moral and religious ends; for while Adam and Eve thought only of a covering for their bodies, God pointed out to them a covering for their souls. They were despoiled of their original righteousness, and they needed a robe to cover their naked souls, so that they might again stand before God ' without either spot or blemish.' We undoubtedly see, then, in this incident, the first uistitution of animal sacrifice ; for that such a rite should have originated in mere human device, cannot be maintained with any show of reason. How should it have entered into the mind of man to imagine that the blood of a beast could make satisfaction to God for sin? What con- ceivable connection is there, apart from divine appoint- ment, between the blood of a brute animal and the sins of a human being? Indeed, there was much more reason to think that God would have been displeased with the un- authorized destruction of his creatures, than that he would so accept it as to forgive iniquity on account of it. Such an offering without a divine warrant would have been, at best, a mere act of superstitious will-worship, for which no one could have promised himself acceptance ; for what superstition can be more gross than to believe without any authority for so doing, that God will transfer the sins of the sacrificer to the sacrificed, and that thus the sa- crificer himself shall be pardoned? The very Pagans themselves judged more rationally, for they are unanimous in ascribing tha origin of sacrifice to a divine command." {Biish's Notes on Genesis.) In the above extract the argument in favor of the pro- perly divine origin of sacrificial worship is clearly and concisely presented. Whether we accept it as perfectly satisfactory or not, this much the express record of Scrip- ture places beyond doubt : That at a very early date God 42 The Doctrine of the Lord's Supper. accepted the bloody sacrifice of Abel (see Gen. iv.) and so gave a public and authoritative sanction to sacrificial wor- ship : and further, that this worship continued in use, with divine approval, from Abel's day to the day of Christ. At first sacrificial worship would seem to have been very simple in its form and ceremonial. The offerings of Abel and Noah were holocausts, the sacrificial victim being consumed entire upon God's altar. In entering into covenant with Abram, as we have seen (§ 14) God added to the ceremonial in common use, certain rites, for the purpose of bringing out more distinctly the covenanting element in the transaction : — but it was not until Moses' day, and in Moses' law that sacrificial worship received its full development. As already remarked, " the idea of sacrifice is a com- plex one, involving the propitiatory, the dedicatory (or covenanting), and the eucharistic elements ; " (see § 14.) And all three of these elements, enter less or more dis- tinctly into the true idea of sacrifice of every kind. Whilst this is true, it is true at the same time that in the different kinds of sacrifice, and in the ceremonial estab- lished in Moses' law, each of these several elements receives particular prominence in particular sacrifices, and in particular ways. "All had relation, under different aspects, to a Cove- nant between God and man :" — and hence the law, — inas- much as salt was chosen to represent this covenanting element, — "every sacrifice shall be salted with salt." (:Mark ix. 49.) "The SIN-OFFERING represented the Covenant as broken by man, and as knit together again, by God's appoint- ment, through 'shedding of blood.' Its characteristic ceremony was the sprinkling of the blood before the veil of the sanctuary, the putting some of it on the horns of the altar of incense, and the pouring out of all the rest at the foot of the altar of burnt-offering. The shedding of blood, the symbol of life, signified that the death of the offender was deserved for sin, but that the death of the victim was accepted for his death by the ordinance of The Passover as Observed in Our Lord's Day. 43 God's mercy. Beyond all doubt, the siu-offering distinct- ly witnessed that sin existed in man, that 'the wages of sin was death/ and that God had provided an atonement by the vicarious sufferings of an appointed victim." " The Meat-offeriyig , the peace or thank-offering, the first-fruits, &c., were simply offerings to God of his own best gifts, as a sign of thankful homage, and as a means of maintaining his service, and his servants. The characteristic ceremony in the peace-offering was the eating of the flesh by the sacrificer"" [A. Barry, in Smith's Dictionary. Art. Sacrifice.) That the peace- offering was especially appropriated to eucharistic services appears, not only from its name, jocacc-offering, the peace intended being peace between God and man, which must ever be a cause of thanksgiving ; but from such Scriptures ns Lev. vii. 12. " If he offer it (the peace-offering, ver. 11) for a thanksgiving, then shall he offer with the sacri- fice of thanksgiving unleavened cakes," &c. § 22. The Passover as observed in our Lord's day. The following particulars respecting the Passover, as observed in our Lord's day, are condensed from the excel- lent article on the subject in Smith's Bible Dictionary. In Ex. xii. and xiii. there are not only distinct references to the observance of the festival in future ages, but several injunctions which were evidently not intended for the first Passover, and which indeed could not possibly have been observed then. In the later notices of the festival in the books of the Law particulars are added which appear as modifications of the original institution: e.g., in Lev. xxiii. the offering of the first-fruits is directed to be observed in connection with the Passover. Hence, it is not with- out reason that the Jewish writers have laid great stress on the distinction between the " Egyptian Passover " and the " perpetual Passover." Two important peculiarities of the Passover as observed in our Lord's day, are . (1) Four cups of wine were drunk on the occasion. There is no mention of wine in connec- tion with the Passover in the Pentateuch : but the Mishna 44 The Doctrine of the Lord's Supper. strictly enjoined that there should never be less than four cups of it provided at the Paschal meal, even of the poor- est Israelite. Two of them appear to be distinctly men- tioned in Luke xxii. 17, 20. " The cup of blessing" (1 Cor. X. IG,) was probably the latter one of these, and is gene- rally considered to have been the third of the series, after which a grace was said ; though a comparison of Luke xxii. 20 (where it is called " the cup after supper ") with the Mishna (Pes. x. 7,) and the designation of the " cup of the Hallel," might rather suggest that it was the fourth and last cup. (2) The Hallel : The service of praise (Heb. hallel — praise) sung at the Passover, is not men- tioned in the law. It consisted of the series of Psalms cxiii.-cxviii. The first portion, comprising Ps. cxiii. and cxiv., was sung in the early part of the meal, and the second part after the fourth cup of wine. This is sup- posed to have been the " hymn " sung by our Lord and his Apostles, as mentioned in Matt. xxvi. 30, Mark xiv. 26. The feast of the Passover must, from the first, have partaken largely of a " eucharistic character. (1) It com- memorated Israel's deliverance from bondage in Egypt, — a deliverance from a cruel and bitter bondage — a deliver- ance resulting in their possession of a good land — the land of promise. (2) There can be no doubt that to the " men of faith," this deliverance was typical of a deliverance from a more cruel bondage than that of Egypt; — a de- liverance to result in the possession of a better land than the earthly Canaan, even the heavenly : and for both these reasons, the feast would naturally be eucharistic. By uniting the feast of the First-fruits with the Pass- over, God added another element of thanksgiving. The gathering of the harvest has been an occasion for thanks- giving in every country and in every age. In the Hallel, the service of song used on the occasion, the eucharistic character of the feast comes out prominently in such words of praise and thanksgiving as the following : — " What shall I render to the Lord for all his benefits toward me ? I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the Lord. I will pay ray vows unto The New " a Better Covenant " than the Old. 45 the Lord now in tho presence of all his people. Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints. O Lord, truly I am thy servant; and the son of thy hand- maid ; thou hast loosed my bonds. I will offer to thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and will call upon the name of the Lord. I will pay my vows unto the Lord now in the presence of all his people. In the courts of the Lord's house, in the midst of thee, 0 Jerusalem. Praise ye the Lord." (Ps. cxvi. 12-19.) "I will praise thee; for thou hast heard me, and art become my salvation. The stone which the builders refused has become the head stone of the corner. This is the Lord's doing; it is marvellous in our eyes. This is the day which the Lord hath made ; we will rejoice and be glad in it. Save now, I beseech thee, 0 Lord ; 0 Lord, I beseech thee, send now pros- perity. Blessed be he that cometh in the name of the Lord; we have blessed you out of the house of the Lord. God is the Lord, which hath shewed us light : bind the sacrifice with cords, even unto the horns of the altar. Thou art my God, and I will praise thee ; thou art my God, I will exalt thee. 0 give thanks unto the Lord ; for he is good, for his mercy endureth forever." (Ps. cxviii. 21-20.) In the words of these Psalms which our Lord and liis disciples sang at the close of this first observance of the Lord's Supper, we see, not only the eucharistic character of the service, but good reasons why it should have that character. § 23. The New " a better Covenant " than the Old. " He (Christ) is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises." Heb. viii. 6. The Covenant, here spoken of as "a better covenant," is the same which in vs. 7 is called the "second," and in vs. 8 ''the new covenant;" and is undoubtedly the one of which our Lord spoke when he gave the cup to his dis- ciples— " This cup is the new testament (covenant) in my l>lood." The covenant with which it is compared is styled " the first covenant" in vs. 7, the "old covenant" in vs. 13, and in vs. 9 is described as "the covenant God made 46 The Doctrine of the Lord's Supper. with the fathers, when he took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt," i. e., the one we are accustomed to speak of as the Covenant of Sinai. What does the Apostle mean by saying of this, that it is " a better covenant which is established on better prom- ises " than the old ? We answer, — 1. Not that the Covenant of Sinai was, in substance, the "Covenant of Works," "this do, and thou shalt live," re- enacted, as some would have us believe. The Covenant of Sinai was, in substance, as truly the " Covenant of Grace" as the new covenant is. A large part of this Epistle to the Hebrews is taken up in showing how, in the Mosaic law we have "a shadow of good things to come," — how, in all the peculiar ceremonial worship established by that law the gospel was preached in type and symbol. And we know from the recorded experience of God's saints who lived under the old covenant, that the practical working of religion in the human soul was substantially the same then that it is now. The Psalms give the best possible ex- pression to the Christian feelings and experience of men, in every age; and as they have been used in the church's service of song from the days in which they were written, — and in the case of some of them, e. g., Ps. xc, this takes us back to the days of Moses, — to the present day, so we believe they will continue to be used as long as there is a church on earth. 2. Neither can we admit that the Covenant of Sinai had exclusive reference to a temporal and earthly inheritance. In so far as the land of Canaan was concerned, the Cove- nant of Sinai was but a renewal of the covenant with Abram ; and in that covenant, the earthly Canaan with all the promises regarding it, were understood by the men of faith as typical of a better inheritance. This is most clearly taught us in a subsequent portion of this Epistle : — " These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they The New "a Belter Covenant " than the Old. 47 came out, they might have had opportunity to have re- turned. But now, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly; wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city." (Heb. xi. 13-16.) The New is a better Covenant than the Old in these par- ticulars— 1. There is no earthly, secular element embraced in it. By the Covenant of Sinai the theocracy was established, and Jehovah assumed toward Israel the relation of their Supreme Civil Euler as well as their God. In his charac- ter of Supreme Civil Buler, he enacted a code of laws for their government as a nation; and in this Covenant, he bound himself to do what every righteous king desires to do, to secure the peaceful possession of the land of Canaan and worldly prosperity, on condition of such obedience as the good citizen is accustomed to render to the laws of the land in which he lives. With Jehovah as the Supreme Civil Ruler, the laws of the land, of necessity took a peculiar cast; e. g., idolatry became high- treason, and was capitally punished as such. What was established was, — not a union of Church and State, but rather a Church — State, in which attention to the established worship and religious ceremonial became a civil as well as a religious duty. This — on the one 'hand. On the other: — In all the cere- monial established the gospel was preached. Jehovah, when legislating for Israel, did not sink his character as God in that of the Supreme Civil Ruler. Now, the Gospel has ever been one and the same, — " God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth ill him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (Jno. iii. 16.) The one condition of salvation under the gospel is, faith. In the Covenant of Sinai God bound himself to Israel — (1) On condition of obedience to the laws civil and cere- monial, such as good citizens are accustomed to render to the laws of the land, to secure to them the earthly Canaan and an abundant measure of worldly prosperity. And (2) on condition of obedience to the gospel, true faith in the Saviour typified in all their bloody sacrifices, he bound 48 The Doctrine of the Lord's Supper. himself to secure to them that Heaven of which Canaan was the type, and spiritual life and strength while they were journeying thither. The terms of the covenant Israel misunderstood and perverted ; substituting the conditions of worldly prosperi- ty in the place of the conditions of spiritual blessedness : — and, then going a step farther, degrading that spiritual blessedness into a mere form of worldly prosperity; so that to their hopes, the kingdom of God which Messiah was to establish, became little more than a splendid world- ly kingdom, with Jerusalem as its capital city : — and so the spiritual religion of faithful Abraham was transformed into the miserable hypocrisy (stage-acting) of the Pharisees of our Lord 's day, and the temple of God became but " a whited sepulchre." In the New Covenant no such secular, earthly element is embraced. There is no temptation presented to forget the heavenly Canaan in seeking to secure an earthly one ; — and if formalism and hypocrisy (stage-acting) takes the place of the worship of God in spirit and in truth, it must be in direct opposition to the express terms of the cove- nant. To this peculiarity of the New Covenant our Lord refers in his conversation with the woman of Samaria, — "Woman, believe me, the hour cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father, . . . the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth : for the Father seeketh such to worship him." (Jno. iv. 21-23.) 2. Under the New Covenant we have a much clearer and fuller revelation of the Gospel than under the Old. The antetype is always clearer than the type, and a far better knowledge can be secured by the examination of a substance than the study of its shadow : — and now, that the long promised Messiah has come, has lived and preached on earth, has dwelt among us as " God manifest in the flesh," and has consummated that atonement for sin which was promised from the beginning, we can better understand the nature and provisions of the Gospel, than it was possible man should do under the Old Covenant. The Xew " a Better Covenant " than the Old. 49 On this point, Peter writes, — " Of which salvation the pro- phets have inquired and searched dihgently, who pro})he- sied of the grace that should come unto you : searching what, or what manner of time the S})irit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified before-hand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things which are now re- })orted unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven." (L Pet. i. 10-12). And our Lord says, — ''Verily, I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them ; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them." (Matt. xiii. 17.) 3. Under the New Covenant the church is no longer confined to a single nation, as under the Old, — but her commission is — " Go ye therefore, and teach (disciple) all nations, baptizing them in 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." (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20.) The Church's success in the discharge of this commission is guaranteed in the very terms of the New Covenant, — " And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying. Know the Lord: for all shall know me from the least to the greatest." (Heb. viii. 11.) The service to which the church is here called is a blessed service ; blessed in its immediate influence on the happiness of the faithful ser- vant, and yet more blessed in its ultimate rewards. Our Lord says — " Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields ; for they are white already to harvest. And he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal ; that both he that soweth and he that reapeth, may rejoice together I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labor : other men labored, and ye are entered into their labors." (Jno. iv. 35, 36, 38.) 4. As intimately connected with the last mentioned par- ticular, the New Covenant secures to the Church that 3 '50 The Doctrine of the Lord's Supper. abundant outpouring and abiding presence of the Spirit, which leads Paul to speak of these " last times " as the times of " the ministration of the Spirit." '(2 Cor. iii. 8.) To his disciples, just before his departure, and to comfort them in prospect of that event, our Lord said — " I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you ; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteous- ness, and of judgment, . . . will guide you into all truth ; for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak ; and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me, for he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you." (Jno. xvi. 7-15.) " He shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever." (Jno. xiv. 16.) Not that the Spirit in his con- victing, regenerating, and sanctifying power was unknown to the Church under the Old Covenant : — but under the New Covenant he is given more freely and in more abun- dant measure than ever before, — as illustrated in the wondrous power with which the Gospel was preached on the first Christian Pentecost. (See Acts ii. 14-21.) And who shall say in what wondrous manner the scene of that day shall yet be repeated in the history of the Church. All these are grounds of special thanksgiving to God : And if the pious Jew could praise God in the words of the hallel — " I will praise thee : for thou hast heard me, and art become my salvation. The stone which the builders refused is become the headstone of the corner. This is the Lord's doing ; it is marvelous in our eyes." (Ps. cxviii. 21-23), with how much deeper feeling should we praise him, when what was to him prophecy, has to us become history. If the old Passover was a Eucharist, surely the new should be doubly so. TliC Lord's Supper a Communion. CHAPTEE VI. THE LORD S SUrPER A COMMUNION. §24. 1 Cor. X. 16-21. §25. Scriptural use of the word Communion. g26. John xiii.34, 35. The New Commandment. g27. John xvii. 20, 21. Christian Unity, "28. The Lord's Supper adapted to exhibit this Unity. §24. 1 Cor. X. 16-21. 1 Cor. X. 16-21. " The cup of blessing whicli we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread {to7i arton, the loaf) which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, being many are one bread (loaf). Behold Israel after the flesh; arc not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers {koinonia, communicants) of the altar? What say I then ? that the idol is anything, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is anything? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God ; and I would not that ye should have fellowship {hoinonoiis, should have communion) with devils. Ye cannot drink of the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils ; ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils." In this passage it is plain — 1. That in ver. 16, Paul is speaking of the Lord's Sup- per. " The cup of hlessing," in ver. 21 called "the cup of the Lord," is the cup used in that ordinance. In the Paschal Supper one of the four cups of wine used — the third, or as some say, the last, was called "the cup of blessing," because a benediction was proupunced over it. 62 The Doctrine of the Lords Supper. Our Lord when he took the cup used in the Supper, " gave thanks " (see § 20) before giving it to the disciples, and it is evident from Paul's words " which we bless," that the primitive Church followed his example in this particular ; and so, the name originally given to the Pas- chal cup was naturally transferred to that used in the Lord's Supper. As Dr. Hodge remarks — " The idea of consecration is necessarily included. Wine, as wine, is not the sacramental symbol of Christ's blood, but only when solemnly consecrated for that purpose. Even our ordinary food is said to ' be sanctified by the word of God and prayer ' (1 Tim. iv. 5) because it is set apart by a reli- gious service to the end for which it was appointed. So the cup of blessing is the cup which, by the benediction pro- nounced over it, is set apart from a common to a sacred use." {Hodge on 1 Cor. x. 16.) " TJte bread {loaf) which we break " is undoubtedly one of the large thin loaves or cakes of unleavened bread, which the primitive Chris- tians, following the example of our Lord who used one of the loaves of this kind left from the Paschal supper, were accustomed to break, distributing to each communi- cant a part of the one loaf. 2. That Paul takes it for granted, that all regarded the Lord's Supper as of the nature of a feast upon a sacrifice. Under the law of Moses, whilst in the case of some sacri- fices, the whole victim was burned upon God's altar ; in the case of others (see Lev. vii. 15-19) after the blood had been poured out at the foot of the altar, and certain parts burned, what remained was to be eaten ; a part of it by the priests, and another part by the offerer and his friends. The feast thus provided for the offerer and his friends is usually styled " a feast upon a sacrifice." This feast was not eaten at the altar, nor even in the precincts of the temple, but in some convenient place in Jerusalem or its suburbs. The whole victim was, in the first in- stance, consecrated, given up to God, and so became his property ; — and when afterwards, a part of it was given back to the offerer, he, in feasting upon it, was regarded as " eating at the Lord's table." As already stated (§ 14) the three elements, viz., the pro- The Lord's Siqrper a Communion. 53 pitiatory, the eucharistic and tlio covenanting, enter more or less distinctly into the idea of all sacrifices. In sucli sacrifices as these, the propitiatory element is prominent in the olFering of the blood, and the parts burned upon the altar; whilst the eucharistic and covenanting ele- ments, especially the latter, come out more distinctly in " the feast upon the sacrifice." This evidently is Paul's view of the case when he writes — " Behold Israel after the flesh; are not they which eat of the sacrifices par- takers (communicants) of the altar?" By eating at Jehovah's table, and especially, eating of his salt, (and the law was, "with all thine oflerings thou shalt ofier salt," (Lev. iii. 13) — the Jew professed allegiance to him ; and as many made the same profession, their common alle- giance to the same sovereign, necessarily implied fello\y- citizenship with each other; their common communion with the same God, communion with each other. Eating the Paschal supper, which was a feast upon the Paschal sacrifice, was regarded by the Jews as an act of communion, not only with Jehovah, but of those who sat at the same table, with each other. As the Lord's Supper was essentially of the same character with the Pass- over,— not a sacrifice, the one Christian sacrifice was oflfered upon Calvary and not in "the upper chamber at Jerusalem," but " a feast upon a sacrifice," — the covenant- ing element in the one was, in the minds of the disciples, naturally transferred to the other. As he who partook of the Passover was looked upon as thereby declaring him- self a worshipper of Jehovah, and a Jew ; -so he who par- took of the Lord's Supper was naturally looked upon as thereby declaring himself a worshipper of the Lord, and a Christian. From these facts Paul reasons — 3. That he who ate the meat ofierod to idols, knowing it to be such, and at a heathen feast, would inevitably be regarded, by both Jews and Christians, as a worshipper of the idol, and as having communion with the heathen who feasted with him. The fact, that in his secret soul he be- lieved and knew " that an idol was nothing," did not alter the case; as the matter in question respected, not his own private views of matters, but the construction which Jews 54 The Doctrine of the Lord's Supper. and Christians would certainly put upon his conduct. Hence he concludes, that participation in a heathen *' feast upon a sacrifice " was properly an act of idolatry, — and reminding the Corinthian Christians that it had been decided by God, as far back as in Moses' day (see Deut. xxxii. 17, Lev. xvii. 7) that " what the Gentiles sacri- ficed, they sacrificed to devils and not to God," he warns them in the words — " Ye cannot drink of the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils ; ye cannot partake of the Lord's table and of the table of devils." 4. Paul goes a step further, and, guided by inspiration, teaches, not only that the idea of communion at once with God and with each other was naturally suggested by the nature of the Lord's Supper ; but that our Lord in order- ing the ceremonial of the Supper distinctly embraced this truth in its symbolic teaching. " For we being many are one bread (loaf) and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread (loaf)," ver. 17. On the expression eis artos, here rendered "one bread," McKnight has this note : " The Greek word artos, especially when joined with words of number, always signifies a loaf, and is so translated in our Bibles, (Matt. xvi. 9). Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five, artos loaves of the five thousand?" (McKnight on 1 Cor. x. 17.) Paul here teaches that as the diiferent parts of the one loaf, though broken, and separated one from another, yet in reality all constitute but one loaf; so the different Christians, in par- taking of these several parts of the same loaf, declare that they all belong to, and constitute one body ; in this em- phatic manner setting forth their communion one with another ; saying to all, not only do aU belong to one, Christ, but we are aU brethren. § 25 Scriptural use of the word Communion, [Koinonia). The Greek word koinonia translated communion in 1 Cor. X. 16, means literally a having in common, a partici- pation in, and in its simple and derivative forms, it is more frequently rendered in our English Version, fellow- ship and participation, than communion. Thus in 1 Cor. Scriptural use of the Word Communion. 55 x. 18, "Behold Israel after the llesh; are not they which eat of the sacrilices partakers {koinonoi, coininmiicants) of the altar ; " and in vcr. 20, " I would not that you should have fdloivship [kuinonous, have communion) with devils." As illustrating the Scriptural use of the word, let the reader consider the following passages : — Heb. ii. 14. " Forasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he (Christ) also himself took part of the same." Here the participation, communion, spoken of is that which men have in our common humanity. Phil. iii. 10. " That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death." Here the fellowship, communion, spoken of, is that participation in Christ's suf- ferings which Paul was called to endure ; — not in Christ's sufferings regarded as an atonement for sin ; in that view of them no man can be a partaker with Christ in his suf- ferings ; but in his sufferings endured in preaching the gospel, when for the gospel's sake Jew and Gentile arrayed themselves in deadly hostility to him, and which were a benefit to the Church in the way indicated by the common saying — " the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church." In this way Paul could, and did have " felloAV- ship," communion in Christ's sufferings, even to the extent of dying by crucifixion, as his Lord had died. 2 Cor. xiii. 14. " The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen." Here, the communion spoken of is a participation in the benefits of the blessed work of the Holy Ghost, now carrying forward on earth, as Christ in heaven, the work of human redemption. 1 John i. 3, "That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may hnYe fellowship with us; and truly onr fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." Here, the fellowship, communion, spoken of, is a communion in " that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us." Ver. 2. The rfature of this communion is beautifully set forth in our Lord's words — " I am the vine, ye are the branches ; He that abideth in me and I in liim, the same bringcth 56 ■ The Doctrine of the Lord's Supper. forth much fruit ; for without me ye can do nothing." (Jno. XV. 5.) These are instances in which the Scriptures speak of the Christians' communion with Christ, the Holy Ghost, and God the Father. As instances of its use re- specting Christian communion one with another, let the reader consider — 1 John i. 7. " If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have felloioship, one with another." Here, the fellowship, communion, spoken of, is in all that distinc- tively makes up the Christian life in the world. In conse- quence of our all walking with Christ in the light, we are all walking together in that light of which Christ is the source. 2 Cor. viii. 4. " Praying us with much entreaty, that we would receive the gift, and take upon us the fellowship of the ministering to the saints." Here " the gift " spoken of, as we learn from the context, is the contribution made by the churches of Macedonia for the relief of the neces- sities of the poor saints at Jerusalem, and the fellowship^ communion, spoken of, is in that ministry to the necessi- ties of those poor saints. Heb. xiii. 16. " But to do good and to communicate forget not ; for with such sacrifices God is well pleased." This verse Doddridge paraphrases — "Be not, therefore, forgetful of doing all the good you possibly can, in your respective stations, and of communicating liberally and cheerfully of your substance, to those who are in necessity ; for God is well pleased with such sacrifices ; which were always more pleasing to him than any victim, which, in thg neglect of these, could be brought to his altar." ' i Doddridge s Fain. Ex.) Acts ii. 42. " And they continued steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine and felloioship, and in breaking of bread and in prayer." Here the Pentecostal converts are spoken of as 'ho.Viwg fellowship, communion, with the Apostles and with one another in ''breaking of bread," by which we understand both social a.nd sacramental eating together, "and in prayer." By all these acts, they signified to the world around them that they were one with the Apostles, and one with each other. The New Commandment. 57 Gal. ii. 9. " And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas, the right hand oi fellowship ; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision." Here the felloivship, com- munion, spoken of, is a communion in preaching the gospel : — and what Paul means is, that James, Cephas and John in giving to him and Barnabas the right hand, publicly declared that they were all the servants of one master, preaching one gospel, engaged in one and the same blessed work. In these passages Christians are represented as having communion, one with another, in their Christian walk and conversation, in good deeds and especially deeds of charity, iu prayer, public and social, and in preaching the gospel. §26. Joh/i xiii. 34, 35. The New Commandment. " A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another ; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my dis- ciples, if ye have love one to another." Jno. xiii. 34, 35. In John xiii.-xvi. we have Christ's discourse addressed to his disciples, as they sat at the table, in the upper chamber in Jerusalem, when he instituted the sacrament of the Supper. This fact is often overlooked in reading these chapters, and so, something at least, of the peculiar cast of the meaning which belongs to his words is lost to us. A careful examination of this whole discourse will show that it has, in every part of it, a special appropri- ateness, as well as an immediate reference to the circum- stances in which it was spoken, and the great event then just at hand. Judas has just withdrawn, as we learn from v. 30, that he may betray his Master. "When he was gone out," Jesus knowing, as the disciples did not, the purpose for which he had gone, addresses them in the Words — " Little children, yet a little while I am with you. ... A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another ; as I have loved you that ye also love one another. By 3* 58 The Doctrine of the LorcVs Supper, this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." Brotherly love is inculcated in other parts of Scripture ; and John proposes it as a trustworthy test whereby we may " know that we have passed from death unto life." (1 Jno. iii. 14.) But on no occasion is it inculcated with as great solemnity and ten- derness, as when the lesson came from the life of our Lord himself, as he sat then in the midst of his disciples, with the memorials of his wondrous love for them, on the taLle before them. With natures but partially sanctified, and such are the natures of the children of God in this world, there will be estrangements occurring, differences springing up from time to time ; and these estrangements, differences, cannot but prove detrimental to the spiritual well-being of those im- mediately affected, as well as a stumbling-block in the way of the men of the world. To -guard against the danger hence arising, Christ has specially provided that on two occasions, and these of frequent recurrence, this whole matter shall be carefully examined into, and every wrong corrected. (1.) When we come to a throne of grace. "And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have aught against any ; that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses." (Mark xi. 25, 26.) (2.) When we approach the Lord's table. " Therefore, if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way : first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.'] (Matt. v. 23, 24.) That we may interpret these words aright, we must remember that sacrifice under the Old Testament dispensation was, in its preceptive import, substantially the same with the Lord's Supper under the New : — and that when our- Lord spake these words the Old Testament dispensation was yet in force ; the Lord's Supper had not yet been in- stituted. So was the lesson understood in primitive times. — " Hence the beautiful practice of the early Church, to see that all differences amongst brethren and sisters in Christian Unity. 59 Chr'st were made up, in the spirit of love, before going to the Holy Communion; and the Church of England has a rubrical direction to this effect in her Communion service. Certainly, if this be the highest act of worship on earth, such reconciliation — though obligatory on all other occa- sions of worship, must be peculiarly so then." {Brown's Commentary, Matt. v. 24.) § 27. John xvii. 20, 21. Christian Unity, " Neither pray I for these alone ; but for them also which shall believe on me through their word ; that they all may be one as thou. Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us : that the world may be- lieve that thou hast sent me." (Jno. xvii. 20, 21.) These words, like those examined in the last section, were uttered by our Lord at the institution of the sacra- ment of the Supper, and are a part of his prayer offered on that occasion, probably, shortly before *' they sang a hymn, and wont out" to the garden of Gethsemane. The petition is just the lesson, examined in the last section, thrown into the form of a prayer. The unity of the Church, that his disciples should be one in life and in heart is the burden of both alike. And this unity, our Lord would have a unity — not alone in heart, but also in life — a unity that shall be seen and recognized by the world : — " By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one for another." — " That the ivorld may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them as thou hast loved me." That the Scriptures recognize a Catholic Church visible in the world under the New Testament dispensation is be- yond all reasonable question. Our Lord does not often use the word Church : — but instead thereof the expressions, kingdom of God, kingdom of heaven. In his parables of the "tares in the field," (Matt. xiii. 24,) and the "drag net," (Matt. xiii. 47,) all commentators agree that it is of his Catholic Church visible he speaks. No other sense of the expression " Kingdom of heaven," can be made to hai'monize with his own interpretation of these parables. 60 The Doctrine of the Lord's Supper. So when Paul writes — " Beyond measure I persecuted the Church of God," (Cral i. 13,) and — "God hath set some in the Church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues," (1 Cor. xii. 28,) and — " the house of God, which is the Church of the Hving God, the pillar and ground of the truth," (1 Tim. iii. 15), it will not admit of question that the Church he speaks of is the Catholic Church visible. Organic unity in the Catholic Church visible, maintained throughout the Old Testament dispensation, and for some time under the New, has long since disappeared. The claim of Rome to be the Catholic Church, necessarily in- volves the denial of the church character of the Greek Church, a body nearly as large, and certainly older, and nearer in organization to the Apostolic church than she is, — and of the Protestant church, a very large body, and a body holding the very faith preached by Christ and his Apostles from which Rome has sadly departed. The claim sometimes made by individual members of the smaller Protestant bodies that the body to which they belong is "the Church," i. e., the Catholic Church visible, is simply ridiculous, and only shows to what lengths bigotry when united with pitiable ignorance can carry a man. In what then does the unity of the Catholic Church vis- ible, in our day, consist? We answer — In what Paul calls "the common faith." (Titus i. 4.) According to the Westminster Assembly — " The Visible Church, which is also Catholic, or universal under the gospel, (not confined to one nation as under the law) consists of all those throughout the world, that profess the true religion, together with their children." (Confession of Faith, ch.xxv.. Art. ii.) By " the common faith," " the true religion," we under- stand,— not the whole system of doctrine taught us in the Scriptures ; but those great, fundamental truths which all evangelical Christians agree must be believed in order to the salvation of the soul. In their reception of these truths as articles of faith, the real unity of these several bodies consists ; and in their publication of them in their creeds, this unity is made known to the world. Such a unity as The Lord's Supper adapted to Exhibit this Unity. 61 this is for more real, and reaches for deeper than any unity in mere organization, and is the kind of unity which proj)- erly belongs to a " kingdom, not of this world " (Jno. xviii. 36) "a kingdom that is within man." (Luke xvii. 2L) That the Catholic Church visible, though divided into different denominations, yet possesses such a unity as this will not be denied by any impartial observer : — and by all the ditierent denominations it is recognized in having com- Tnunion, as the Scriptures enjoin, in good works, especially works of Christian benevolence, in reading the Scriptures, in public and social prayer, and in preaching the gospel. — And most of them go a step further, and recognize it in having communion in the sacraments, especially the Lord's Supper. When we remember, that it was at the institu- tion of the sacrament of the Supper, whilst our Lord him- self was presiding at the table, that he uttered the "new commandment," and prayed that " all that should believe on him . . . might be one," can we doubt that there is a peculiar propriety in holding communion in this way? ■ And when we remember, further, that he has made the rite itself a rite of communion, by requiring all to partake of the one loaf and the one cup, do we seem to be pressing matters too far when we say, that to hold communion in other ways, and refuse it in this, is to dishonor our Lord's own appointment in the matter ? § 28. Tlie Lord's Supper adapted to exhibit this Unity. If we examine the nature of the Lord's Supper, as set forth in the Word of God, we cannot but be struck with the admirable adaptation of the ordinance to serve as a symbol of the real unity of the Catholic Church visible, notwithstanding its division into several denominations. (1) As a Commemorative rite, it is "Jesus Christ evidently set forth crucified among us." (2) As a symbolic rite, it sets forth the truth that Christ is the source of our Christian life, and he is this in virtue of his sacrificial death. (3) As a Covenanting rite, it "is the New Testament (Covenant) in Christ's blood," and the substance of that new covenant is expressed in the words — " their sins and their iniquities 62 The Doctrine of the Lord's Supper. will I remember no more," — " I will put my laws in their minds and write them in their hearts" — and "all shall know me, from the least to the greatest." (4) As a Eu- charistie rite, it is a rendering of thanksgiving to God for the blessings recorded in this New Covenant. Now this is just what Paul speaks of as " the common faith," and the Westminster Assembly as " the true religion:" — and it is in this that the true unity of the Catholic Church Visible consists; it is in this we recognize the answer to our Lord's prayer for those " that should believe on him, . . . that all might be one." Close Communion. 63 CHAPTEE, VII. CLOSE COMMUNION. J 20. Close Communion defined. §30. Does Sacramental Communion with a church involve approval of it.s errors? J31. Is the Communion of the Lord's Supper that of a particular Church ? J 32. Does Baptism ncces.sarily precede the Lord's Supper? §33. 2Thess. iii. 6-15. "Walking disorderly." §34. Prac- tical views. § 29. Close Communion. The Baptists, as a denomination, and certain of the smaller Presbyterian Cliurclies, e. g., tlie Associate Re- formed, profess and practice what is called close or strict communion; whilst all other Evangelical Protestant Churches -profess and practice what is called open or Catholic communion. As here used, the term communion has reference exclu- sively to joint-participation in the Lord's Supper. Open communionists admit and invite all professed believers whom they regard as belonging to the Catholic Church visible to a joint-participation with themselves in the ordi- nance ; looking upon the table, as the table of their com- mon Lord ; and participation in the Supper as intended to exhibit to the world the real unity of the Church visi- ble, notwithstanding its division into denominations. The position of the Baptists, as a denomination — and we use this expression advisedly, because some of their most eminent ministers, such as John Bunyan and Robert Hall, of the past, and Charles Spurgeon of the present generation, repudiate close communion, — is thus set forth in Dr. Hiscox's " Baptist Church Directory," a work of acknowledged authority in the denomination. "As to the subjects of communion, they (the Baptists) believe that the Lord's Supper is to be partaken of by 64 The Doctrine of the Lord's Supper. members of the Church alone; being such persons as are regenerated, and baptized on a profession of their faith in Christ, and are walking in the faith and fellowship of the gospel. Consequently, neither unregenerate persons, nor icnhaptized persons, though regenerate, nor persons walk- ing disorderly and contrary to the Gospel, even though baptized, can properly be invited to partake of this ordi- nance. Therefore Baptists do not invite sprinkled mem- bers of Pedo-Baptist churches to their communion, because such persons are not Scrip turally baptized; nor do they invite immersed members of Pedo-Baptist churches, be- cause such persons are walking disorderly as the disciples of Christ, by holding membership in, and walking in fellowship with churches which receive sprinkling instead of baptism, thereby sanctioning and sustaining a perversion of Christ's ordinance, and a disobedience to his command. For the same reason they decline to commune in Pedo-Bap- tist churches, as being contrary to good order." {Hiscoxs Baptist Church Directory, pp. 180, 181.) The practice in some minor particulars may vary in certain churches, but the above is, we believe, a fair statement of the faith and practice of the Baptists, as a denomination. Among the Associate Eeformed, none others are ad- mitted to the Lord's table, but such as are communicants in good standing in the Associate Reformed Church ; — and close communion was once universally, and is now generally, enforced, by the use of " tokens," distributed before-hand by the officers of the church, and required to be shown, at the table, before the elements would be served to the person wishing to commune. Of the practical working of this doctrine of close com- munion, let the reader take an example or two. Dr. Jno. M. Mason, whilst living, a minister of the Associate Re- formed Church in New York, relates the following incident as having occurred in his own experience : " He had been distributing tokens of admission to the Lord's Sup- per. After the congregation had retired, he perceived a young woman at the lower end of an aisle reclin- ing on a pew in a pensive attitude. As he approached her, she said, ' Sir, I am afraid I have done wrong.' Why, Close Com7aunion. 65 what have you done ? ' I went up with the communicants, and received a token, but am not a member of your church ; and I could not be at rest till I spoke to you about it.' To what church do you belong? 'To the Dutch Church ; and, if you wish it, I can satisfy you of my character and standing there.' But what made you come for a token without mentioning the matter before ? ' I had not an opportunity, as I did not know in time that your communion was to be next Lord's day. I am sorry if I have done wrong ; but I expect to leave the city on Tuesday, and to bo absent, I cannot tell how long, in a part of the country where I shall have no opportunity of communing ; and I wished, once more before I went away, to join with Christians in showing forth my Saviour's death.' He consulted a moment with the church-officers who were still present ; and it was thought most expedient not to grant her request. He communicated this answer as gantly as possible to the modest petitioner. She said not another word ; but with one hand giving back the token, and with the other putting up her kerchief to her eyes, she turned away, struggling with her anguish, and the tears streaming down her cheeks. How did his heart smite him ! He went home exclaiming to himself. Can this be right ? Is it possible that such is the law in the Redeemer's house ? It quickened his inquiries ; and his inquiries strengthened his doubts ; and have terminated in the conviction that it was altogether wrong." {Mason's Works. Vol. I., pp. 8, 9.) Take an example, now, of the practical working of this doctrine, as held amongst the Baptists. The author's early years were passed in a village in which there was no Church practising close communion, and hence his atten- tion was never turned to the subject until after he had completed his college course. Then, in the providence of God, his lot was cast in a part of the country in which the Baptist, Methodist, Episcopal, and Presbyterian Churches all existed, but each so feeble as to be able to secure preaching but a part of the time. Hence the practice was common of the different denominations worshiping togeth- er. On a certain Saturday, the author had attended pub- 66 The Doctrine of the Lords Supper. lie worship in a Baptist Churcli in the neighborhood, when, after the usual service, the Church was convened for business ; and he, with several others not members of the Baptist Church, remained as spectators. The busi- ness in hand was the trial of one of the oldest members for the offence of communing in the Presbyterian Church, several months before. His trial had been begun a fort- night previous, and confessing the charge, he had been provisionally condemned, but allowed time for further re- flection. In the course of the proceedings, the Pastor and several of the members acknowledged publicly, that the accused had been for many years, one of their best mem- bers ; that his walk and conversation had been eminently Christian ; his only offence being the act for which he was on trial. And he was urged again and again to pro- mise that he would not repeat the act ; and on this con- dition he was offered immunity for the past. I shall al- ways remember the good old man's reply. With trem- bling voice and tearful eyes, he said : '' Brethren, I can- not give that promise. When I communed in the Pres- byterian Church last fall, the Spirit of God was working in power among the people ; saints were rejoicing* in his presence, and sinners were turning unto God. And I felt very much as I suppose Peter did, in the house of Cornelius. ' Forasmuch, then, as God gave them the like gifts as he did unto us who believed on the Lord Je- sus Christ, what was I, that I could withstand God ? ' (Acts xi. 17.) When the invitation was given to the Lord's table — their Lord, as well as mine — I went for- ward and communed : and in similar circumstances, I must do the same thing again." "And they cast him out " (Jno. ix. 34), and that by an almost unanimous vote of the Church. And thenceforward, that good man, con- fessedly one of the best Christians they had among them, was to that Church " as a heathen man and a publican." (Matt, xviii. 17.) I will do that Church the justice to say, that they did not act hastily in this matter, under the influence of pas- sion suddenly aroused ; and that they took the course they did evidently with deep regret: and further, that Does Communion involve Approval of Errors ? G7 if the law of close communion be the law of the Church, I do not see how they could consistently have done any- thing else than what they did. But these admissions only bring up the c^uestion with greater distinctness, and urge its settlement with .greater power — Is this thing righl? Is close communion the law of Grod's house ? Nearly fifty years have elapsed since the incident re- lated above occurred, and during these years I have studied the question with care ; and to-day, I give the same answer I gave then : the thing is not right : Close communion is not the law of God's house. § 30. Does Sacramental Communion with a Church in- volve approval of its errors ? The principal ground upon which the Associate Re- formed justify their practice of close communion is, that open communion with other Churches involves approval of their errors : or, at the least, it destroys the force, and shackles the freedom of a faithful testimony to Christ and his truth. " The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error." {Prcsb. Coii. of Faith, Ch. xxv. §5.) This is true to-day ; it has been true in all the past, and it will be true as long as the Church exists on earth. Abundant proof of this is furnished by our Lord's exposi- tion of his parables, " the wheat and the tares," and " the drag net," (Matt, xiii.) ; together with the Epistles to the seven Churches in Asia, (Eev. iv. and iii.), not one of which was found perfect; whilst several of them are charged with serious errors in faith and practice. If, then, the principle stated above be a sound one, there is an end to all inter-communion between the several Churches which make up the Catholic Church visible. And further, if the principle be true in its application to Churches, I see no reason why it should not be equally true in its application to individual Christians. And then, until we can find a Church, none of whose members are fairly chargeable with error in faith or practice, there is an end to communion, altogether. But is the principle a sound one? 68 The Doctrine of the Lord's Supper. Let the reader notice that the question under examina- tion does not concern communion in general, but commu- nion in the Lord's Supper alone. The Associate Reformed hold communion freely with other Presbyterians in public prayer, in preaching the Gospel, and in many other good works. It is only communion in the Lord's Supper they refuse. The Lord's Supper is a sacrament in which truth and duty are set forth in symbol. Truth can be set forth in symbol as certainly and as definitely as in writing, and a fair construction requires us to understand the commu- nion implied in the joint celebration of such a rite to be limited by the symbolic record which the rite contains. On this principle Paul decides a case submitted to him by the Church at Corinth. "If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go, whatever is set before you, eat, asking no questions, for conscience' sake : but if any man say unto you. This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not." (1 Cor. x. 27, 28.) " The Apostle here resolves a case of conscience, viz. : A Pagan invites his Christian neighbor to an entertainment. — May he lawfully accept the invitation ? The inviter sustains a three-fold character, — as a host, as an infidel, and as an idolater. Thus situated, he asks his Christian friend to eat with him. What shall I do ? Go, says the Apostle, if you be so inclined. But how shall I conduct myself with regard to my food ; as in all probability some of the dishes will be made up of flesh which has been sacrificed to idols ? Eaise no scruples, rejoins the Apostle. You were invited to dine ; you go to dine. Your communion with your host is neither in his infidelity, nor in his idola- try; but simply in his dinner. What, if part of the din- ner has been offered to idols ? That is no concern of yours. The creature is in itself good ; it is God's crea- ture : it was granted to you for food ; its blood having been shed before an idol's altar injures the flesh no more than if it had been shed in the slaughter-house. You have nothing to do with it but as meat. Eeceive it with thank- fulness and ask no questions. But if my host should tell me, this meat is a sacrifice to his idol-god? the case is entirely altered. There is a new condition introduced. Docs Communion involve Approval of Errors ? 69 You arc now invited to fellowsliip not only in meat, but in idolatry also. Your course is plain. Eat not. Not a mouthful ; or you are a partaker in your neighbor's sin." " The doctrine of the Apostle relieves us at once from the difficulty started by the objection under review, and furnishes us with a sure and easy rule of conscience in re- gard to Church-fellowship, viz. : ' No particular^ act of Communion is to be interpi'eted as reaching beyond itself, unless it be coupled with other acts by an express or known condition.' If, therefore, I sit down at the table of the Lord in another Church, or receive one of her mem- bers to that holy table in my own, neither my act nor his can fairly be construed as more than an act of communion in ' the body and blood of the Lord.' Neither of us has by virtue of that act, anything to do with the defects of our respective churches in other matters." (/. M. Masons Works, vol. i., pp. 297-299.) One of the errors, practically the chief error, with which the Associate Reformed charge what is known as " the Presbyterian Church " in the United States, is its use in its public worship of hymns and metrical composi- tions other than " the Psalms of David," i. e., Rouse's Version of those Psalms. I speak of this as, practically, the chief error charged, since these churches, adopting the same " Confession of Faith," and substantially the same " Form of Government," have for many years, at times, been consulting about organic union, and this question of psalmody has proved the chief obstacle in way of such union. Let the reader now turn to §28, and notice the extent of the symbolic record of truth con- tained in the Lord's Supper, and he will see' that the question respecting psalmody, is not referred to in that rite in the remotest way. The Lord's Supper was ob- served in the Church more than fifteen hundred years before Rouse was born, — and more than a thousand years before the language Cmodern English) in which his version of David's Psalms is given had an existence. Granting, now, that in this matter Presbyterians are in error ; one of the Associate Reformed in communing in a Presby- terian church cannot be considered as countenancin. 219.) Of course, when baptism is mentioned, as above, Chris- tian baptism is intended, — and not some one or other of the " divers w%ashings " {Gr. baptis-ynois, E.eh. ix. 10). of the Old Testament dispensation ;— and so understanding the matter, we take issue with these writers, — and point them to the case of the twelve communicants present when the Lord's Supper was instituted. Not one of thera had ever received Christian baptism. Christian baptism was not instituted until after Christ's resurrection. The twelve 80 The Doctrine of the Lords Supper. were members of the Jewish Church, v/hich was the true visible Church at the time, and until it consummated its apostacy in the crucifixion of the Lord, and they were members of that church in virtue of their circumcision in infancy. [For a full examination of this point, the reader is referred to " The Doctrine of Baptisms," §52.) They had made a credible profession of personal faith in Christ, by their public obedience to his call to " forsake all and follow him," — and on these grounds the Master calls them to his table. In so doing our Lord occupied the very ground occupied by the Presbyterian Church to-day, 3. Prof. Curtis writes — " Those who knowingly receive this ordinance (the Lord's Supper) without baptism, act contrary to . . . the instituted relation of the symbols," — and Dr. Hiscox — " Baptism necessarily precedes the communion as a qualification for its privileges." (1) What are the great truths symbolized in the two sacraments of the New Testament Church ? We answer, —The sani) great truths which were symbolized in the two classes of rites, purifications and sacrifices, established in the Old Testament Church ; and these truths are Eegeneration and Atonement. Christian baptism, is in its essential nature, but a rite of purification, i. e., of con- sacration to God's service, (See Doctrine of Baptisms, ch. ii.), and the Lord's Supper, not only commemorates the one only true, atoning sacrifice, but is of the nature of " a feast on a sacrifice." (See §24.) Now, these two truths stand in no such relation the one to the other, that the reception of the one necessarily precedes the reception of the other. (2) If we turn from the symbolism of these sacraments to their nature: — They are both alike seals of "the covenant. of grace ; " — but of that covenant under different forms. Baptism, which in Scripture is styled " the cir- cumcision of Christ" (Col. ii. 11,) or Christian circumcision, is the .seal of that covenant in its Abrahamic form ; — the form in which Grod revealed it when he established a Church visible in the world distinct from the family, — and for this reas.on it is appropriate that it should. serve as the initiatory rite of that church. The Lord's Supper is the Walking/ Disorderly. '81 seal of the Covenant of Grace in the form of what our Lord styles " the New Testament " (covenant). The New Covenant is a revelation of the Covenant of Grace in the fullness of its purposes and provisions of grace for lost men, and so, it is appropriate that it should bo constantly- kept in mind in this form by the Christian, as it is by his frequent attendance at the Lord's table. That there is a special propriety in the established order of the Church, that baptism shall precede the Lord's Supper, we freely concede ; — but that it must, in all instances and necessarily precede, no thoughtful man can venture to affirm, Avithout express Scriptural direction — and this Dr. Hiscox admits is wanting — who remembers how much God has conceded to *' the hardness of men's hearts," (Matt. xix. 8,) and the blindness of their understandings ; especially in mattera which concern the external frame-work and ordinances of the Church visible. § 33. 2 Thess. iii. 6-15. Walking disorderly. " Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradi- tion which he received of us. For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us ; for we behaved not ourselves dis- orderly among you. Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought wnth labor and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you : Not because we had not power, but to make ourselves an example unto you to follow us. For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which w^alk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busy-bodies. . Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. But ye brethren, be not weary in well-doing. And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." (2 Thess. iii. 6-15.) 82 The Doctrine of the Lord's Supper. Dr. Hiscox writes — " The reason why Baptist churches do not invite immersed members of Pedo-baptist churches to their communion is, because such persons, though they have been Scripturally baptized, yet, by continuing in a church which practices sprinkling for baptism, thus put- ting a human device in the place of an ordinance of Christ, they are thereby walking dAsorderhj as to Gospel truth and Gospel ordinances, and are not entitled to the privi- leges of the Supper." {Baptist Church Directory, p. 226.) The above quotation is a fair specimen of a class of passages, more or less numerous, in the writings of the ad- vocates of Close Communion, in which they virtually appeal, though not formally, to 2 Thess. iii. 6-15, as furnishing scriptural authority for refusiiig to commune with those whom they are constrained to admit are good Christians, members of what they grant are Christian churches, but who in doctrine or practice differ more or less seriously from them. Thus, in Dr. Hiscox's use of the phrase, walking disorderly consists, not in having no church membership, or not walking worthy of that membership ; not, even in failing to be immersed, and so rightly baptized, but only in holding membership in a Pedo-baptist Church. Dr. Hiscox says " the conditions or prerequisites to the Communion are these: 1. Conversion; 2. Baptism,; 3. A godly life." (Baptist Church Directory, p. 224). By his own showing, according to Baptist practice, there is a fourth, viz.: w>alking orderly, which means, being a member of a Baptist Church. The Doctor would not like to state it in these words ; but we submit the question to the reader — Is not this a fair construction of his words? If the reader will examine the whole passage, — and we have quoted it fully — he will see, that the disorderly walking of which the Apostle speaks is a moral dehnquen- cy ; whilst able-bodied, working not at all, but living upon the labor of others, and so, naturally becoming a busybody, or intermeddler in other men's matters. This conduct the Apostle most emphatically condemns, repeating the rule before laid down, that " if any man would not work, ueither should he eat." On the word which Paul uses here [dis- orderly, Gr. ataktos, occurring in the aSTew Testament only P radical Views. 83 here and iu 1 Tliess. v. 14, where it is rendered "unruli/") McKnight has this note, — "ataktos,is a military term, and signifies those who break their ranks, or desert their post, so that they cannot perform their duty as soldiers, especially in battle. It is fitly used to denote those who neglect the proper duty of their office or station." {Mo- Xnight on 1 Thess. v. 14.) Now it is true that the English phrase " walking dis- orderlt/" may mean — often does mean, failing to come up to the Scripture standard, respecting doctrine and ordi- nances, in one's life, but the phrase " ataktos penpatountos " (walking disorderly) has not this meaning as used by Paul, and will not bear this meaning according to the usage of the Greek language. In the use of this phrase, impliedly as a quotation of Scripture, as the advocates of Close Communion frequently use it, and as furnishing Scripture authority for their course ; we have a striking instance of that jugglery with words, by which the Scriptures are sometimes made to teach a lesson utterly at variance with their whole spirit and doctrine. § 34. Practical Views. In considering such questions as that of Communion in the Lord's Supper, it is always well to look at them practically, as they apply to the every-day occurrences of the Chris- tian life in the world. All will agree that the sacraments were given of God to his Church as precious means of grace; and further, that when rightly used they do strengthen the faith, and increase the love and develop the whole Christian character of the participant. Thus it will be seen that members of the church have rights with re- spect to these sacraments, as well as the Church to whose administratiofi Christ has committed them. The law which determines the members' right to claims and the Churches' right to grant or refuse them is the law which Christ has laid down. In the case of the Lord's Supper, the conditions which Christ has prescribed by his example and in his word are two — and only two — viz. : (1) Membership in his visible Church, and (2) A credible profession of personal faith. 84 The Doctrine of the Lord's Sapper. Let the reader now recall the case quoted from Dr. Mason's Works in § 29. "Had the young woman there mentioned a right to a place at the Lord's Table in Dr. Mason's church? We answer unhesitatingly — Yes. And that church did her a cruel wrong in refusing her modest request. The Associate Reformed will admit that the Dutch Church is as truly a Church of Christ as their own: — and further, that the young woman's good standing in her own church, was all the evidence of a credible profession of faith on her part they had a right to demand. They refused, without any sufficient reason therefor, a cup more precious than "a cup of cold water," to a thirsty disciple, and this when the cup was asked in the Master's name. Dr. Mason states the question under examination thus — " The sacramental table is spread. I approach and ask for a seat. You say, No. Do you dispute my Christian character and standing ? Not in the least. Why, then am I refused? You do not belong to our church. Your church ! What do you mean by your church ? Is it any- thing more than a branch of Christ's church? Whose table is this? Is it the Lord's table, or youi^s ? If yours, and not his, I have done. But if it is the Lord's, where did you acquire the power of shutting out from its mercies any one of his people ? I claim my seat under my Master's grant. Show me your warrant for interfering with it. Methinks it should require a stout heart to encounter such a challenge : and that the sturdiest sectarian upon earth, not destitute of the fear of God, should pause and tremble before he ventured upon a final repulse. The language of such an act is very clear and daring. You have, indeed, Christ's invitation to his table; but you have not mine. And without mine, his shall not avail. Most fearful! Christ Jesus says, do this in remembrance of me. His servant rises to obey his command; and a feUow-servant, acting in the name of that Christ Jesus, under the oath of God, interposes his veto, and says — You shall not. Whose soul does not shrink and shudder?" {Mason's Works, Vol. I, pp. 20, 21.) Turn we, now, to the other case stated in § 29 — viz., the case of a good old man excommunicated by his own Practical Views. 85 church, for communing with Presbyterians. As already said — so long as close communion remains the law of a Baptist Church, we do not see how that church could have acted otherwise than they did : — but this admission only brings back the question with the greater distinctness — Is that law the law of God's house ? Is not that law in viola- tion of "our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus?" (Gal. ii. 4) — =a liberty for which Paul contended so zealously. What was this good man's offence? Was it anything else than refusing to have " his liberty judged of another man's conscience ? " (1 Cor, x. 29.) And is the guilt of such an offence — if it be an offence — such that it deserves the same punishment as lying and stealing ? Can a law be right when it compels a Church to treat one of its oldest and best members as " a heathen man, and a publican ? " (Matt. xviii. 17.) As we think of that old man's wron^, for we believe that he suffered a grievous wrong at the hands of his brethren, we feel like asking, in the words of another — " Who art thou, sinful flesh, escaped by thy master's grace from the damnation of hell, that darest — yes — darest, to shut out from the consolations of thy master's table, for such a reason, one whom thou acknowledgest to be the object of his love?" PART II. THE MASS. " The word Mass has been variously explained, but is almost uni- versally, at the present day, assumed to come from the words used in dismission of the congregation : ' Ite, Missa est.' " Go, the congregation is dismissed." First; the unconverted hearers were dismissed, and then the catechumens, the baptized faithful only remaining for the Com- munion service. Hence there was in the early Church a ' missa infi- delium' a ' missa catechumenorum,' and finally, a ' missa fidelium.' There seems to have been a different service adapted to these several classes of hearers. Hence the word ' missa ' came to be used in the sense of the Greek word leitourgia, or service. As under the Old Testament the offering of sacrifices was the main part of the temple service, so in the Christian Church, when the Lord's Supper was regarded as an expiatory offering, it became the middle point in public worship, and was called emphatically the service, or mass. Since the Reformation this has become universal as the designation of the eu- charist as celebrated in the Church of Rome. {Sodge's Theology, vol. iii., p. G14.) THE MASS. CHAPTER I. TRANSUBSTANTIATION. J3o. Transubstantiation defined. g36. Transubstantiafion Irreconcilable with the Testimony of the Senses. g3V. Lord Buckingham and the Priest. §33. The Testimony of the Senses, and not "reason and common sense." g:.9. The test of Cliemical Analysis. §40. The Senses sometimes deceive us. g41. Transubstantiation not a Miracle. §42. God's estimate of the Testimony of the Senses. Conclusions. § 35. Transubstantiation defined. " And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared " that which he offered under the species of bread to be " truly his body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in " the "Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now de- " clare it anew, that by the consecration of the bread and " wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the " bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, " and of the whole substance of the wine into the sub- " stance of his blood, which conversion is, by the holy " Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transub- " stantiation." — Council of Trent, Session XIII. Ch. IV. " When in the natural order, the form of a being is " changed, that change may be properly termed ' a " transformation ; ' in like manner, when, in the sacra- " ment of the Eucharist, the whole substance of one thing " passes into the whole substance of another, the change " our predecessors in the faith wisely and appropriately, " called ' transubstantiation.' But according to the ad- 91 92 The Doctrine of the Lords Supper. " monition so freg^uently repeated by the Holy Fathers, " the faithful are to be admonished against the danger " of gratifying a prurient curiosity, by searching into the " manner in which this change is effected. It mocks the " powers of conception, nor can we find any example of it " in natural transmutations, not even in the wide range " of creation. The change itself is the object not of our " comprehension, but of our humble faith ; and the man- " ner of that change forbids the temerity of a too curious " inquiry." — Oatechism of the Council of Trent, p. 163. " The Oatholic Church, then, firmly believes, and openly " professes that in this Sacrament, the words of consecra- " tion accomplish three things ; first, that the true and " real body of Christ, the same that was born of the " Virgin, and is now seated at the right hand of the " Father in heaven, is rendered present in the Holy " Eucharist ; secondly, tjiat however repugnant it may " appear to the dictate of the senses, no substance of the " elements remains in the Sacrament ; and thirdly, a " natural consequence from the two preceding, and one " which the words of consecration also express, that the " accidents which present themselves to the eyes, or other " senses, exist in a wonderful and ineffable manner with- " out a subject. The accidents of bread and wine we see ; *' but they inhere in no substance, and exist independently " of any. The substance of the bread and wine is so " changed into the body and blood of our Lord, that they, '' altogether, cease to be the substance of bread and " wine." — Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. 156. " The ministers who offer this sacrifice — i. e., the sacri- " fice of the Mass — consecrate the holy mysteries, not in " their own, but in the person of Christ, This the words " of consecration declare. The priest does not say, " This - " is the body of Christ," but, " This is my body ; " and " thus invested with the character of Christ, he changes the " substance of the bread and wine into the substance of his " real body and blood." Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. 175. "Priests .and bishops . . . are the representatives of " God upon earth. . , It is impossible, therefore, to conceive - Transuhstantiaiion Defined. 93 " a more exalted dignity, or functions more sacred. Just- " ly, therefore, are they called not only angels, (Mai. ii. 7,) '' but gods, (Ps. Ixxxii. 6,) holding, as they do, the place " and power and authority of God on earth. But the " priesthood, at all times ah elevated -office, transcends, in " the new law, all others in dignity. The power of conse- " crating and offering the body and blood of our Lord, "and of remitting sin, with which the priesthood of the " new law is invested, is such as cannot be comprehended " by the human mind, still less is it equalled by, or as- " similated to, anything on earth." Catechism of the Coimcil of Trent, p. 212. \ From the extracts given abovejfrom " The Canons and Decrees of the Council of TrenZ^^nd " The Catechism" of that Council, it will be seen — 1. That transubstantiation is not a simple change or transformation of one thing into another ; — such, for ex- ample, as that effected by our Lord, when he changed water into wine, at Cana, in Galilee. In that instance, the change affected the "accidents " as well as "the sub- stance ; " the wine produced had the color, and odor, and taste of wine ; the color and odor and taste of the water had disappeared along with its substance. The change was a complete change. One thing had taken the place of the other. In contrast with this, in the case of the tran- substantiated wine of the Eucharist, the accidents, — the color and odor and taste of wine remain, " but they in- here in no substance, and exist independently of any;" i. e., they are the color and odor and taste of — nothing. Whilst the blood of Christ, which has been produced, is naked substance without sensible accidents ; i. e», it has no color nor odor nor taste. The Catechism of the Coun- cil of Trent teaches truly, that transubstantiation " mocks the power of conception, nor can we find any example of it in natural transmutations, not even in the wide range of creation." 2. That transubstantiation is accomplished by the priest, through a mysterious power conferred upon him in his ordination, in consequence of which he is enabled to act " in the person of Christ, . . . holding the place and 94 The Doctrine of the Lord's Supper. power and authority of God on earth; " a power " such as cannot be comprehended by the human mind, still less equalled by, or assimilated to anything on earth." § 36. Transuhstantiation irreconcilable with the testimony of the senses. That the fact of transuhstantiation, if it be a fact, is irreconcilable with the testimony of our senses, is freely admitted by P^-omish writers. In the Catechism of the Council of Trent we read : — " The pastor, aware of the awful denunciation of the Apcs- " tie against those who discern not the body of the Lord, - " (1 Cor. xi. 29) will, first of all, impress on the minds of " the faithful, the necessity of detaching, as much as pos- " sible, their minds and understandings from the domin- " ion of the senses ; for were they, with regard to this " sublime mystery, to constitute the senses the only tri- " bunal to which they are to appeal, the awful conse- " quence must be, their precipitation into the extreme of " impiety. Consulting the sight, the touch, the smell, the " taste, and finding nothing but the appearances of bread " and wine, the senses must naturally lead them to think, " that this sacrament contains nothing more than bread " and wine. Their minds, therefore, are as much as possi- " ble to be withdrawn from subjection to the senses, and " excited to the contemplation of the stupendous power of " God " (p. 156.) In Bishop Verot's " Short Catechism, on the basis adopted by the First Plenary Council of Baltimore," we read — ' " Q. Is it not bread and wine that are first put upon " the altar, for the celebration of Mass ? " A. Yes ; it is always bread and wine till the priest " pronounces the words of Consecration during the Mass. " Q. What happens by these words ? " A. The bread is changed into the body of Jesus " Christ, and the wine into his blood. " Q. Do you believe this firmly ? " A. Yes ; and as firmly as if I saw it with my eyes, "because Jesus Christ has said it." {p. 15.) Lord Backingham and the Priest. 95 The testimony of the bodily senses, if the man be sane and in health, respecting matters which come properly within the domain of the senses, is universally received as decisive in all the ordinary affairs of life; and if that testimony be clear and distinct, a sworn jury will take a man's life upon its trustworthiness. Dr. C. Hodge re- marks, truly,—" Disbelief of our senses, involves disbelief in him who is the author of our nature, and of the laws which are impressed upon it. There is no more complete and destructive infidelity than the want of faith in the veracity of consciousness, whether it be the consciousness of our sense perceptions, or of the truths involved in our rational, moral, or religious nature." [Hodge's Theology, vol. Hi. p. 684.) § 37. Lord Buckingham and the Priest. How irreconcilable transubstantiation is with the testi- mony of the senses, is illustrated in the following story told of the celebrated Lord Buckingham : " On a certain occasion Lord Buckingham was confined to his couch ; and as the priests were very anxious to make a convert of him, he proposed to amuse himself at their expense. He therefore yielded to the entreaties of those around him, and consented to receive a confessor. This man proceeded to address the witty noble on the subject of repentance, and death, and the sacraments. But he disregarded all that was said in the most studied manner ; affecting a sort of wandering or imbecility of mind. Holding a cork in his hand, he spoke of it as his favorite horse, patting its sides and stroking its mane, till the confessor, pitying the state of his mind, spoke to him on the subject. He assured him that it was not his horse, but only a cork. The other insisted that it was indeed his horse, and begged him to observe its noble neck, its beautiful head, its flow- ing mane, its finely-formed limbs, its splendid action ! Still the good chaplain persevered, and argued with him, to the effect that if he would only look at it, he might see that it was not like a horse, but only a cork, — that if he would only feel it, he might perceive that it was not a '96 The Doctrine of the Lord's Supper. horse, but only a cork, — that if he would smell it, he might smell that it was not a horse, but only a cork, — that if he would taste it he might at once perceive that it did not taste like a horse, but only a cork. The other seemed struck by this process of argument, and gave way, confessing that he might have been deceived by some one who had told him that it was his horse, and whom he had hastily believed without due consideration. He now was convinced that it was only a cork. The confessor having succeeded thus far, continued his religious exhortations, and in the end, proposed administering to him the Holy Sacrament, to which he at once assented. Everything was soon arranged ; and the confessor gave him the con- secrated host. He asked him what it was ? The confessor answered it was the Lord Jesus Christ, — it was the body of God. This, exclaimed the merry wit, in affected aston- ishment, this Jesus Christ, — this the body of God ! It is only a little wafer of flour and water ! The good chaplain was shocked, and assured him that it was the body and blood of the Lord. The other then proceeded to argue with him, and said, he must be under some mental hal- lucination ; for if he would look at it he might see it was not like Jesus Christ, but only a wafer, — that if he would taste it, he would perceive that it was not like Jesus Christ, but only a little wafer, — that if he would only smell it, he would at once find that it was not like Jesus Christ, but was only a little piece of flour and water. And he assured the confessor that there could be no doubt that a man must be out of his senses who believed a thing so contrary to his senses. The confessor could only with- draw in despair." {Evenings with the Bomanists, pp. 345, 6.) §38. The testimony of the senses, and not " reason and common sensed Eomish writers have sought to break the force of this argument against transubstantiation by confounding the testimony of the senses with reason and common sense. Thus, Cardinal Wiseman writes, — " It is easy to talk of Tlic Tcdiniony of the Senses. 97 reason and common sense, and tlie laws which regulato bodies ; but when we come to introduce these matters into theology, and pretend to decide where they clash with a mystery, and where a mystery rides triumphant over them, we not only bring profane scales into the sanctuary, but we are mixing a dangerous ingredient with our faith," (Lectures on the Eiicliarist, ji. 241.) And Archbishop Gibbons writes, — " Is the Almighty not permitted to do anything except what we can sanction by our reason ? Is a thing to be declared impossible, because we cannot see its possibility ? ... Is not the Scripture full of in- comprehensible mysteries? Do you not believe in the Trinity, a mystery not only above, but apparently con- trary to reason ? Do you not admit the Incarnation, — that the helpless infant in Bethlehem was God ? I under- stand why Rationalists, who admit nothing above their reason, reject the Eeal Presence; but that Bible Chris- tians should reject it, is to me incomprehensible." [The Faith of our Fathers, pp. 333, 4.) Let the reader notice that the Protestant argument against transubstantiation is, — not that it is contrary to reason and common sense, but that it is irreconcilable with the explicit testimony of our senses, and that in a matter which comes properly within the domain of the senses. The mystery of the Trinity lies entirely without the domain of the bodily senses. They have nothing to say respecting its truth or its falsehood. With respect to the doctrine of the Incarnation, that " the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us," in so far as that doctrine comes properly within the domain of the bodily senses, their testimony is in perfect harmony with that doctrine. Men saw and handled and heard the man Christ Jesus, just as distinctly as they see and handle and hear any other man; — and even as to his Godhead, the bodily senses testified, indirectly, to its presence, as John writes — " We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father." (Jno. i. 14.) It is not because of tlie mystery of the doctrine, nor because we would limit the power of God by human rea- son, that we object to transubstantiation; but because it 5 98 The, Doctrine of the Lords Supper. is irreconcilable with the testimony of our bodily senses ; and this testimony is explicit, — it is the testimony of our senses in broad day-light, and when the organs of sense are in a healthy condition, — it is the concurrent testimony of the senses of all men alike, Romanists as well as Pro- testants,— it is the testimony of men of all countries and through all the ages in which Romish Priests, have been consecrating the wafer, — and all this, without one dis- sentient voice ; for never has there been found a sane Romanist, even in the darkest period of the dark ages, who pretended that the wafer looked, or smelt, or felt, or tasted to him like anything else than bread. § 39. The Test of Chemical Analysis. If in the examination of any body, we are led, for any reason, to distrust the competency of our senses to decide upon its nature, there are other means to which men are accustomed to turn, where science is brought in to aid the senses. For example, — I have a powder which has the color, odor, taste and hardness of poisonous white arsenic, and I have reason to suspect that this white powder has been used in effecting the death of some man. In a case like this, when the life of a fellow-man is in question; whilst I do not distrust the direct testimony of my senses, — so far as it goes — yet I want some further proof that my judgment founded upon that testimony is a correct one, before I am willing to act in a case so important as the one before me. In such circumstances, I take the white powder to a chemist, that he may examine it with the aid of all the means that science furnishes : — and when I have his decision, if I have confidence in his competency as a chemist, I receive that decision as finally settling the matter ; as a decision from which there ought to be no appeal. Let us adopt this course in the case before us ; for tliis is just one of those cases which comes properly within the range of the senses, and of the science of the analytic chemist, and where such a course seems altogether proper. I take the wafer, after consecration, and the clear and dis- The Test of Chemical Analysis. 99 tlnct testimony of my senses, — ^ testimony in which all the senses concur — is, that the wafer is bread. The E-oman- ist says — no — it is flesh — " the true and real body of Christ, the same that was born of the Virgin." If I reply, — it has the color, and odor, and taste, and feeling of bread, — he answers — the color, and odor, and taste, and feeling are those of bread, I acknowledge ; but this is one of the cases in which, if we " constitute the senses the only tri- bunal to which we are to appeal, the awful consequence must bo, our precipitation into the extreme of impiety." According to this statement, the matter at issue here, is not the mortal life of some fellow-man, but the everlasting life of my own soul. In such a case, while I may not dis- credit the testimony of my senses, yet, I naturally desire to have that testimony confirmed or set aside, by more unquestionable proof. I therefore take the wafer to a competent chemist for examination. In due time, I receive his report; and it is in substance as follows — Prelirainary Examination. (1) Determined its Specific Gravity. That of bread and not flesh. (2) Triturated it in a mortar. It was brittle and easily reduced to powder, like bread : — not tough, flattening out under the pestle, like flesh. (3) Exposed to a spirit-lamp, it burned with the flame and odor of bread, and not those of flesh. Analysis. (1) The result of a careful proximate analysis was, that the wafer was resolved into starch and vegetable gluten, as bread would have been : — and not into fibrine, and albumen, and fat, as flesh would have been. (2) The result of a careful ultimate analysis was, that the wafer was resolved into carbon, oxygen and hydrogen, with a little nitrogen, thus exhibiting the exact composi- tion of bread, and not that of flesh. (3) The proportions in which these several elements ex- isted in the wafer, indicate the exact atomic constitution of bread, and not flesh. 100 The Doctrine of the Lord's Swpjper. Conclusion. The wafer submitted to examination is bread, and not flesh. Signed A B Analytic Chemist, No Eomish Priest will venture to call in question the correctness of the statement given above, of the results of a chemical analysis of a consecrated wafer : — but he will discredit this proof that the wafer is bread and not flesh by saying, that all the peculiarities upon which the chemist bases his judgment, are, like color, odor, and taste, the ac- cidents of matter : — and these accidents, according to his doctrine as well as mine, are the accidents of bread. Let the reader carefully notice how far this Eomish doc- trine of " accidents " reaches; and if we mistake not, he will come to the conclusion that Rome teaches some strange phi- losophy as well as strange religion. In the category of acci- dents we must reckon, not only color, odor, feeling and taste, the peculiarities directly cognizable by the senses ; but specific gravity, mechanical constitution, chemical re- lations to heat and the atmosphere, chemical constitution both proximate and ultimate, and even atomic constitu- tion:— in fine, — in the category of accidents we must include everything by means of which we are accustomed to distinguish one material from another. If this be so, the conclusion seems inevitable, — either, (1) There is but one kind of material substance after all, — and then Transubstantiation, which is the change of one substance into another, is an impossibility — or, (2) If there are diflerent kinds of material substance, the fact is un- knowable by man; and so, Transubstantiation is an un- knowable reality. Perhaps, it was this latter conclusion the authors of the Catechism of the Council of Trent had in mind when they wrote respecting Transubstantiation — " It mocks the powers of conception, nor can we find any ex- ample of it in natural transmutations, not even in the wide range of creation." If we admitted the Romanist's repre- sentation of the nature of the consecrated wafer, we could freely endorse the above quoted statement respecting it : — Among all the creations of God, there is nothing like it The Senses corndimes Deceive us. 101 " in lioavon above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters " under the earth." § 40. The Senses sometimes deceive lis. The objection to Transubstantiation on the ground of the testimony of the senses is sometimes met, by referring to the fact that in certain cirqumstances, and in an abnormal condition, the bodily senses do deceive us, and hence in- ferring, most illogically, that in ordinary circumstances and in a healthy condition, they are not to be trusted. Dr. Milner writes, — " ' If we cannot believe our senses, the bishop says, wo can believe nothing.' This was a good popular topic for archbishop Tillotson, from vfliom it was borrowed, to flourish upon in the pulpit, but will UDt stand the test of Christian theology. It will undermine the incarnation itself. With equal reason the Jews said of Christ, ' Is not this the carpenter's son ? Is not his mother called Mary?' (Matt. xiii. 55.) Hence they concluded that he was not what he proclaimed him- self to be, the Son of God. In like maimer Joshua thought he saw a man; (Joshua v. 13.) And Jacob that he touched one; (Genesis xxxii. 24.) And Abraham, that he eat wdth three men ; (Gen. xviii.), when in all these in- stances there were no real men, but unbodied spirits, pre- sent; the diflferent senses of those patriarchs misleading them. Again, were not the eyes of the disciples, going to Emmaus, held so that they should not know Jesus ? (Luke xxiv. 16.) Did not the same thing happen to Mary Mag- dalene and the apostles ? (Jno. xx. 15.) But independently of Scripture, philosophy and experience show that there is no essential connection between our sensations and the objects which occasion them, and that, in fact, each of our senses frequently deceives us. How unreasonable then is it, as well as impious, to oppose their fallible testimony to God's infallible word." (The End of Controversy, p. 236.) Let us examine, briefly, these cases cited by Dr. Milnur: (1) "The Jews said. Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary ?" He was the carpenter's son, according to Jewish law. His mother was called Mary. Their senses did not deceive them in this matter. Our 102 The Doctrine of the Lord's Siqipzr. Lord's divinity was not directly cognizable by the senses ; and with their rejection of His claim to divinity their bodily senses had nothing to do. (2) In the case of the three patriarchs. — Where did Dr. Milner learn that the man Joshua saw, and the one Jacob wrestled with, and the three Abraham eat with Avere " but unbodied spirits ?" Certainly not from Scripture. The Scriptures say, — not, that Joshua " thought he saw a man," but " he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold there stood a man over against him with his sword drawii in his hand." According to the common opinion of the early Christian Fathers, this person was God the Son, assuming temporarily a human body, just as he afterward did permanently, in his incarnation. If Jacob only thought that he touched the man with whom he wrestled; he must have more than thought that the man touched him on the thigh, as his thigh was out of joint, and his thigh- sinew shrank, so that he halted upon his thigh afterwards. If Abraham only thought ho eat with the three men, he must have more than thought that they eat with him; for the inspired record is, " He took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat." (Gen. xviii. 8.) In all these instances, as in the case of the burning bush, burning but not consumed, God made his presence known to men through their bodily senses ; and their senses testified to the truth, and nothing but the truth. (3) In the case of the disciples going to Emmaus, the Scriptures say — '' Their eyes were holden that they should not knov) him." They saw him, he spake to them and they heard him, — their senses bore true testimony in both these particulars. All that the Scriptures say is that they did not recognize him ; and that this failure to recognize him was effected by the miraculous exercise of divine power. As to the last case cited ; is it any impeachment of the trustworthiness of the bodily senses, that the tear- dimmed eyes of Mary Magdalene did not recognize her Lord, when he first appeared to her as she sat weeping at his empty sepulchre ? Suppose the case of a trial for murder ; and that an Transuhstantiation not a Miracle. 103 iinimpoacliable witness comes forward, and testifies — I heard the prisoner at the bar, several days before the mur- der occurred, threaten the murdered man's Hfe ; and then, on such a day and at such a place I saw him stab the man. I saw the man fall under the blow, and after suffer- ing for a time, I saw him carried out a corpse. If in such circumstances, the prisoner's lawyer should plead in defense, that the senses sometimes deceive us ; and then should cite a number of unquestionable instances in which this was true, — would Dr. Milner consider such a plea as anything better than solemn trilling with the truth ? Would he entertain the idea for a moment of acquitting the prisoner on such ground as this? § 41. Transuhstantiation not a Miracle. Bomish writers often speak of Transuhstantiation as a miracle, analogous to the miracles recorded in the New Testament, and therefore as credible as they. Dr. Milner writes, — " I shall finish this letter with re- marking, that, as transuhstantiation, according to Bishop Cosin, was the first of Christ's miracles in changing water into wine ; so it may be said to be his last, during his mortal course, by changing bread and wine into his sacred body and blood." {The End of Controversy, p. 226): — And Cardinal Wiseman, when discussing the spirit and temper in which the apostles must have listened to the words of institution, as they fell from the lips of our Lord, writes; — "But there were some miracles still more calcu- lated to make them very timid in drawing the line between absolute impossibility to their Lord, and power over the received laws of nature. For instance, gravitation is one of the properties universally attributed to bodies, and is closely aUied, in reality and in conception with our notion of extension. Yet the apostles had seen the body of Jesus, for a time, deprived of this property, and able .to walk, without sinking, on the surface of the waters. They had seen him, in another instance, actually change one sub- stance into another. For at the marriage-feast at Cana, he had completely transmuted, or, if you please, transub- 104 The Doctrine of the LorcCs Supper. stantiated water into wine. It would require a very fine edge of intellect to distinguish in mind between the pos- sibility of making water become wine, and the impos- sibility of making wine become blood." {Lectures on the Eucharist, pp. 232, 3.) Is transubstantiation a mere " change or transmuting" of one thing into another, such as that our Lord effected when he changed water into wine at Cana ? By no means. (See § 35.) When our Lord changed water into wine, it was not the '' substance " alone, as distinct from the " acci- dents," which was changed ; but the whole thing, " sub- stance and accidents." After the change was wrought, the liquid did not possess the color, and odor, and taste of water, but the color, and odor, and taste of wine ; and of better wine than the company had been drinking before, as is evident from the words of the " governor of the feast, — thou hast kept the good wine until now." (Jno. ii. 10.) Had the change been a transubstantiation, — had the win3 miraculously produced possessed the color, and odor, and taste of water, the miracle would have afforded very little satisfaction to the guests. And this leads us to notice a principal characteristic of the miracles of our Lord : — They were all signs (semia) as well as miracles and wonderful works. Semeion is the word most frequently used by the sacred writers when speaking of this class of our Lord's works. In our Eng- lish Bible this word is often translated literally — sign, but not unfrequently translated miracle. In the very passage which records the change of the water into wine at Cana, " This beginning of miracles did Jesus " at Cana, the word in the original, rendered miracle, is semion. (Jno. ii. 11.) " It will perhaps be found " — writes Bishop Fitzgerald — " that the habitual use of the term miracle has tended to fix attention too much upon the physical strangeness of the facts thus described, and to divert attention from what may be called their signality. In reality, the practical importance of the strangeness of miraculous facts consists in this, that it is one of the circumstances which, taken together, make it reasonable to understand the phenomenon Transuhstantiation not a Miracle. 105 as a mark, seal, or attestation of the divine sanction to something else." [Smith's Dictionanj, Art. Miradc.) The Jews, and our Lord himself, constantly appeal to miracles, in their character of signs (semeia) as the proper attestation of his divine mission. " Then said they — the Jews — therefore unto him. What sign shewest thou then, that we may see and believe thee? " (Jno, vi. 30.) — "Jesus answered and said unto them ; Go show John again those things which ye do hear and see: The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them." (Matt. xi. 4, 5.) Leslie, in his "Short Method with the Deists," (p. 4,) lays down the following marks, among others, as charac- teristic of our Lord's miracles, and distinguishing them from those " reported of Mahomet and the heathen deities : — (1) That the fact was such as man's outward senses could judge of; and (2) That they were performed pub- hcly, in the presence of witnesses." And he writes — " These marks make it impossible for any false fact to be imposed upon men at the time when it was said to be done, because every man's senses would contradict it." Not only, then, from the word which the sacred writers most frequently use to designate the miracles of Christ, viz., the word scmion, a sign, a token, a seal ; but from our Lord's appeal to them as the divine attestation of .his mission, we conclude that it is essential to them that the change wrought should be obvious to the senses. Had our Lord transubstantiated the water into wine at Cana, so that to the guests that drank it, it still looked like water, it smelt like water, it tasted like water, would it have been any sign to them ? Or could the record have been made — "This beginning of miracles (semeia) did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and 7nanifested forth his glory ; and his disciples believed in him." (Jno. ii. 11.) Our Lord's miracles are all, evidently, intended to furnish the foundation for a rational faith through an appeal to the senses, whilst transuhstantiation, in contrast with this, appeals at once to man's faith, or, rather, credulity, in direct opposition to the testimony of his senses. Whilst 5* 106 The DoGtrine of the Lords Sujjper. then, in a loose and popular sense of the word miracle, — a sense in which it is used as equivalent to a wonderl'ul work — transubstantiation may be called a miracle; in the proper sense of the word, the sense in which it is luiiformly used in Scripture, and the only sense in which it ought to be used in theological controversy, it is not a miracle, and that name should never be given it. § 42. God's Estimate of the Testimony of the Senses. God attested the divine character and mission of Christ Jesus by means of evidence which appealed directly to man's bodily senses. Hence John writes, near the close of his gospel, — " And many other signs {semeia) truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book : but these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ; and that believ- ing ye might have life through his name." (Jno. xx. 30,31.) And he opens his first Epistle with the declaration, — " That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life ; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us ; ) that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us ; and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." (1 John i. 1-3.) In his words — "which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, {" which we have diligently looked upon," Douay Bible) and our hands have handled of the Word of life," the Apostle cites this concurrent testimony of the different bodily senses, as affording the clearest possible proof of the facts to which they bear testimony, — that upon which his own faith rested, — that upon which he would have Christians everywhere to rest their faith. When " John sent two of his disciples, and said unto him ; Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another ? Jesus answered and said, Go show John again those things Conclusions. 107 which ye do hear and see : The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached unto them." (Matt. xi. 2-5.) Thus declaring his miracles {semcia), in all of which the appeal was to the bodily senses, to be God's attestation of his divine char- acter and mission. Our Lord, Christ Jesus, appealed to the testimony of the senses, when he \'?ould settle the faith of his disciples. " And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them. Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and aftrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spu'it. And he said unto them. Why are ye troubled ? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts ? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself, handh me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and blood, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken he shewed them his hands and his feet." (Luke xxiv. 36-40). "And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas was with them. Then came Jesus, the door being shut, and stood in the midst, and said. Peace be unto you. Then said he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side ; an