: = 2 am oir Wa ee aie ~ ens ote Se ) th ‘ivi . ¥ Ae il cA i ; ‘ Silat 22D Salts wh Marrs Lie %ekt sie tee ox | . ; : 7 See SMeetrathe re SRW posit ete ae Se A 7 Naa, Foe - . - . A TA 4 aaa ere: Leyva 9 nin Rinibnnid-aemlinie Sener tes ere. Ma ee oe 2 Sessa tps Naty ee LIED be Se A Suita nh ene mat van + Reo) eae ea y pine conti GS \ aan ANG. We - ; a5 agAt 2. Pe! TSS re fg . ¥ en 7 aS Fab +o *., bed a a ut PEELS Nie eh tae ket % eS Ay" E yt of sad 1 i? coca ~ A sam a gh nr rh TN Se Sse ue Lk 238 ty va wernt yan ‘ at ty ey ee: AACN ale A 2 : Haier ae Pint ears Sree ears eC . A ae ig st hee eT rah Talia! oy Dae eit) nee Ce ma ‘ - . 4 : Serer. ‘Set! ak aN ote ener os, OES. vi cok” PITS Soclbe 1s aak catieaiabart be Lag) abel relied ay MRM oar haat a Sl ai ha aT Ee kaka aie TTS a AO a aan ae a MIE mace ae creme fa Saeed See ESET TMT TUT APTI EROTE RIT NIL tea alle Pree LN a a i Latta a eR ol ata age tear = 4, “ ‘ ~"* eras" ses et tre Se. i M4 ly “ fom me, AP ee aia bee rk bill cae WaT rare ‘ le ewiprestepnes, eres ‘ey ‘elydjopejiug Jo Maudy janwes “i Aq pajuasalg \ - ‘e N ‘NOLHONIUd ‘ | ty i ann s eaGoyoayp, W > | Se ee : es an. ti) | 1 com ' f ‘ te ¥ 5) M4 “h a Nets and Uniform Evition. THE CONGREGATIONAL LECTURE. TENTH SERIES, ——$——_—___—_. ON THE SACRAMENTS. BY THE REV. 8. HALLEY, D.D. LONDON: REED AND PARDON, PRINTERS, PATERNOSTER ROW, THE SACRAMENTS. ANN OER ¥ INTO THE NATURE OF THE SYMBOLIC INSTITUTIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, USUALLY CALLED THE SACRAMENTS. A BY ROBERT’ HALLEY, D.D. PART I. Second Edition. LONDON: JACKSON AND WALFORD, 18, ST, PAUL’S CHURCHYARD. MDCCCLIY,. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2008 with funding from Microsoft Corporation httops://archive.org/details/sacramentsinquir10hall Aaa sprrralY OF ty A a: f ai} ( N ~ A cn VOX PREFACH. In preparing a Second Edition of the Lectures on the Sacraments, although Ihave made many alterations which, I trust, may be called corrections, I have introduced no new matter, as I wished the book to be substantially the same as it appeared in the first edition. A few statements have been modified ; one or two arguments omitted ; some unkind phrases softened, and others suppressed, with no small regret that they ever escaped me in the heat of con- troversy. On the most careful review of these Lectures, after having attentively read what has been written in opposition to them, I can see no reason to abandon any principle for which I have contended, nor to modify any important argument by which it has been maintained. To divide the course more equally, I have reserved the Lecture on the subjects of Christian Baptism for the second volume, as, in publishing a cheap edition of the Congrega- . vl PREFACE. tional Lectures in a serial form, it is necessary that the volumes should be of a uniform price, and, therefore, as nearly as possible of the same size. Ropert HAt.ey. PrymoutH Grove, MANcHESTER, September, 1854. CONTENTS. LECTURE I. PAGE ON THE TERM “SACRAMENT,” AND THE SEVERAL INSTITUTIONS TO WHICH IT HAS BEEN APPROPRIATED . . . ° = . . . . ] AppEnpDix A.—The difference between the Ancient Discipline and the Romish Sacrament of Penance . . : ‘ & 4780 Appendix B.—Unction not the Sacrament of the Dying : Pe) APPENDIX C.—On the Service of the Synagogue, as affecting the Institutions of the Christian Church 4 : i : Ay LECTURE II. ON THE PERPETUITY AND DESIGN OF THE SACRAMENTS . . : Aad LECTURE III. ON THE JEWISH BAPTISM OF PROSELYTES . Z s : 4 nos LECTURE IV. ON JOHN’S BAPTISM . ; 8 ‘ : : : s ‘ ; . 130 AppEenpDIx A.—Mr. Faber’s Citations from the Fathers on the Sacramental Identity of Circumcision and Baptism : . 164 AppenDIx B.—Eulogius of Alexandria on John’s Baptism . . 168 vill CONTENTS. LECTURE V. PAGE ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION - : : . ° ° . . pay | Appenpix A.—The Anachronisms involved in the Reasoning of those who maintain the Doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration . 225 Apprnpix B.—On the word “Regeneration” in the New Testament 226 Apprnprx C.—Passages from Justin Martyr . : : : . 227 LECTURE VI. ON THE MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM : ; : - d . . 231 Appenpix.—On the principal points in this Lecture-as they are affected by the Reasoning of Dr. Carson, in his work, entitled “ Baptism in its Mode and Subjects ” 5 “ : : . B42 THE SACRAMENTS. PANT? LECTURE I. ON. THE TERM ‘ SACRAMENT, AND THE SEVERAL INSTITUTIONS TO WHICH IT HAS BEEN APPROPRIATED. “And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the Lord’s law may be in thy mouth.” Exodus xiii. 9. “Sacramentum dicitur sacrum signum, sive sacrum secretum. Multa se quidem fiunt propter se tantum, alia vero propter alia designantur, et ipsa dicuntur signa, et sunt. Ut enim de usualibus sumamus exemplum, datur annulus absoluté propter annulum, et multa est significatio: datur ad investiendum de hereditate aliqua et signum est; ita ut jam dicere possit, qui accipit; annulus non valet quicquam, sed hereditas est quam querebam. Ad hoe instituta sunt omnia sacramenta.” St. Bernard. Sermo I. in Cena Domini. Ox commencing these Lectures, I am somewhat per- plexed in attempting to form such a definition of a sacra- ment, as will include Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and exclude every other ordinance of the Christian religion. To show what these ordinances have in common, so as to entitle them to be classified under one term, is more than I can do, or can find already done to my satisfaction. Were I to adopt the very comprehensive definition of St. Augustine, who says that “a sacrament is the visible sign of a sacred thing,” I should include within the compass Be B 2 ON THE TERM SACRAMENT. of these terms many things which are not by Protestants, nor even by Catholics, debominstal sacraments. That baptism and the Lord’s supper have usually been com- prised under one generic term, has, I believe, been the occa- sion of some serious error, and of much illogical reason- ing; as many persons, assuming the correspondence between them, have confidently reasoned from the ac- knowledged character of one ordinance to the disputable points of the other. Yet, as I propose to lecture on what are generally called The Sacraments, it will be ex- pected that I state what I mean by the term; while, through the discussion, I guard against the fallacy of assuming a coincidence in things that differ, because they are, for mere convenience, included in a common designa- tion. It would be in vain to consult the New Testament for any exposition of a sacrament. In a book that has so little of systematic formulary, no term is employed to comprise the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s sup- per, or to designate their connexion or coincidence. Nor can the exact definition be obtained from the records of ecclesiastical antiquity ; for, although the Greek fathers called both baptism and ‘the endhanic mysteries, as the Latins called them sacraments, innumerable other things are also in their writings called mysteries or sacraments. If it be asked, how many sacraments were acknowledged by the church of the second or the third century, we can only reply that, in the latitude in which the word was then used, almost every religious ordinance or sacred emblem was called a sacrament. Although the Romish church acknowledges seven sacraments, yet her authorised definition is not inapplicable to baptism and the Lord’s supper, as those rites are regarded by the English and the Lutheran chureh. In the Tridentine Gatechaiat, a sacrament is defined to.be ‘a sensible thing, which, by ON THE TERM SACRAMENT. 5) Divine appointment, hath the power of causing, as well as of signifying, holiness and righteousness.” * The form of instruction known as the Catechism of Heidelberg, drawn up for the reformed church of the Palatinate, and generally adopted by the Calvinists of Ger- many, contains the following definition :— “‘ What are the Sacraments ? “They are holy visible signs and seals, ordained by God for this end, that he may more fully declare and seal by them the promise of his Gospel unto us; to wit, that not only unto all believers in general, but unto each of them in particular, he freely giveth remission of sins and life eternal, upon the account of that only sacrifice of Christ, which he accomplished upon the cross.” The precise doctrine of this answer seems to be, that & sacrament is an assurance to the person who worthily receives it of the blessings of the covenant of grace. To the same import is the definition of the Church of Scot- land, in her larger Catechism :—‘“ A Sacrament is a holy ordinance, instituted by Christ in his church, to signify, seal, and exhibit, unto those within the covenant of grace, the benefits of his mediation ; to strengthen and increase their faith, and all other graces; to oblige them to obedi- ence; to testify and cherish their love and communion one with another; and to distinguish them from those that are without.” In the twenty-fifth Article of ithe Chureh of England, it is said, ‘Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good-will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our faith in him.” Some theological writers speak of the sacraments as federal rites, by which we formally and ayowedly accept * Catech, Trident. Part 2, n. 10, 4 ON THE TERM SACRAMENT. the covenant of grace, and append our seals to it. With many writers both of the Church of England and of the Nonconformists, the sacraments are represented as seals in respect both of God’s assurance to us, and of our en- gement with him. Thus Burnet, in his Exposition of the Articles, says, ‘‘In the new dispensation, though our Saviour has eased us of that law of ordinances, that griev- ous yoke, and those beggarly elements, which were laid upon the Jews, yet, since we are still in the body, subject to our senses and to sensible things, he has appointed some federal actions to be both the visible stipulations and professions of our Christianity, and the conveyances to us of the blessings of the Gospel.” Dr. Ridgeley says, ‘Ihe sacraments are God’s seals, as they are ordi- nances given by him for the confirmation of our faith, that he would be our covenant God; and they are our seals, as we set our seals thereunto when we visibly profess that we give up ourselves to him to be his people, and in the exercise of a true faith, look to be partakers of the benefits which Christ hath purchased according to the terms of the covenant.” Doddridge, but more cautiously, as he was wont, says,* “Those rites of the Christian in- stitution, which were intended to be solemn tokens of our accepting the Gospel covenant, peculiar to those who did so accept it, and to be considered by them as tokens of the Divine acceptance, on that supposition may properly be ealled seals of the covenant.” Mr. Watson, in his ‘‘ Theo- logical Institutes,”t+ maintains the same doctrine of the sacraments as federal rites and confirming seals, and con- siders such Protestants as hold them to be only sym- bolical institutions, whose sole use is to cherish pious sentiments, or to be the badges of a Christian profession, as carelessly leaning to the opinion of Socinus and his followers. At present, I notice these views merely to observe that I cannot admit the proper definition of a * Lect. ce. + Pt. iv. ch. 2. ON THE TERM SACRAMENT. 5 sacrament to be a federal rite, or in that sense a seal of the covenant. Nothwithstanding the weight of Pro- testant, and even Nonconformist authority against me, my objection to the primary doctrine implied in these de- finitions, that to those who worthily receive them the sacraments are seals, or assurances of their personal in- terest in the covenant of grace, will be hereafter plainly stated for the consideration of my readers. The sacraments have been designated ‘ positive institu- tions,” as distinguished from moral duties; but there are, or have been, many positive institutions which are not usually called sacraments; the sabbath, for instance, was a positive institution of the Jewish church, as is the Lord’s-day of the Christian, but neither of these festivals is called a sacrament. They are said to be “ symbolic observances,” but every part of the Jewish ritual was sym- bolic, and so, where it is observed, is the imposition of hands in the ordination to the ministry: but this is not by Protestants called a sacrament, although Calvin, in the extended signification of the word, admits ordination to be a sacrament;* and Melanchthon does not scruple to call orders, or the imposition of hands, a sacrament.} Some have defined a sacrament as if it consisted in the consecration to a sacred purpose of a common thing, as the water in baptism, or the bread and wine in the Lord’s. supper, hence called the elements of the sacrament. Thus. Hobbes of Malmesbury, a strange authority, some may think, on this subject, but he expressed a current opinion,, says, ‘“‘A sacrament is a separation of some visible thing from common use, and a consecration of it to God’s service, for a sign either of our admission into the king- dom of God, to be of the number of his peculiar people, or for a commemoration of the same. In the Old Testa- ment the sign of admission was circumcision ; in the New Testament, baptism. The commemoration of it in the * Inst. iv. 19, 31, + Apolog. Conf. De Num. et Usu Sacram. G ON THE TERM SACRAMENT. Old Testament was the eating, at a certain time which was anniversary, of the paschal lamb; and in the New Testa- ment, the celebrating of the Lord’s supper.”* Our objec- tion is, that the essence of the sacrament is in the acts performed, and not in the elements selected, or in the consecration of them. The eating of the lamb was the passover, not the lamb which was eaten, nor yet the con- secrating of it. Without attempting any logical definition of a sacra- ment, I at present remark that I consider baptism to be the initiatory rite, and the Lord’s supper the commemora- tive institution of the Christian church, and both of them symbolic representations of evangelical truth. The word sacramentum, etymologically and in its most extensive signification, denotes anything sacred. Its ear- liest use, so far as we know, was to denote the sum of money deposited, according to a very ancient law of the Romans, by the parties in a suit, under the care of the Pontifex, to be recovered by the party who might gain the cause, and to be forfeited by him who might lose it, to a sacred purpose. The very laudable object of this sacra- mentum, or sacred money, was to discourage. frivolous and vexatious suits, and to punish litigious people. Hence a sacrament came to denote a pledge, any sacred obligation, and more specifically the oath of the soldiers in swearing allegiance to their commander. The word is frequently found, not only in the Vulgate, but in the older Latin versions, as the translation of the Greek term pvornpiov, mystery. The translators seem to have employed it to denote a sign of truth. The services designated by it were, at an early period, regarded as revealing some important doctrines to the faithful. As the Greek Christians, familiar with the mystic rites and initiations of their countrymen, called the sacred symbols of their faith the holy mysteries: so the Latins, selecting * Leviathan, pt. iii. ch. 35. ON THE TERM SACRAMENT. + the word sacramentum as the most appropriate to express the same signification, called the symbolic rites of their church sacraments. Although the word mystery in the New Testament, is never applied to either of the symbolic institutions of the Gospel; yet as they were called myste- ries at so early a period by the Greeks, the Latin trans- lators, accustomed to this use of the word, very naturally introduced sacramentum for the pvornpiov of the original. And even in passages where the older Latin versions, as well as the Vulgate, retain the Greek word in its Latinized form ‘‘ mysterium,” the Latin Fathers often substitute the word sacramentum, as St. Augustine in reply to a person, who, on account of his baptism, claimed to be regenerate, says: ‘‘ Hear the apostle, If I know all sacrainents,” (in the original, as in the Vulgate, mysteries,) “and all knowledge, and have faith so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, [ am nothing.”* The Latin word sacrament and the Greek word mystery, both in the older Latin versions and in the Vulgate, as well as by the Latin Fathers, although there was no original athnity between them, seem to have been used indifferently. Thus we have both in the old Latin and in the Vulgate, 2 Thess. il. 7, “The mystery of iniquity;” but in 1 Tim. ii 16, “The sacrament of godliness.” So we have in the Apoca- lypse, the sacrament of the seven stars, and again the sacrament of the woman in scarlet clothing, and her name is said to be in the Vulgate, Mystery, but in the older version, Sacrament. As the Greek noun pvorjpiov, derived from a verb which denotes to instruct in sacred things, to initiate, meant a sacred thing to be promulgated only among the initiated ;+ * Sed habeo, inquit, sacramentum. Audi apostolum si sciam omnia sacra- menta, et habeam omnem fidem ita ut montes transferam, charitatem autem non habeam, nihilsum. August. in 1 Epist. Joan. Tractat. v. + The Greek Fathers call the baptized “tots Xpiotd teNovuevous,” Clem. Alex. Peed. lib. iii. cap. 11; as they frequently employ the words reXeées and teNeiwaors in this sense. ; 8 ON THE TERM SACRAMENT, not an ordinary secret, but according to the definition of Phavorinus, ‘‘ a solemn thing not to be told;” so the Latin Fathers used the word sacramentum in the same sense and with the same restriction: and as the mysteries of the Greeks came to denote not only the sacred things them- selves, but also their symbols, (the new sense, ritw juvenum, becoming the more prevalent,) so in the Latin .churches the sacramentum is sometimes the sacred truth of the Gospel, and sometimes (the more frequently the later we proceed) the symbol of that sacred truth. Thus with Tertullian, of sacred truths the Christian religion is a sacra- ment,* the doctrine of the Trinity is a sacrament of the economy,} sacred mystery reserved for the initiated is the tacitum sacramentum,t the resurrection of the dead is a kind of sacrament;$ and so of sacred emblems, dreams sent from God are sacraments,|| the cross is a sacrament of wood, the anointing of our Saviour by the Holy Ghost is the sacrament of the unction,** the imposition of Jacob’s hands upon the sons of Joseph, crossing each other, is an ancient sacrament,}} monogamy is the sacrament of priests and deacons,{t baptism the sacrament of water or of washing,8$ and the Lord’s supper the sacrament of thanksgiving.||| It is evident that Tertullian unscrupu- lously applied the word to any religious rite whatsoever, although he sometimes employs it in the more classical sense of a solemn engagement, as in the address “ad Martyras.” ‘‘ We were,” he says, “‘ called to the warfare of the living God, when we answered in the words of the sacrament.’%9 By the sacrament he evidently means the baptismal vow of obedience, demanded by the ancient * Apol. i. 15. + Ady. Prax. c. 2, oikovouias sacramentum. + De Preescript. Heret. c. 26. § De Res. Carn. c. 21, species sacramenti. || Adv. Psych. c. 7. @ Ady. Jud. c, 18. ** Ady. Prax. c. 28. ++ De Bapt. c. 8. tt De Monog. ec, 11, §§ De Bapt. c. 1, 12. De Virg. vel. c. 2, |, De Corona, ec. 3, qq c. 3. ON THE TERM SACRAMENT. 9 church, including the renunciation and the profession cf Christ.* Cyprian uses the word sacramentum in the same sense and with the same latitude as his master. According to him the Eucharist is the sacrament of the eross;}+ water is one sacrament, and the Spirit is another of which we must be regenerated, the sign and the thing signified being regarded as two sacraments.{ Augustine, however, treat- ing of the same subject, (and his language shows, that in his time the term was becoming limited in its signification to the symbol rather than to the truth signified,) speaks only of the water as the sacrament, and not of the Spirit. THe says,§ ‘‘ One thing, therefore, is the water of the sacra- ment, another the water which signifies the Spirit of God. The water of the sacrament is visible, the water of the Spirit invisible. That washes the body, and signifies what is done in the soul; by this Spirit the soul itself is cleansed.” Precisely in the same manner Jerome, Am- * This form is by other Latin Fathers, called the Promissum, the Pactum, the Votum, the Professio, the Cautio. Even here, however, the word might have been suggested by the symbolic service rather than by the pledge or engagement. He also applies the term to supernatural gifts— charismata. De Anima, cap. 9. 4+ De Zelo et Livore, c. viii. De Sacramento Crucis et cibum sumis et potum. So I understand the passage, but there are other expositions. See Routh’s Opuseula, i. 342. Cyprian’s correspondent, Firmilian, speaks of the Passover among the “multa alia divine rei sacramenta.” (Ep. ad Cyp. ¢. ix.) He also, in connexion with the Eucharist, speaks of the “ sacramentum solitee predicationis,” by which may be intended, as Tell supposed, the avauvyors, OF COMMeMoration in words of the death of Christ; or according to others, the customary prayers which St. Basil calls the ékkArnoractiKe knpéypata. ip. cexli. The ark with Firmilian is the sacrament or sign of the church. t Tune demum plané sanctificari, et esse filii Dei possunt, si sacramento utroque nascantur, cum scriptum sit: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu, non potest introire in regnum Dei. Cyprian. Epist. lxxii. § Aliud est, ergo, aqua sacramenti: aliud, aqua que significat Spiritum Dei. Aqua sacramenti visibilis est: aqua Spiritus, invisibilis. Ista abluit corpus, et significat quod fit in anima: per illum Spiritum ipsa anima mun- datur. August. Expos, in Epist. Jam. i. 4, 10 ON TIIE TERM SACRAMENT. brose, and other Latin writers, use the word. The con- nexion of the two terms, mystery and sacrament, may be observed in several passages. ‘Tertullian says,* ‘In the mysteries of the idolaters, Satan imitated the divine sacra- ments.’ So Augustine, “ In baptized infants, the sacrament of regeneration precedes, and, if they retain Christian piety, there follows also in the heart conversion, the mys- tery of which preceded in the body.”+ So, on the other hand, the Latin sacramentum is transiated into Greek pvarnpioy by ecclesiastical and even by profane authors ; as Herodian, when speaking of the military sacrament of the Romans, says, ‘‘ And now preserving the military oath, which is the venerable mystery of the Roman _ sove- reignty.”+ Aided by this verbal association with the pagan mysteries, as it would seem, there soon arose in the church the doctrine of reserve, the disciplina arcani, the confining of evangelical truths to the initiated, and concealing from the eyes of the profane the simple rites of the Christian religion, as if they were of peculiar and awful sanctity. These rites became mystic, reserved only for the perfect, in whose initiation baptism was deemed the proper ablution, and the Eucharist was venerated as the ineffable mystery. From this association with the myste- ries, we think, arose the restrictive discipline and severe rule of unbaptized catechumens, so unlike anything to be found in the apostolic age; hence the frequent and pe- remptory command to the uninitiated to depart, as from a revelation too solemn for them to witness, the minister of the sanctuary acting the part of the hierophant of the erove or the grotto, exclaiming almost in his words, * “A Diabolo seilicet—qui ipsas quoque res sacramentorum divinorum, in idolorum mysteriis emulatur.”” De Prescrip. Heret. exl. + “In baptizatis infantibus, preecedit regenerationis sacramentum et, si christianam tenuerint pietatem, sequitur etiam in corde conversio, cujus mysterium precessit in corpore.” August. de Baptism. cont. Donat. Lib. iv. c. 44. of ‘ ‘ a ’ ~ th , ~ ‘ t ‘* Kal viv puAdooovtes Tov oTpatiwtiKoy SpKoY, Os EaTe TIS ‘Pwpaiwy apxis ceuvov ‘ , LU > uvoryptov.”” Herod. lib. &. ON THE TERM SACRAMENT. 11 “Procul, O procul, este profani;” hence the practice of the preacher to advert in ambiguous terms to a mystery, not to be explained to the unbaptized, adding—‘ The initiated understand it:”* and hence the tumid phrase- ology of the philosophical fathers, as Clement of Alex- andria, derived from the Hleusinian processions, or Bac- chanalian orgies, of sacred mysteries, and awful initiations, and ecstatic visions, and torch-bearing leaders, and mystic dances of angels around the one true God, intended to impress with reverence and awe the minds of the catechu- mens and other listeners, who were never permitted to witness the communion, or even to look within the bap- tistery.| The answer to the momentous question, What must I do to be saved? required months and afterwards years for its explanation, while the inquirer was passing through the long course of discipline among the hearers, and kneelers, and competents, with all their various rites and forms, until he was permitted to know all the great, life-giving truths of the Gospel. Somewhat opposed to this view, which appears to me so evidently deduced from the early ecclesiastical writers, and not, I think, with his usual care and accuracy, the Bishop of Lincoln, in his very able work cn Tertullian, attributes the introduction of the word sacramentum to its military use, as the oath of the Roman soldier, and thinks that the word being used to signify the promise or vow in baptism, came to denote, by an easy transition, the rite itself, and afterwards extending its signification, it included every religious ceremony, and eventually expressed the whole Christian doctrine.t We have stated our reasons for preferring another origin and rise of the term; yet the sacrament by a very natural figure is often represented as * Ol teNotpevor ioacw. + Before catechumens we do not speak plainly about mysteries, but we say many things in a covert manner, that the faithful who know may under- stand. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. Lec. vi. 29. t Kaye’s Tertullian. p. 356. J2 SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. the Christian’s oath of fidelity. The favourite appellation of the early Christians was the soldiers of Christ; Christ was their commander, the world, the flesh, and the devil, were their enemies; Christian graces their armour, mar- tyrdom their crown, the baptismal promise, or the eucharistic profession, their oath of allegiance.* Although the Romanists assert that there are seven sacraments, they adduce neither Scripture nor antiquity for that precise number. No ancient authority, Greek or Latin, makes the sacraments to be seven, nor assigns to their seven observances the exclusive power of conferring grace; which power, in the estimation of Catholics, and according to their own definitions, is essential to a sacra- ment. ‘The number having been ascertained by the schoolmen, and having been precisely defined by the great master of sentences, Peter Lombard, (and Bellar- miney their great controversialist, himself assigns no higher antiquity to the perfect number of seven,) the Council of Trent devoted to the terrors of its anathema all who dared to dispute their computation.{ Its decree was confirmed, although Bellarmine admits, as indeed is undeniable, that the ancients called many things sacra- ments, besides these seven.§ Thus the Council of Trent, unless its decrees are to be construed only in reference to the future, lays under its ban the whole Catholic church of the first four or five centuries, by whose traditions and authority it professes to be governed. So the bull of Pius IV, requires every priest on his ordination to profess * “ Malunt exheredari a -parentibus liberi, quam fidem Christianam rum- pere, et salutaris militis sacramenta deponere.” Arnobius, lib. ii. Yet Arnobius, like all the Latins, uses the word in the sense of a symbol, “ Religio Christiana veritatis abscondite sacramenta patefecit.” Lib. i. ¢. 3. + Bell. de Sacram. lib. ii. c. 25. t “Si quis dixerit, sacramenta nove legis esse plura yel pauciora quam septem, anathema sit.” Syn. Trid. Sess. 7. Can. ]. § “Multa dicuntur a veteribus sacramenta preter ista septem.” Bell. de Sacram. ii. 24. SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 13 that there are, truly and properly, seven sacraments.* And what may seem unacountable minuteness and precision, the church of Rome, not admitting her seven sacraments to be of equal importance, holds in terrorem a curse over all who mistake their comparative value.+ The sacra- ments ordained by the council of Trent are, besides bap- tism and the eucharist, confirmation, penance, orders, matrimony, and extreme unction. In noticing these sacra- ments of the Church of Rome, we must keep in mind her own doctrine, that grace is conferred by the due per- formance of the rite itself, unless it be resisted by mortal sin. Confirmation is the sacrament by which, according to the ancient churches who practised it, and according to the elder canonists of the Roman church itself, the bishop by the imposition of his hands upon the head of a baptized person, in virtue of his episcopal authority derived from the apostles, bestows additional and confirming grace to complete that which the priest had conferred in the act of baptism. 'The council of Trent, however, preferring the dialectics of the theologues to the precedents of the eanonists, decided, under the sanction of the anathema ever at its command, that the matter or element of con- firmation was chrism, and the form of it the words, “I sign thee with the sign of the cross, and confirm thee with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;” thus, as some honest Catholics acknowledge, changing both the substance and the form of an ancient sacrament. Confirmation being one of the unreiterable sacraments, is said to confer an indelible character; but what that character is, Catholics, so far as I can find, do not very explicitly declare. * “Profiteor quoque septem esse proprié et veré sacramenta.” Bulla Pii IV. + “Si quis dixerit hec septem Sacramenta ita esse inter se paria, ut nulla ratione aliud sit alio dignius, anathema sit.” Syn. Trid. Sess. 7. Can. 3. j4 SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. Some of the fathers distinguished between the grace of baptism and that of confirmation, by saying, that in bap- tism, sins are remitted, and in confirmation, the Holy Ghost is bestowed. Hence, in the controversy about the validity of the baptism of heretics who could not confer the Holy Ghost, they held, on the one side, that the imposition of episcopal hands, being the proper mode of imparting the Holy Ghost, was sufficient in receiving such as had been baptized by heretics to the communion of the Catholic church. Their opponents, however, who ob- served the Eastern tradition, maintained that the Holy Ghost must be also conferred in baptism, as without his presence, there could not be the new birth, and that, con- sequently, heretical baptisms were invalid and useless.* Of the difference between the grace conferred in baptism and that superadded in confirmation, Roman Catholic writers are not very clear nor very consistent; yet to deny that the grace of baptism is regeneration, and therefore sufficient to enable a man to enter the kingdom of heaven, would be to incur the anathema,—as it would be to deny that the grace of confirmation is necessary,—as it would be to assert that the grace of baptism and that of confirmation combined, will be sufficient for a dying man, without the grace of extreme unction, if it may be obtained,—and as it would be to maintain that the accumulated grace of all the seven sacraments would be sufficient for a sinner, without the more effectual purification of the flames of purgatory. To escape the anathemas of the council of * One sentence from the epistle of Firmilian to Cyprian will show the opinions of both sides. “Et quoniam Stephanus et qui illi consentiunt, contendunt dimissionem peccatorum et secundam nativitatem in hereti- corum baptisma posse procedere, apud quos etiam ipsi confitentur Spiritum Sanctum non esse; considerent et intelligant spiritalem nativitatem sine Spiritu: esse non posse; secundum quod et beatus apostolus Paulus eos qui ab Joanne baptizati fuerant, priusquam missus esset Spiritus Sanctus a Domino, baptizavit denuo spiritali baptismo, et sic eis manum imposuit, ut acciperent Spiritum Sanctum.” Epist. Firm. ad 8. Cypr. c. 6. SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 15 Trent, which fly in all directions, and meet us at every turn, the only safe and easy method is to yield implicit faith to the close of the profession of Pius LY.: “ Also all other things, by the sacred canons and cecumenical coun- cils, and especially by the holy synod of Trent, delivered, defined, and declared, I unhesitatingly receive and profess ; and at the same time all things contrary, and all heresies whatsoever, condemned, and rejected, and anathematized by the church, I, in like manner, do condemn, reject, and anathematize.”* But then we must believe contradic- tions, some to Scripture, some to antiquity, some to the decisions of popes, some to the decrees of general councils, and some even to the canons of the holy synod itself. The Church of England teaches that confirmation is not a sacrament; yet it would seem to be one, according to her own formularies and definition. Her catechism defines a sacrament to be “an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given to us, ordained by Christ himself.” In confirmation, the bishop prays in these words, ‘‘We make our humble supplication unto thee for these thy servants, upon whom (after the example of the holy apostles) we have now laid our hands, to certify them (by this sign) of thy favour and gracious goodness towards them.” In this prayer it is implied, that the im- position of episcopal hands is not only a sign, but a certi- ficate of God’s favour and gracious goodness. But that which is a sign and certificate of God’s gracious goodness, a visible sign of spiritual grace, ordained by Christ, is a sacrament according to the catechism. On the contrary, in the twenty-fifth Article, it is said, ‘“‘ Those five com- monly called sacraments, that is to say, confirmation, * Cetera item omnia a Sacris Canonibus et @icumenicis Conciliis ac precipue a Sacrosancta Tridentina Synodo tradita, definita et declarata, indubitanter recipio atque profiteor; simulque contraria omnia, atque hereses quascunque ab Ecclesia damnatas et rejectas et anathematizatas ege pariter damno, respuo et anathematizo. 16 SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. penance, orders, matrimony-and extreme unction, are not to be counted for sacraments of the gospel, being such as have grown, partly of the corrupt following of the apostles, partly are states of life allowed by the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of sacraments with baptism and the Lord's supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony, ordained of God.” ‘The evangelical clergy must, I fear, solicit the assistance of the ingenious author of the Tract No. 90, to reconcile the office of confirmation, which declares that the act of the bishop “ certifies by this sign God's favour and gracious goodness,” and the Article of religion which asserts that confirmation “has no visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.” 'T’o reconcile the two, it must be said that confirmation is a sign of grace not ordained of God. But if the ceremony be not ordained of God, where may its origin be sought? ‘The Article most clearly informs us. Not being a state of life like orders or matrimony, but an act of the bishop, it must, according to the Article, have grown of the corrupt following of the apostles, and with the Article we cordially agree. Confirmation has ‘‘orown of the corrupt following of the apostles,” and we can trace its growth. As the apostles of our Lord bap- tized in his name, for “he baptized not, but his disciples,” he seems by the imposition of hands to have blessed the baptized, and so to have recognised and accredited the acts of his apostles. However that may have been, the apostles Peter and John laid their hands upon such as Philip baptized, and conferred upon them the visible and extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost. So Paul at Ephesus, on finding that twelve men had not received the Holy Ghost, conferred it upon them by the imposition of his hands. It would seem from passages in the Corinthians and Galatians, that the apostles did not usually baptize, although they alone imparted the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit. To confer these powers they often travelled SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. L7 a considerable distance. St. Paul earnestly desired to visit the Romans, that he might impart to them some spiritual gift. If this imposition of hands by the apostles were confirmation, then let it be observed that the bishops of that age could not confirm. If the bishops were com- petent, why should the apostle so earnestly desire to confer the extraordinary grace upon the believers in Rome? To reply, that bishops are the successors of the apostles, is to deny that they were contemporary with the apostles; for if apostles and bishops coexisted as two distinct offices in the primitive church, the modern bishops must surely be the successors of the ancient bishops, and not of the apostles holding another office; or, if they have succeeded to the apostolic, and not to the episcopal office, then ought they to be called apostles, and not bishops. If the apostolic bishops, the holy men on whom the apostles laid their hands, could not confirm, it seems reasonable to inquire with all respect and humility, how modern bishops became invested with the apostolic authority, to which their predecessors of the apostolic age did not pretend ? ' The rise of confirmation may, however, be easily traced At first the imposition of hands, as the sign of conferring the Holy Ghost, was a part or accompaniment of the bap- tismal service, or as Hooker, in accordance with the lan- enage of antiquity, calls it, “ta sacramental complement.” The bishops at a very early period, claimed the right of administering baptism, or of approving the persons to whom it was to be administered. “It is not lawful,” says Ignatius, “ without the bishop to baptize, or keep the feast of charity.” “The right of giving baptism hath the chief priest,” that is the bishop, says Ter- tullian.t But as ‘churches increased, and especially as bishoprics became diocesan, it was not convenient, or * Olx ékov got yxwpis tov émickdwov ovrte famtifew otre ayarnvy Torety. S. Ign. Epist. ad Smyrn. cap. 8. + Dandi quidem habet jus summus sacerdos. De Bapt. c. 17. Owe oO 18 SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. even possible, for the bishops to be present at all bap- tisms. They, therefore, reserved to themselves the con- firmation of the baptism and, it would seem also, its most precious blessing, the gift of the Holy Ghost. ‘It is the custom,” says Jerome, ‘‘for the bishop to go abroad and, imposing his hands, pray for the Holy Ghost upon those whom presbyters and deacons at a distance have already baptized in lesser cities.”* Decrees of councils direct, that persons baptized when travelling or in extreme sick- ness should, on their return or recovery, be brought to the bishop, who was to confirm the baptism by the imposition of hands.+ The imposition of the apostles’ hands upon the converts of Philip, was cited as the authority for the service, ~ and so, ‘“ confirmation growing,” as the Article of the Church of England beautifully and accurately deseribes it, ‘‘of the corrupt following of the apostles,” became a separate service, and eventually another sacra- ment, or visible sign of the grace of the Holy Spirit imparted. § * Jer. advers. Lucif. cap. 4. “The cause of severing confirmation from baptism (for most commonly they went together) was sometimes in the minister, who, being of inferior degree, might baptize, but not confirm.” (Hooker, Eccl. Polity, book v. § 66.) The other cause, according to Hooker, arose out of heretical baptisms, which were afterwards confirmed by the ministers of the catholic church. Jerome observes, that the cause of this observance is not any absolute impossibility of receiving the Holy Ghost by the sacrament of baptism, unless a bishop add after it the imposition of hands, but rather a certain congruity and fitness to honour prelacy with such pre-eminences, because the safety of the church dependeth upon the dignity of her chief superiors to whom, if some eminent offices of power above others should not be given, there would be in the church as many schisms as priests. + Cone. Elib. Can. xxx. + Cyprian Epist. 78, § It is remarkable, that priests and deacons, and even laymen and women, were deemed competent to administer the greater sacrament of baptism, but only bishops could bestow the lesser grace of confirmation. A most important part of this sacrament was the anointing, the sealing of the forehead with the sacred chrism, which could only be consecrated by a bishop, although at various times presumptuous and profane presbyters have attempted it, so that many decrees of councils have been necessary to prevent the use of the SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 19 The next sacrament is penance, of which the name is a corruption of the penitentia of the Vulgate, where it undoubtedy means repentance. But, how should repent- ance be a sign or sacrament of grace? The Catholics dis- tinguish between the internal virtue or contrition, and the external sign or penance. ‘The acts of penance, especially the auricular confession, were thus made sacramental; but as it seemed difficult to say how grace could be conferred without an act of the priest, some placed the sacrament in the absolution of the penitent. Thomas Aquinas, how- ever, had the singular merit of reconciling the difference by discovering, through his extraordinary penetration and sagacity, that the confession or contrition of the penitent is the material, and the absolution of the priest the form of the sacrament; that is, the confession becomes a sacra- ment, when the priest pronounces the absolution. The grace conferred in penance, is the absolution of sins com- mitted after baptism. This doctrine, although it had been opposed by high authorities in the schools, received the solemn sanction of the council of Trent, and is since that time, whatever it was before, most surely believed by all Romanists to be true, catholic, and apostolic. This. sacrament appears without the name, but with something worse, in the order for the visitation of the sick, in the offices of the English church. ‘‘ Here shall the sick person be moved to make a special confession of his sins, if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter. After which confession, the priest shall absolve him, (if he humbly and heartily desire it,) after this sort: Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left power to his church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in him, counterfeit. On what authority this part of confirmation is omitted in the service of the English church I know not, unless it be the act of the first of Elizabeth, or the fourteenth of Charles IJ, The English parliament has touched the carved work of the ancient sanctuary with arough hand. The consecrated oil was so sacred that, according to St. Basil, no unbaptized person might be permitted to look upon it, 20 SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. of his great mercy forgive thee thine offences. And by his authority, committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.” This act of the priest 1s cer- tainly an outward and visible sign, and the absolution of sin is certainly an inward and spiritual grace; and there- fore, in contradiction to the Article, but in accordance with the Catechism, as confirmation was the third, we are war- ranted in calling absolution or penance, the fourth sacra- ment of the Church of England. This sacrament of penance must be carefully distinguished from the dis- cipline of the penitents in the ancient church. The peni- tents of the early ages were excommunicated or suspended persons, who were preparing for their restoration. Their confession was not auricular, but after acts of humiliation in the porch made publicly in the church, into the midst of which they were conducted by the bishop; they were sometimes continued in the penitential classes for years, and as their confession was public, so was their absolu- tion, which was originally and properly the removal of the censure of the church and readmission to its communion, of which the sacramental sign was the imposition of hands. The penitential canons remain to contradict the council of Trent. Can there be found, in the first three or four cen- turies, a single instance of absolution pronounced upon any person who had not been previously excommunicated or suspended from the eucharist? ‘‘ Our censure,” says Tertullian, ‘“‘cometh with much authority, as of men as- sured that they are under the eye of God; and it is a grave premonition of the coming judgment, if any shall have so offended as to be put out of the participation of prayer, of the solemn meeting, and of all holy fellowship.”* Orders in the Article of the Church of England seems to be regarded, not as a sacrament, but as a state of life. This, however, and the same remark will apply to matri- * Apol. i. 39. See Appendix A. SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. mony, is not a fair representation of the doctrine of the Church of Rome. By the sacrament of orders is meant ordination, not so much the state of the priest as the act of conferring the gift or grace of the priesthood. By the im- position of episcopal hands, according to the ancient and the Anglican church, or by the delivery of the sacred ves- sels, as the chalice of wine and paten of bread, according to the council of Florence, (that of Trent does not define the matter of this sacrament,) the power is communicated of discharging all the functions of the sacerdotal office. A man so ordained can regenerate in baptism, can transub- stantiate the bread and wine of the eucharist, can absolve the penitent, and holding the key of St. Peter, can open and no man shutteth, and shut and no man openeth the gate of everlasting life. Popish authorities agree that in ordination some inde- lible character is communicated; but subtle have been their disputes respecting its nature. Something is imparted to constitute the priest; but what that something is, the quiddity of the character, they cannot or they will not tell us. Itis not piety; for it may be imparted to very wicked men, as Catholics assert, and some Protestants do not deny. Being unreiterable it adheres with a tenacity not to be dissolved by the fiercest flames of purgatory, and ever will adhere even to condemned priests in hell. Amidst the endless disputes of the schoolmen and the doctors of the church, as to the what and the whereabouts, the sub- stance and the locality of the indelible character of the ‘priesthood, as Dr. Campbell shrewdly observes, ‘The whole of what they agreed in amounts to this, that in the unreiterable sacraments, as they call them, something, they know not what, is imprinted they know not how, on something in the soul of the recipient, they know not where, which never can be deleted.’’* * As the Romish doctrine is, that the grace of a sacrament is not conferred without the will of the priest, nor upon a person in mortal sin; and, as every iy SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. Let us now hear the Church of England. Is there not in her office of ordination both an outward and visible sign and an inward and spiritual grace? If there be, is not ordination a sacrament according to her own definition ? It will surely not be said that the visible sign is not or- dained of Christ, but merely a matter of human arrange- ment, and therefore not sacramental. Episcopalians plead apostolic authority for their ordinations; and if they did not, it is too much to assume that they can confer the Holy Ghost without the authority of Christ. Solemn are the words of the bishop, as he lays his hands upon the candi- date, and says, ‘* Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest in the church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained.” If these words be true, if the Holy Ghost be conferred by the imposition of epis- copal hands, then is ordination not only a sacrament, but as the council of Trent makes a distinction, a great sacra- ment; or rather, as it gives validity to all the others, the greatest of the sacraments. Allow me, however, to ask, with the earnestness and solemnity which the subject re- quires, the many evangelical ministers who adorn the com- munion of the Church of England, if they really believe that the Holy Ghost and the power of absolution are con- ferred by the act of episcopal ordination? Allow me to entreat them to consider the most logical conclusion, but most pernicious doctrine, that evil men, “if lawfully con- secrated,” do minister at her altars by “ Christ’s commis- sion and authority.” Matrimony. Although Romish writers often express them- person is in mortal sin who does not concur in all the anathemas upon heretics, in ordination a bishop may be so wicked, or a priest so charitable, as to frustrate the grace. On that no improbable supposition, all the sacraments administered by such a priest, except baptism, are unavailing. What confi- ‘dence is there in such a priesthood? Does not this fact endanger the Succession ? SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 93 selves obscurely, yet there can be no doubt that by this sacrament is meant not so much the state of matrimony as the act of solemnizing it, not so much the union of the parties as the blessing of the priest upon that union, It may appear to a superficial observer extraordinary, that the church which prohibits the marriage of her clergy, ascribes peculiar sanctity to perpetual virginity, and allows matri- mony only as an indulgence to the infirmities of human nature, should regard as a sacrament the act by which persons are sanctioned in their descent from the purer state to one less honourable in the church and less accept- able to God. Yet, upon this point, the Church of Rome is very particular, and the council of Trent pronounces the anathema upon all who deny that marriage is one of the sacraments.* The inconsistency, however, may be explained by considering the nature of the grace supposed to be conferred in the act of solemnizing marriage. The marriage state ztself, per se, according to the Romish doc- trine, is polluted, although permitted to prevent greater evils. By the sacrament of marriage the grace conferred so purifies the carnal state that the sin is not imputed; whereas the parties, without this grace, would be living together in mortal sin. At a very early period, certainly in the second century, the bishops and priests claimed the right of approving, ratifying, and blessing the marriages of Christians. Ignatius, in his epistle to Polycarp, if indeed that blessed martyr wrote the passages which are so re- markable for their fulsome glorification of bishops, and not very appropriate to an humble member of that order, ex- actly expresses the Catholic doctrine of a later age, ‘If any man can abide in chastity, let him abide without boast- ing; if he boast, he is ruined. It becomes both men and oO? women on their marriage to form their union with the con- * “ Si quis dixerit matrimonium non esse veré ac proprié unum ex septem legis Evangelice Sacramentis, a Christo Domino institutum, neque gratiam conferre, anathema sit.” Concil. Trident. Sess. 24. Can. 1, Q4 SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. sent of the bishop, that so their marriage may be according to God, and not according to concupiscence.”* ‘Tertullian, in the warmth of his ardent soul, is at a loss for words to celebrate the “bliss of that marriage which the church binds, and the oblation confirms, and the benediction seals, and the angels report, and the Father ratifies.”}+ Clement of Alexandria and later writers represent the presbyter as blessing the marriage, which, according to the epistle of Tenatius, is the prerogative of the bishop. The assertion of some of the English clergy, that mar- riage without a religious ceremony is an unauthorised and sinful cohabitation, evidently implies the popish notion of a sacrament, in imparting by their benediction the grace of purifying the union of the parties from the sin which would otherwise attach to it. The council of Trent says that Christ instituted marriage; but how or where we are not informed. Was the Jewish marriage at Cana a sacra- ment? or if it was not, did our Lord by his presence sanc- tion a sinful cohabitation? St. Paul, speaking of married persons where only one of the parties being Christian the sacrament of marriage, even if at that time there was any Christian ceremony, could not have been observed, says, “the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband, and the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife.” The mar- riage was pure, and the parties to each other were sanc- tified, and the children were holy, without any sacrament -or blessing of a Christian priest. Besides, were all the husbands and wives of the apostolic converts re-married according to the sacrament, or were they all, in continuing to live together, living in mortal sin? The reply of Ca- tholic casuists is, that the marriage of heathens becomes sacramental on the parties becoming Christians. In these remarks I have probably constructed the most respectable theory which can be devised to reconcile con- * Epist. ad Pcly. ¢. v. + Ad Ux. II. ¢. viii. + Peedag. iii, 11. SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 29 flicting statements of Catholic authorities on the sacra- ment of marriage. I am aware that they often speak of the state of marriage as a sacrament; but as according to their doctrine every sacrament causes grace, the marriage service performed by the priest, and not the marriage state, causing the grace, must be regarded as the sacra- ment. There is also considerable difference of opinion as to the grace conferred. I have stated what appears to me the most reasonable and consistent view of the Catholic doctrine. Some Romanists assert, that the grace conferred is the mutual love of the husband and wife; and Bellarmine says,* ‘‘It causes such a love be- tween a2 man and his wife, as there is between Christ and his chureh;” but although sustained by so high an au- thority, I do not like to attribute such gross and palpable absurdities even to Romanists. On the subject of mar- riage, the canonists, and as Stillingfleet ‘has shown, the schoolmen, even the greatest of them, Thomas Aquinas and Scotus, were not orthodox according to the decrees of the council of Trent. Hextreme Unetion is the last of the Romish sacraments, and frequently called the sacrament of the dying. The patient in his last moments, when life is utterly“hopeless, is anointed with oil, by which act grace is said to ,be con- ferred in order to destroy the last relics of corruption, and to defend him amidst the perils of “the valley of the shadow of death.” ‘hat there is no scriptural authority for this ceremony, must be acknowledged by all who can read the Bible. To cite the words of St. James, “Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up,” is to cite a passage totally irrelevant. That anointing was intended for the recovery of the patient, whereas the Romish unc- * De Sacram. lib. i. ec. 3. 26 SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. tion is administered only when recovery is hopeless. That was medicinal and salutary for the body; this is beneficial only to the departing spirit. After that anoint- ing the Lord raised up the sick; after extreme unction the patient should taste no more food, but calmly await inevitable dissolution. According to the Rabbins,* it was usual with the Jews to anoint the sick with oil; and it would, therefore, appear, that the apostles of our Lord and the elders of the church followed the ordinary medical practice ; but instead of the charms and incantations which the Jews were wont to repeat, the Christian elders poured forth their prayers to God for the recovery of the patient.t So in the early ecclesiastical records we read of the anointing of sick persons, but evidently with a view to their recovery by medicinal or by miraculous power; as, according to Tertullian, a Christian, named Proculus, healed the emperor Severus by anointing him with oil.{ Although anointings on various occasions were frequent among the early Christians, as in baptism and confirmation, yet of extreme unction, a sacrament for the dying, the first ages of the church knew nothing whatever. The terms applied to the eucharist, as the last and most necessary viaticum,§ together with the fact that it was given in the last moments without any anointing, would show that extreme unction was not the sacrament of the dying.|| Here, also, the canonists were at variance with the theologians, as they maintained that unction was not a sacrament, and generally held that it was to be admin- istered on various occasions, and not to the dying. The council of Trent, having pronounced with its accustomed * See Lightfoot’s Exercit. on Matt, vi. 17. + Commentators as late as Theophylact and Gicumenius understand the apostle James to refer to the medical anointing mentioned in Mark vi. 13: “And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.” t Ad Scapulam, cap. iv. § See Appendix B. Eusebius Hist. Eee. 1, vi. ¢. 44. SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. oF solemnity its anathema upon all who maintained such opinions, settled the controversy. Such were the ana- themas of the Gicumenical Sacrosanct Council upon the subject of the seven sacraments, that as they rolled through the long aisles of the magnificent cathedral, from the unanimous concurrence of the voices of legates and cardinals, bishops and doctors, divines and lawyers, they were enough to make the bones of their own canonists to start in their tombs, the spirits of doctors, seraphical, angelical, and irrefragable, to turn pale with terror, and the books of decretals and digests to feel the brand of heresy upon every folio of their venerable parchments. From what has been said it appears that of the seven sacraments of the Romanists, the English church, al- though restricting the name to two of them, virtually re- tains five, not regarding matrimony as a sacrament, and repudiating extreme unction. According to her own for- mularies she is in possession of five symbols, by which grace is not only exhibited but communicated,—the grace of regeneration in baptism, the grace of the Holy Ghost in confirmation, the grace of communion with Christ in the eucharist, the grace of absolution in penance, the grace of administering God’s sacraments in ordination ; and if the grace of purifying the marriage union is im- parted by the service of matrimony, as some clergymen assert, on their principles we must add the sacrament of marriage to the outward and visible signs of inward and spiritual grace, belonging to the Church of England. By only one sacrament, or at worst two, is Canterbury in- ferior to Rome. I need scarcely mention what a certain class of divines call the sacrament of unity, which, it is affirmed, belonged to the Catholic church before its divisions in its oneness of creed around its centre of unity, but which has been lost in the dissension of the Latin and Greek churches, and in the great schism of the sixteenth century, produc- 28 SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. ing, on the one hand, the Tridentine doctrine, on the other, the Reformation. This sacrament, allowing the impropriety of the name to pass without remark, is, we believe, a pure fiction ; but fiction as it is, we cannot re- frain from expressing our surprise that Tractarian writers should acknowledge it to have vanished, as in so doing they admit the loss of the infallible testimony of the uni- versal church, that is, of the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit, in contradiction to the promise of God, as they interpret it, that the Holy Spirit should ever abide with the church. When they now exclaim, ex cathedra, “hear the church,” they call up learning and royalty to listen to a church, which by their own confession has lost its sacrament of unity, and therefore is as sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal, and must remain so, until by union it recovers its original catholic and infallible authority. The unity of doctrine pervading the Catholic church is supposed to have been, before the occurrence of the great schism, sacramentally exhibited by a visible and acknow- ledged head, as the centre of all bishops, presbyters, and deacons. On the top-stone of that temple whose founda- tion is Christ and the apostles was raised the chair of St. Peter, and his successors for the time being holding the keys, emblem of the unity; but whether that loftiest pinnacle of the universal church, enclosing Christendom within its walls, rose at Rome or at Constantinople, at Jerusalem or at Antioch, Tractarians have not ventured to speak with confidence. Nor is the inquiry now of much importance, as they admit the chair has fallen by reason of the rending of the temple from the top to the bottom. But if this infallible guidance has been lost in the disputes of the Reformation, why might it not have been lost in the fierce contentions of the ancient church on the keeping of Easter, the baptism of heretics, the homodusion confession, the iconoclastic feuds, and I know SACRAMENTAL OBSERVANCES. Q9 not how many other disputes, which inflamed the Christian community and divided churches and bishops who, we are told, possessed in common, though not individually, the teaching of the Holy Spirit? Yet amidst so much con- tention the universal church, according to the Tractarians, did not lose her sacramental unity until the great schism of the Latins and Greeks, or the greater of the Romanists and the reformed. Of what value to us would be the authority of Scripture, if it could be shown that the apostles disagreed upon various important subjects? Of what authority is tradition, if the traditors while living were engaged in angry and interminable disputes, arising out of their common faith? Roman Catholics maintain with more consistency that uniformity still exists, the ever-living and glorious truth of their church, flowing in an undivided and perennial stream, clear as crystal, around its immediate centre of unity, the chair of St. Peter, placed on a rock and not on a ruin, and abundantly supplying with its pure and incorruptible water of life the one peaceful, harmonious, undivided catholic church of God, having one faith, one Lord, one baptism, of which all schismatics and heretics are unhap- pily bereaved. Nor have I noticed the sacrament of the catechumens, as it was sometimes called by the ancients. This, several Romanists suppose to have been a part of the bread from the oblations of the faithful, distributed at the feast of the resurrection among the catechumens. It seems, however, to be established by Bingham in his Antiquities, that this sacrament was the smail quantity of salt given to the cate- chumens as the emblem of purity and incorruption, the only sacrament which was allowed to them, even at the celebration of the great festival of Haster.* * Concil. Carthag. III. Can.5. Placuit ut per solemnissimos Paschales dies, Sacramentum Catechumenis non detur, nisi solitum sal; quia si Fideles per illos dies sacramenta non mutant, non catechumenis oportet mutari. 30 SACRAMENTAL OBSERVANCES, Besides these several observances, which by different persons have been called sacraments, there is a service of a sacramental character observed at the present time by many of our Christian brethren, on which a few remarks may be expected. I mean the agape or love-feasts of the Moravians, the Wesleyan Methodists, and some other reli- gious communities. That there are traces of the agape in the apostolic age we readily admit, and if they were not symbolic observances, we are bound to inquire what purposes they were intended to accomplish. We believe that they were what they were called, really and properly, not emblematically, feasts of charity, feasts for the relief and comfort of the poor, the travellers, and the itinerant preachers of the Gospel. The rich, as we believe, provided on the Lord’s day, not lux- urious entertainments, but plentiful and agreeable refresh- ments; not certainly bread and water as in modern times, when love seems growing parsimonious, but a friendly and hospitable table at which all were welcome, the brother of low degree rejoicing in that he was exalted, and the rich in that he was made low. The object seems to have been to provide the poor at the weekly feast of the resurrection with a more cheerful meal than their ordinary circumstances would allow, and to afford to members of the church coming to worship from a distance, and strangers or messengers from other churches sojourning in the place, the comfort of hospitable and friendly enter- tainment. The feasts were not emblems but acts, not professions but proofs of charity. They were, indeed, liable to abuse, on the one hand, among those of a sen- sual disposition by affording opportunities of intemper- ate indulgence; on the other, under the influence of an ascetic temperament in becoming mere formalities, the cold shadow of a feast without its social enjoyment. So abused they have given place to exercises of charity more appropriate to the altered circumstances of succeed- SACRAMENTAL OBSERVANCES. on ing ages. Let us, however, notice the evidence, which if not absolutely conclusive, is highly favourable to this opinion. In reading the gospels, we cannot fail to observe how frequently the Jews in the time of our Lord invited their friends and neighbours to large and liberal entertain- ments, for the most part, if not always, on the evening which closed the sabbath. How many of the parables and illustrations of our Lord are derived from the guest- chamber! ‘The Saviour, instead of utterly condemning these festivals, which he occasionally sanctioned by his presence, commanded his followers to make them feasts of charity, entertainments for the poor and _ afflicted, offices of mercy, not occasions of luxury and dissipa- tion. On the sabbath, at an entertainment of one of the chief Pharisees which must have been numerously at- tended, for he marked how those who were bidden chose out the chief rooms, Jesus said to him that bade him, ‘When thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, and the blind.” This being on the evening of the sabbath, our Lord evidently recommended that in- stead of the costly and luxurious festivals, which ill be- came the sacred association of so holy a day, his disciples should provide feasts of charity and friendship for the poor, by which, in the liberal and generous spirit of their religion, they might appropriately close the solemnities of the sabbath, as the religious feasts of the Jews were ordered to be celebrated, with the generous intention of diffusing cheerfulness in their families and among the indigent. ‘‘ And thou shalt rejoice in thy feast, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy man-servant, and thy maid-servant, and the Levite, and the stranger that is within thy gates.” Such was the institute of Moses; and shall a Christian church celebrate the propitious and glorious festival of the resurrection, while her poor are distressed with the cravings of hunger, and their sorrow- 32 SACRAMENTAL OBSERVANCES. ful thoughts and anxious looks ill accord with the joud and joyful hallelujahs of the great triumphant commemo- ration in which the rich and the poor meet together, for the Lord is maker of them all ? The digression would be too wide from our immediate subject, were I to notice the various circumstantials and forms, which were transferred from the service of the syna- gogue to the offices of the primitive church. Having ina note adverted to this subject,* I must here be content with observing that the apostles would naturally, if not of neces- sity, retain the modes of worship to which the people had been accustomed, unless those modes were changed by the express authority of the Holy Ghost. It is well known that houses of hospitality, places of sabbath entertainment for the poor and for strangers attending their worship, were, at least frequently, if not usually, attached to the synagogues. According to Maimonides, ‘the hallowing of the sabbath” (he is speaking of the ceremony of an- nouncing the sabbath) ‘may not be used, but only in the place where they eat. Why then do they use the hallowing word in the synagogue? because of travellers that do eat and drink there.” The gloss upon this passage is, ‘‘ they did not eat in their synagogues at all, but in a house near the synagogue; and there they sat to hear the hallowing of the sabbath.” It appears, then, that these houses were hallowed every sabbath, because they were opened on that day for the hospitable entertainment of strangers. When Paul visited Corinth, he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, ‘‘and entered into a certain man’s house, named Justus, one that worshipped God,” (was a proselyte to Sudaism,) whose house joined hard to the synagogue.”{ Paul, a stranger in Corinth, which city he had never before visited, went, before a single convert was made, to the house attached to the synagogue, according to the Jewish autho- * See Appendix C. + Lightfoot’s Works, by Pitman, vol. iii. p. 274. + Acts xvii. 7. SACRAMENTAL OBSERVANCES. 33 rities, the proper place for the hospitable reception of strangers. The house of Justus may denote the house of the synagogue kept by that proselyte, whose duty in that situation would have been to entertain strangers. But was this hospitable provision to be found in the church of Christ, as well as in the synagogue of the Jews? Did Christian societies, in this graceful and re- ligious manner, show that in their separation from the synagogue they were not forgetful to entertain strangers ? Was there a feast, a cheerful though temperate meal, pro- vided on the Lord’s day, for strangers and the poor, in the spirit of our Lord’s commendation of a_ sabbath entertainment? And was this meal the Agape of the primitive church? We think it was. ‘“‘Gaius mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you.”* These words seem toimply an entertainment, not of the members separately, but of the church collectively ; and to intimate that Gaius had supplied the entertain- ment at his own expense. It is not necessary to suppose he did so regularly, as often as the church kept the feast, but he did so with sufficient frequency to obtain the name of the host of the whole church. Lightfoot} thinks he was an officer of the church, whose duty it was to pro- vide the public entertainment from the common fund ; but the expression seems more naturally to refer to an act of personal liberality. With this description of Gaius, the third epistle of John coincides in so remarkable a manner, that we conclude the Gaius to whom it was ad- dressed was the same person. “ Beloved,” says the apostle, ‘‘ thou doest faithfully, whatsoever thou doest to the brethren, and to strangers; which have borne witness of thy charity,” thy aya, “before the church: whom if thou bring forward on their journey after a godly sort, thou shalt do well.” These strangers were evidently travelling preachers, dependent for support upon the * Romans xvi. 23. + Works, ili, 279. ae D 34 SACRAMENTAL OBSERVANCES. bounty of the opulent, ‘ because that for his name’s sake they went forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles.” Can we then doubt that the charity, the agapé of Gaius, was the feast of charity, the hospitable entertainment of the brethren, and of Christian sojourners? St. Jude, in ex- press terms, refers to the feasts of charity, in which false teachers had insinuated themselves and feasted intem- perately. ‘‘These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear ’—without moderation.* It is here manifest that the feast of charity was a liberal entertainment, which these itinerant preachers, wandering stars, abused to in- temperance. Had they been services of religion, rather than festivals of charity, they could not have been per- verted to the unrestrained gratification of the appetite. (icumenius, commenting on this passage, says, ‘‘ There were still at that time tables in the churches, as Paul says in the Epistle to the Corinthians, which they called ‘agapx.’” In the parallel passage in the Second Epistle of Peter, we read, ‘“‘ Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves (rather, living luxuriously, évrpydayres) in their own deceivings, while they feast with you.”} Here is evidently the reference to the same intemperate and luxu- rious indulgence of which these false teachers were guilty at the feasts of the church, but one can hardly help sus- pecting that instead of dmaras, their deceivings, the word must originally have been dydaras, by the change of a single stroke, luxuriously feeding at your love-feasts, while they feast with you.; And when we find that this is actually the reading of the Vatican MS., of both the Syrian versions, of the Arabic, the Vulgate, of the Alexandrian MS., by a correction, and some other autho- * Jude 12. + 2 Peter ii. 18. t The difference in the uncial manuscripts is only in the transposition of a single stroke, AN ATAT2 for ’ATATIATS, SACRAMENTAL OBSERVANCES. 35 rities ; * we can have little doubt of its being the genuine text. Probably, the meaning of the apostle, when speak- ing of a woman “ well reported of for good works,” to be received among the widows, he says, “if she have hospit- ably entertained strangers, if she have washed the saints’ feet,” may be best explained by a reference to these feasts; if she have been attentive and generous in providing for strangers and the saints at the feasts of charity; for ac- cording to the customs of the East, in no other way could a woman so act towards strangers without bringing a scandal upon her character. Having gained from Scripture so much information respecting the agapee, let us turn to the eleventh chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, on which I must speak with some hesitation. The apostle evidently re- fers to improper practices which had arisen from some meal or festival, and which were confined to only a part of the Corinthian church. ‘“ One is hungry, and another has drunk too much.” Was this an abuse of the Lord’s supper itself? or was it an abuse of the feast of charity, celebrated in Corinth immediately before the Lord’s sup- per? Some contend that it was an abuse of the Lord’s supper. ‘They suppose, that many of the Corinthians converted the Lord’s supper into a luxurious entertain- ment, for which the rich brought their own provision, after the manner of the common feasts of the Greeks, and refused to impart to their poor brethren. Hence says the apostle to those who fared sumptuously, “Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and put to shame those who have no- thing?” Lightfoot and others suppose, that the Jewish converts retained a strong prejudice in favour of a paschal feast as part of the Lord’s supper, and that the Jewish * A * * (correctio librarii ipsius) B. Syr. Arr. (4ith.) Syr. p. in m. Vulg. Ephr. Auct. de sing. cler. Griesbach’s note. — 36 SACRAMENTAL OBSERVANCES. party drank cups of wine, as they had been accustomed to do at the passover; but surely the Jews could have no prejudice in favour of a paschal service at any other time than on the fourteenth day of the first month. A weekly passover, a paschal feast without the paschal lamb, would have been rather in direct opposition to their prejudices than in accordance with them. As well might it be sup- posed that Romanists, on becoming Protestants, would be so prejudiced in favour of the ostentatious rites of their church in the celebration of Easter, as to observe them every Sunday in the year. The ancient commen- tators, on the contrary, as Chrysostom,* and Theophylact,+ think that the disorders specified arose out of the feast of charity, immediately following the eucharist. The abuse, however, seems to have preceded the Lord’s sup- per,—‘‘ When ye come together into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper, for in eating every one taketh before of his own supper: and one is hungry, and an- other is drunken.” It appears to me that the feast of charity preceded the Lord’s supper in the Corinthian church, to which Chrysostom might not have adverted, as in his time the eucharist was celebrated early in the morning. The agapé, however, had lost its appropriate character in their assembly, and had become an occasion of displaying the profusion of the wealthier members, who admitted only their own friends to participate in their sumptuous entertainment; hence while they feasted, others, and especially the poor, were hungry. On coming together to partake of the Lord’s supper, they were so un- fitted by their conduct at the preceding feast as to eat * Tove Ore tavta Eypawev 6 dmdatoAos—tHs ovvatews dmapticbelons weTa THY tov JLugTNpi@v Koweviav, émi Kowijy wavtes Hecav évwxXlav, TOV pev TAOUTOVVT@Y Pepovtwy 7a &déopara, TH dé pevopévev Kai obdév exdvTwY Umép alt@v KadouLEevar, Kal Kowy TavT@y éoiwuévwv, "ANN Vatepov Kai ToUTO diePVapn to Evos.—In 1 Cor. Homil. xxvii. initio. + ’Ev Kopivdg Kara tivas pytas nutpas, toptious ic&s, Kowwy EYwXOUVTO PETA TO petadaPew tay pvotnpiov, K.r.A.—In J Cor. xi. 17, SACRAMENTAL OBSERVANCES. af and drink unworthily, and the apostle would not allow the service to be regarded as the Lord’s supper; ‘‘ When ye come together into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. ”* The agape were for a considerable time retained in the Christian church. In the opinion of Ignatius, they ought not to be celebrated without the authority of the bishop. “Tt is not lawful,” he says, ‘without the bishop either to baptize or to observe the agape.”+ Tertullian, in his Apology, says, ‘Our supper, by its name, declares its na- ture. It is called agape, the Greek word for love :—there we refresh the poor.—We do not sit down until prayer is presented to God. As much is eaten as is sufficient to — satisfy hunger, as much is drunk as is consistent with temperance.”t Jerome says, that ‘‘some proud women make proclamation when they invite people to a love- feast.”§ Augustine says, ‘ Our love-feasts feed the poor.” * This may be illustrated by a very similar abuse described by Socrates, as existing among some of the Egyptian Christians, who were accustomed to observe the Lord’s supper after a sumptuous feast, in the evening of the sabbath. ‘‘After they have feasted, and are loaded with all sorts of meats, in the evening offering the oblation they partake of the mysteries.” Aiyimtioe 6€ yeitoves dvtes ’AXeEdvdpewy, Kat ot Tiv Onfaida oikovvtes, év cabBaty pév mocovvtac cuvaters’ ovx ws EOvos b€ XpLaTLavors THY LUTTHplwv EeTaNapBavovat" MeTa Yap TO EevwxXNUHVal, Kal TavTolwy edecuaTwv EupopnOnvar wept Eomépav mpoc- Pépovtes, THY pvoTHpiwv peTadaufavoverv.—Hist. Eccles. lib. v. cap. 22. This passage appears to me to cast more light on the state of the Corinthian church than anything I have met with in Christian antiquity. + OiK éfdy éottv xwpis tov Emtokorov oltre Banrilew ote dyamnv morciv, Some have thought that we are here to understand the Lord’s supper; but ‘Ignatius had just before stated, that the eucharist, to be valid, must be under ‘the presidency of the bishop, or of one to whom he had entrusted it. The ‘interpolator, however, seems to have understood the passage to refer also to the Lord’s supper, as he expands the phrase thus: otte Bamtifew, otte mpoc Pépecv, ovte Ouvciav rpockopuilerv, ovtE SoxHv EmitEEry, * Cena nostra de nomine rationem sui ostendit. Vocatur enim ¢yazn, id quod dilectio penes Grecos est:..inopes quoque refrigerio isto juvamus... Non prius discumbitur, quam oratio ad Deum pregustetur. Editur quantum esurientes capiunt: bibitur. quantum pudicis est utile. Apol. c. 39. § Cum ad agapen vocaverint, preco conducitur. Ad Eustor. Ep. 22. ||. Agapze enim nostree pauperes pascunt. Contr. Faust. Man. xx. 20. 38 SACRAMENTAL OBSERVANCES. The Constitutions direct, “if any invite elder women to a love-feast, let them send most frequently to such as the deacons know to be in distress.”* Pliny, in his celebrated letter, mentions this feast as observed on the stated day, (undoubtedly the Lord’s day,) on which they had bound themselves by the sacrament before daylight; and as a meal, ‘‘ promiscuous indeed, yet harmless.”}+ In the councils of the fourth century, these feasts were for- bidden to be observed in the churches; and being sadly abused, they eventually declined, and were altogether abandoned. I may be expected to notice the salutation by the holy kiss, as it is called by St. Paul, or the kiss of charity, as it is called by St. Peter—enjoined by both those apostles upon the churches—observed in the age of Justin Martyr,§ when the baptized were brought to the Lord’s supper— practised in Africa in the time of Cyprian||—noticed by many subsequent writers—directed in the Constitutions to be regarded,{/ “‘ Let a deacon say to all, Salute one an- other with a holy kiss,’—retained for several centuries, but subsequently laid aside on account of its incongruity with prevalent feelings, as it is now exchanged in dissent- ing churches for an unexceptionable salutation of the * Tots els ayarny nror Soxyv, ws & Kipios wvdpuace, Tpoatpoumévors KahEely TpET= Bitepas, hv émiatavtat 01 dcakovar MAiBouevny, abt] TAEioTakis TeuMEeTwoaV,—Lib. il. c. 28. This extract shows that the agape were supposed to correspond, as we have intimated, with the feast which our Lord commanded. + “Ad capiendum cibum, promiscuum tamen et innoxium.” I do not cite the words of Lucian, in his account of the death of Peregrinus, because I do not think the supper in a prison, provided by his Christian visitors, corre- sponded with the agapé of the church. If it did, then it was sometimes cele- brated where the whole church could not assemble. Possibly Lucian received an exaggerated account of the carrying of the elements of the Lord’s supper .to the prison, as the early Christians were accustomed to convey them to those who could not be present at the celebration of the eucharist in the church. t See also Orig. c. Cels. i. 1. Chrys. Hom. 27. in 1 Cor. et Serm. de Verb. -ap. 1 Cor. xi. 19. § Apol. i. || De Laps. 2. q Lib. ii. sec. 11. SACRAMENTAL OBSERVANCES. 39 same import, the right hand of fellowship. The exchange of a token of friendship which was originally enjoined by express apostolical authority, for one which has only an incidental notice in apostolical history, without being en- joined upon any, is an instance of our retaining the spirit of an apostolic ordinance, where the form, or sacrament, or sacred sign, is entirely abandoned. So long as it re- mained in the Christian church, it was regarded as an accompaniment of the eucharist, although it was usually omitted before Easter on account of the treacherous kiss of Judas Iscariot.* * See note of Kortholt in Langi et Kortholti Annotationes in Just. Mart, Apol. pri. ed. a Grabe, p. 40. APPENDIX TO LECTURE I. A. Page 20. ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ANCIENT DISCIPLINE AND THE ROMISH DOCTRINE OF PENANCE, As no part of the controversy with the Romanists is more important than that which relates to auricular confession, and the discipline of penance ; and as no part of their system is more dangerous, or more liable to abuse,—no part on which the power of the priesthood so firmly reposes; it may be desirable to notice how entirely destitute of support is their sacrament of penance from that Christian anti- quity to which they profess to appeal. To expose the futility of their appeal is the more needful, as many persons, unacquainted with the subject, are a good deal influenced by the frequent re- ferences in early ecclesiastical history to penance and penitents, con- fession and absolution, as intimating a kind of discipline unlike anything which they find in Protestant communities. The pre- sumption, however, in favour of the Romish practice entirely dis- appears on a very slight acquaintance with the subject. Without professing to follow the ancient discipline (for the Bible alone is our religion), we believe that its substance was scriptural, although its forms were unauthorized, and that the substance has been lost in Protestant communities, because excommunication, as indeed church censure of every kind, has been regarded rather as a civil, than as an ecclesiastical proceeding. According to the discipline of the early ages, offenders were separated from the communion of the church for gross and scandalous crimes. Many of them sought restoration, and were admitted to the classes of penitents. In several respects their situation was similar to that of the catechu- mens. By the course of penance satisfaction was made to the church, and they were absolved from the censure and sentence of APPENDIX TO LECTURE I. 41 excommunication which they had suffered. Whatever might have been the corruptions and abuses of such a system, and whatever the unevangelic severity of church officers and clergy; the leading principles of their penance were evidently nothing more than such as are implied in the power which every voluntary society exercises in excluding such members as violate the expressed or understood conditions of their membership, and in prescribing the manner in which they should make satisfaction to the society for the injury ithas received. If this be a correct account of the ancient discipline of penitents, it is, in every important particular, utterly unlike the Romish sacrament of penance. Happily, we have more information upon this subject than upon most others connected with the ancient church, and the contrast can be easily established. So much is said about the lapsed, their penance and their restoration, that we cannot mistake the character of the ancient discipline. The perusal of Tertullian’s tract, ‘‘ De Peenitentia,’’* or of Cyprian’s ‘‘ De Lapsis,’’ will be quite sufficient to satisfy any candid reader. The persons subjected to penance in the ancient church were such as had been excommunicated or suspended from religious ordi- nances, on account of. their having been unfaithful in time of perse- cution, or having fallen into grievous and scandalous sins. The penance of the Romish church is imposed upon its recognized mem- bers, who are under no sentence of excommunication. ‘The ancient penance was willingly accepted by the offenders, who in the porch of the church entreated permission to enter upon the. well-known discipline ; the penances of the Romish church are imposed by the priest after confession. The exomologesis, or confession, was made publicly ; that term sometimes denoting the whole penance, com- mencing in the porch, and completed in the midst of the church, sometimes the last public act: the Romish confession is most sa- credly private and auricular. When the offenders are said to make satisfaction for their sins, the meaning evidently is that they satisfied the church, or its officers, for the scandal they had brought upon it, or the injury they had inflicted: in the Romish church they make satisfaction by penance to the injured majesty of God. Having no closer connexion with the church than the catechumens they con- tinued in the penitential classes for two, three, five, and sometimes even ten or more years ; and, according to the severe notions of the early ages, they could perform this penance only once, so that, it * This tract is regarded by Neander, Kaye, and almost all commentators, as having been written before its author left the church; but if he were a Montanist when he wrote it, it is confirmed in every particular by ecclesiastical authority. 42 APPENDIX TO LECTURE I. they afterwards relapsed, they were regarded as incorrigible, and left to the uncoyenanted mercies of God; in the Romish church penance is a sacrament for the sins of the faithful, and is continually repeated. The absolution of the penitent by the imposition of hands, was his restoration to the privileges of the community with great solemnity, in the presence of the congregation, when, amidst many prayers, the bishop raised the penitent, assured him of the forgiveness of the church, and restored him to the rank of the faithful ; in the Romish church, the absolution belongs to the con- fessional, not to the public service, and is represented as the pardon of certain sins, of which the people have no knowledge. From the Romish practice, no institution can be more remote than the ancient discipline ; the one was a sacrament of the faithful; the other, a restoration of the excommunicated: the one, according to the council of Trent, the confession of each and every secret sin; the other, a public acknowledgment of grievous injury, inflicted upon the Christian society. To exhibit the several particulars we have adduced, we have only, in the most cursory manner, to glance at the testimony of ecclesiastical antiquity. That the ancient penance was imposed upon excommunicated per- sons preparatory to their restoration, is so apparent in the whole discipline of the penitents and in every allusion to them, that to cite particular passages is unnecessary to the most superficial reader of ecclesiastical history. 'The perpetrators of scandalous and flagi- tious crimes, together with those who had apostatized in times of persecution, were the persons who, having been disowned by the Christian society, were often found at the entrance of the church, soliciting the prayers of the people, and entreating to be allowed to obtain restoration by the public and established course of pen- ance. Until they were allowed to assume the character of penitents, they were not permitted to enter the church, nor to have any partici- pation in its privileges. ‘They were not, until recognized as belonging to the penitential class, permitted to stand even in the narthex, where they might hear the discourse to the catechumens, but daily were prostrate about the cloisters or courts of the church, and so received the name of xemudoyvres, exposed to the inclemency of the weather. The remarkable instance of the Emperor Theodosius, who, after the barbarous massacre of the people of Thessalonica, wished to attend Divine service in the cathedral at Milan, affords sufficient illustration of this particular. Although an emperor, he was regarded as excom- municated by Ambrose; and until, as a penitent, he publicly con- APPENDIX TO LECTURE I. 43 fessed his sin, and submitted to the discipline of the church, he was not allowed to enter the sacred edifice. The excommunicated themselves earnestly entreated to be admit- ted to the course of penitence. Thus, Tertullian represents them, (De Penitentia, c. ix.) as prostrate before the presbyters and the beloved of God, and as entreating of all the brethren the ‘‘ /egationes deprecationis sue,’ the embassy to deprecate their punishment. The Greeks employed the word mpecBeia in the same sense, (Chrys. Hom. 3.) So one Natalius, who had been a heretic and denied the divinity of Christ, on his recanting, in sackcloth and ashes fell down before the bishop, and became suppliant at the feet not only of the clergy but also of the laity, and thus moved the compassion of the church. (Eus. Hist. Ecc. 1. v. c. 28. See also Basil in Ps. xxil. § 3. Ambrose de Peenit. ii. 9, 10.) The confession was a public bewailing of the sin for months and years in a state of sepa- ration from the church, compared with the penance of the king of Babylon in his seven years’ banishment from his kingdom. (Tertullian de Poenit. c. xii. See also De Orat. c. vii. De Pal. c. xiii. Ireneus i. 13. Cyp. Ep. 12. De Lap. c. 11, 12, 20.) The satisfaction for sin made by the penitents was for the injury and scandal done to the church. Augustine distinguishes the satis- faction made to God from the satisfaction made to the church; the former for secret sins, the latter for public offences. (Ench. 65, 70, 71.) Penance was imposed for years, sometimes even for life. (Irenzus i. 13, iti. 4. Conc. Llib. c. 3,13. Cone. Neoc. c. 2,. Conc. Arel. i, c. 14, with other decrees of councils.)* Cyprian complains bitterly of the unseasonable haste with which the lapsed had been released from their sentence. (De Laps. c. 12.) It was allowed only once. Tertullian says, ‘‘ God has placed in the porch a second repentance, but only one, and never any more.” (De Peenit. 7, ibid $. Clem. Alex. Strom. ii.13. Orig. Hom. 15, in Levit. Ambrose de Peenit. ii. 10.) The absolution of the penitent was made publicly on his restoration to the communion of the faithful, as is apparent from continual references to the penitents in sackcloth being led to the altar or the desk in the presence of the people, and having their sins remitted by being delivered from the state of excommunication. Cyprian explains the discipline of penance in a few words. ‘All penitents continue for a proper time in the state of penance, and make confession; and their life being examined, they cannot be * See Canons of Nice,—Note B. p. 46. 44 APPENDIX TO LECTURE I. admitted to the communion unless they receive the imposition of hands from the bishop and clergy.’’ (Cyp. Ep. 12.) Add to these particulars the ancient form of absolution for peni- tents, which is only a prayer for their pardon, (Liturg. Jac. in Bibl. Patt.) the ancient maxim that the church did not take account of smaller sins, and the truth, distinctly asserted as by Cyprian, that remission cannot be had in the church for a sin committed against God, (Test. ad. Quir, lib. iii, § 28,) and in every particular the Romish sacrament of penance, with its auricular confession fre- quently repeated, will appear in direct contrast with the ancient discipline, That the absolution at the altar was always supplicatory, and the absolute form, ‘I absolve thee,’ was not introduced until the twelfth century, Archbp. Usher, in his Answer to the Jesuits’ Challenge, and Bingham (Antiq. lib. xix. c. 1), have clearly proved. We acknowledge that private confessions of sins were made as be- tween Christian friends, and that persons privately confessed their sins in great trouble of mind in order to obtain the best advice from the priest. To such private confessions we find many references. That the penitentiary presbyters appointed after the Decian perse- cution, when the number of the lapsed applying to be received as penitents was very large, affords no authority for the confessions of the Romish church, is eyident from the account of the institution, as related by Socrates, (1. v. c. 19,) and Sozomen, (1. vii. 16,) and has been clearly proved by Bingham, (Antiq. xviii. 3.) These con- fessions, although privately taken, were intended to be used publicly, as the offenders were admitted to penance. That the faithful for the health of their souls were obliged to confess their secret sins to a priest, and that they received from him absolution on performing a private penance, is an assertion as distinctly opposed to the testi- mony of ecclesiastical history, as it is to that of the evangelical doctrine. This palpable and scandalous imposition was unknown even amidst the gross corruptions of the fifth and sixth century. The origin of the Romish practice of indulgences may be easily traced to the remission of part of the penitential discipline on account of peculiar circumstances, as the intercession of martyrs, or the inability to endure severe treatment on the approach of death. The next note will afford an illustration. APPENDIX. TO LECTURE I. 45 B. Page 26. UNCTION NOT THE SACRAMENT OF THE DYING. THAT unction was not the sacrament of the dying in the early church, is evident from the practice of administering the eucharist to them, as ‘‘ the last viaticum,’”’ without any reference to anointing, An instance from Eusebius will illustrate the preceding note, as well as confirm this remark. Serapion, having sacrificed, was ex- communicated, and could not obtain the prayers or religious com- munion of the faithful. In the article of death he obtained the eucharist partly on account of the emergency, partly on account of his previous irreproachable character. Having received this sign of re-union to the church, he is said to have been absolved, although from the history it is certain he could not have been anointed. Eusebius cites the account from a letter of Dionysius of Alexandria to Fabius of Antioch. I adduce a translation, as there is no neces- sity to cite the original. ‘‘There was one Serapion, an aged believer, who had passed his long life irreproachably, but as he had sacrificed during the perse- cution, though he frequently begged, no one would listen to him. He was taken sick, and continued three days in succession speech- less and senseless. On the fourth day, recovering a little, he called his grandchild to him, and said, ‘O son, how long do you detain me? I beseech you hasten, and quickly absolve me. Call one of the presbyters to me.’ Saying this he again became speechless. The boy ran to the presbyter, but it was night, and the presbyter wassick. As I had before issued an injunction that those at the point of death, if they desired it, and especially if they entreated for it before, should receive absolution, that they might depart from life in comfortable hope, I gave the boy a small portion of the eucharist, telling him to dip it in water and to drop it into the mouth of the oldman. The boy returned with the morsel, When he came near, before. he entered, Serapion having again recovered himself, said, ‘Thou hast come, my son, but the presbyter could not come; do thou quickly perform what thou art commanded, and dismiss me!’ The boy moistened it, and at the same time dropped it into the old man’s mouth. And he, having swallowed a little, immediately ex- pired. Was he not then evidently preserved, and did he not con- tinue living until he was absolved; and his sins being wiped away, 46 APPENDIX TO LECTURE I. he could be acknowledged as a believer for the many good acts that he had done?’’ (Kus. Hist. Ecc, 1. vi. c. 44.) The thirteenth canon of the Nicene council not only represents the eucharist as the last and most necessary viaticum for the dying penitent, but with the two preceding, will illustrate the condition of the penitents in the fourth century. The council of Nice was convened in the year 325, KANON IA’. Tlepi tay mapaBavrwy xwpls avayrns, 2) xwpls apapéoews trapxdvTwr, 2} xwpls KivSdvov, } Tivos ToLovTOU, 9 yéeyovey em) THs TUpavvidos AtKiviov" Cdoke TH cuvddy, ef kal avdtior joav piravOpwrlas, duws xpnotedioarbat eis avTOUs. Boot ody yvnoiws peTamEeAavTa, Tpla ern ev &kpowmévols ToLn- govew of miotol Kal Erra ern bmowetouvTar’ Svo Se ern Xwpls mpoopopas KOLWwYNTOVGL TS Aa@ TaY TpocEvXav. KANON IB’, Of 5& mpoocKaAnbevres pev brd THS xdpiTos Kal Thy TpeTHY Spuny evdeta- Hevol, kal drobguevor Tas CHvas, weTa S€ TavTa ém) Toy oiKetoy EweToy ava- Spaudyres ws KUves, Ss Twas Kad apyvpia mpoeobat, Kal Bevepiciots KaTop- Cacat Td avactpatetoacbat’ ovToOL SéKa ern VmoMIMTETWOAY, METH TY TIS ToLeTOUs aKpodcews xpdvov. ep &mact SE TOVTOLS, MpoonKe ekeTACeLy THY Tpoaiperw Kal Td e1d0s THs meTavoias. Boot pev yap Kal PdBw Kal Sdxpuce Kal brouovy Kal adyaboepyias, Thy emirrpophy epyw Kal ov oxHpmart émidelkvuyTat, o0TOL TANpocayTes ThY XpdvoY ToY wpiTMEeVOY Tis akpodoews, eixdTws TOV EVXGY KoLVwYnTOVGL, pEeTa TOD ekElvaL THE emicKdTH Kal PiAay- Cpwrdrepdyv tt wept aitav BovacioacOa, Sco 5 ddiabdpws iveykay, Kar To TXIma Tov clorévar cis THY eKKANTiay apkeiy EavTols HyhoayTo Tpds Thy emirrpéperay, ek &maytos TAnpobTwoay Tov xXpdvor. KANON II”. Tiep) 5€ ray etodevdytwy, 6 maraids Kad Kavovikds vduos PuAaxOhoeTat kal viv, Sore itis eEodevol, Tod TeAEUTalov Kal dvayKaLoTaToU epodiov mh amootepeicbat. ef 5¢ droyvwobels Kal Kowwvias mdAW TUXaY, TAAL ev Tos (aow ekeTacOH, meta THY KoLYwyObYTwY Tis EUXIS MdYNS EoTW. KAOdAOU 5é «al wep) mavTds obtwocodv eEodévovTos aitobyTos St peTacXeiv evXa~ ptotias, 6 érloKomos meT& Soximactas meTtadiddTw THs mpoopopis.—See Routh’s Opuscula, tom. i. p. 361. APPENDIX TO LECTURE T. 47 C. Page 32. ON THE SERVICE OF THE SYNAGOGUE, AS AFFECTING THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. THERE are few inquiries of more interest to the theologian, or of more importance to the general reader, than the origin of those sub- ordinate parts of religious worship, those forms and observances of the primitive Christians, for which there can be adduced no express Divine authority. A few thoughts upon this subject may be neces- sary in enabling us to determine some questions which relate to the Christian sacraments. That some regulations for conducting public worship, some institutions for the government of the churches, must have existed, more minute and circumstantial than those which are ° enjoined in the New Testament, is undeniable. A thousand questions arise, as, What were the hours of worship >? who presided ? how was the worship conducted? how were members accredited ? how were officers appointed? how often was the Lord’s supper administered ? were strangers invited to witness the celebration? was singing cus- tomary > did Christians kneel or stand in prayer? was prayer offered silently, or in an audible voice, by one on behalf of the others; and if so, who prayed for the brethren? These, and many similar ques- tions, suggest one or two others of greater importance. How, and by what authority, were these things determined? Was the practice of the apostolic churches uniform, and are we bound invariably to fol- low it as our precedent? That the modes of worship and precise dis- cipline of the church were severally ordained by express revelation, is an assertion without any support, so far as I know, from the New Testament. Had such a revelation been made in the first age of the church, there can be little doubt that it would have been preserved for our instruction. Express authority for the ancient discipline would be, if it existed, the Divine rule of ecclesiastical government in all ages ; and we can scarcely suppose that a Divine rule of per- manent obligation and use would have been allowed to perish in the ravages of time. Great principles of church polity are unquestion- ably to be found in holy Scripture, but minute regulations are rather incidentally mentioned than distinctly recorded. The inference is, that no church system, beyond these great principles, can plead pre- scriptive authority from God. With respect to questions in which there is no direction or precedent to be found, there can be no diffi- culty, although there may be some in those instances in which we 48 APPENDIX TO LECTURE I. have an apostolic precedent, without an injunction expressed or im- plied. For instance, ought every church to have precisely seven deacons, because in the only specification of the number in the New Testament there were seven? Ought the Lord’s supper to be ad- ministered invariably after sunset, because we have that time men- tioned in the account of the institution? Ought the people audibly to say Amen in the public service, because such a practice seems to have been observed in the Corinthian church? The resolution of many such questions will depend upon the principle, if we can dis- cover one in the Christian Scriptures, applicable to these inquiries ; and this principle will depend, in a great degree, upon the origin and rise of the regulations of the church. The service of the synagogue was, strictly speaking, no part of Judaism ; it did not belong to the Levitical economy ; it was nowhere contemplated in the laws of Moses. The Jewish service was properly ceremonial and typical, a figure for the time then being, belonging originally to the tabernacle, subsequently to the temple. To Jeru- salem it was restricted, there its priests were to officiate ; but there the Jews were required to assemble only at the great festivals. Judaism provided no religious worship for the people. Exclusively a ceremo- nial dispensation, it afforded no regular instruction to the inhabitants of Palestine. Were then the Jews under no obligation to worship God statedly in public assemblies, or to mect together for religious instruction on the sabbath, or on other occasions? Although nothing is prescribed in the law of Moses, yet we do not believe that the Israel of God was left without some system of public worship and religious instruction. We do not believe that, at any time, Judaism, the peculiar institute of Moses, was the whole of the religion of the Jews. As they had circumcision and the sabbath from the fathers, we doubt not they had also public worship from the same ancient source. In the patriarchal ages men called upon the name of the Lord; the sabbath was insti- tuted; religious instructors were raised and qualified by the Spirit of God; Noah was a preacher of righteousness; Abraham taught his numerous tribe to worship the God of all the families of the earth. Is it then credible that the patriarchal worship was abrogated in Israel? The argument of the apostle in the Epistle to the Galatians, that the promise made to Abraham could not be disannulled by the law of Moses succeeding after the lapse of 4380 years, would seem to justify the conclusion that Judaism could repeal no patriarchal insti- tution of Divine authority. Instead of many places for sacrifice one great altar was provided for the nation ; but it does not appear that, APPENDIX TO LECTURE I. 49 instead of many sanctuaries, one great sanctuary for religious instruc- tion was appointed. Instruction was certainly not the object of the temple service. - I, therefore, infer that public worship, being of the fathers, an ancient institution of Divine authority, was not abrogated by the law of Moses. That its forms were regularly observed with- out intermission I do not assert, for even the great law of circum- cision fell into desuetude during the government of Moses, until it was renewed by Joshua; but that they ought to have been, and usually were, observed, I have no doubt. That there is no account of a religious congregation meeting on the sabbath, is but a negation of evidence of no great moment, for, on the same authority, it might be contended that circumcision was not practised from the reproach of Gilgal to the birth of John the Baptist, seeing no instance of the practice is recorded. There are several considerations which induce me to conclude that there was observed in Israel, with some inter- missions, the patriarchal institution of Divine worship, independently of the authority or prescription of the Mosaic law. The Mosaic law strictly enjoins the hallowing of the sabbath, as a day to be scrupulously observed. But what were the people to do on the sabbath? From the sanctuary of Moses there issued no invi- tations to the people. When settled in the land of promise, they were to go up to the ark of the Lord only three times in a year. Some have contended that the Jewish sabbath was intended to be only a day of rest and feasting. That many made it a day of idle- ness and pleasure I do not doubt; and such conduct, if it was not a day for religious worship, was not to be blamed. But what say the prophets of Israel? ‘‘Forthus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant, Even unto them will I give, in my house, and within my walls, a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters.”” Isa. lvi. 4,5. ‘‘If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day, and call the sabbath 2 delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable, and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speak- ing thine own words: then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord, and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father ; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.” Isa, lviii. 13,14. It would seem, from these ‘and similar passages, that the laws of Moses, in prohibiting work on the sabbath, were enacted with reference to religious duties per- formed on that day, according to some other institution of Divine authority. Ke E 50 APPENDIX TO LECTURE I. * Again, we find in the Jewish history a provision for the religious instruction of the people, entirely distinct from the Mosaic law. I refer especially to the institutions and schools of the prophets. From Abraham to Messiah, with few intermissions, there seems to have been a succession of prophets and teachers, divinely authorized and inspired. The Spirit of prophecy which fell upon Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, was found with Simeon and Anna, and, doubtless, with others of their age, who waited for the consolation of Israel. But the instruction of the prophets was no part of the Levitical law; it corresponded more nearly with the patriarchal than with the Jewish economy. These teachers were of various tribes, of Ephraim, of Manasseh, of Judah, and of Benjamin, of which tribes Moses spake nothing concerning the priesthood. They delivered prophecies, but not by consulting the Urim and Thummim ; they offered sacrifices, but not in the court of the temple; they were publicly acknowledged as the men of God, but not attached to the Levitical service; they taught their disciples in schools, like those in after ages belonging to the synagogues. ‘That the prophets of the Old Testament held pub- lic assemblies is intimated in several passages. Samuel said to Saul, **Thou shalt meet a company of prophets coming down from the high place, with a psaltery, and a tabret, and a pipe, and a harp before them.’”’ 1 Sam. x. 5. This high place was on the hill of God. May we not suppose it was a sanctuary to which the prophets resorted for religious worship, and from which they were returning with their instruments of praise? So at Ramah (the high place) the messengers of Saul ‘‘saw the company of the prophets prophesying, and f£amuel standing as appointed over them.”” 1 Sam. xix. 20. They were evi- dently performing a religious service. That the people were accus- tomed to attend their ministry on the sabbath, and other days of leisure, we may infer from the narrative of the Shunammite, who excited the surprise of her husband, by proposing to visit Elisha at Carmel: ‘‘ And he said, Wherefore wilt thou go to him to-day? It is neither new moon nor sabbath; and she said, It will be well.’’ 2 Kings iv. 28. So the Jews are represented as making a false pro- fession of religion in the time of the captivity: ‘‘ And they come unto thee as my people cometh, and they sit before thee as my people, and they hear thy words, but they will not do them.” Ezek. xxxiii. 31, In Israel, therefore, as in the land of Uz, the sons of God, at stated seasons, came to present themselves before the Lord, and the pro- phets addressed them on those occasions, We have thus a Divine institution in Israel, altogether distinct from the Levitical dispensa- tion, of collateral authority with it; not typical, but didactic; not of APPENDIX TO LECTURE I. 51 Moses, but of the fathers; chiefly intended, it would seem, for the religious instruction of the people, and especially on the sabbath. It is said, (Ps. lxxiv. 8,) ‘‘ They have burnt up all the synagogues of God in the land.” The words ‘yJyin may indeed denote the various rooms of the temple, but it seems more natural to refer the plural to several places of assembly. Gesenius says, after noticing other meanings, ‘‘ (If the Psalm pertains to the time of the Macca- bees) the Jewish synagogues,’’—suggesting this interpretation, if the time of the Psalm would allow it. It thus affords some con- firmation, however slight, that places of worship were erected in the and before this Psalm was composed. . As soon as we become acquainted with the Jews after the return from the captivity, we find that synagogues were everywhere estab- lished.’ ‘‘ Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath-day.’’ The Scrip- tures were expounded, or their truths preached, in the vernacular languages, a custom pronounced to be of considerable antiquity by the apostle James. In no city were Jews to be found without a synagogue. Josephus cites Agatharchides, a pagan writer, as testify- ing that the Jews in the age of Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, spent their sabbaths in their holy places. (Con. Ap. 1. i. § 22.) Even in their temporary sojourn in Jerusalem, the men of different nations had their several synagogues. It seems difficult to account for the universal erection of these houses of worship, if the Jews did not generally believe that they belonged to the ancient and Divine religion of their ancestors. The Jewish authorities universally ascribe the custom of publicly reading the law on the sabbath to the age of Moses. So Josephus (con. Ap. 1. ii. § 17) says, Moses ‘* permitted the people to abstain from their employments, and to assemble together for the hearing of the law and learning it exactly, and this not once or twice or oftener, but every week.’’ Philo to the same purpose says, ‘‘ From that time,’’ (of Moses) ‘the Jews have been accustomed to inculcate the principles of their religion on the seventh days, setting apart that to the study and contem- plation of the works of nature; for what are their praying places in every city but schools of wisdom and piety?’’ (De Vit. Mosis, lib, iii.) Many learned men contend that the synagogues were first erected on the return of the Jews from Babylon, and find their origin and model in the account of Ezra reading from a wooden stage the book of the law. The universal prevalence of the practice forbids us to assign a later date; but why may we not believe with the 52 APPENDIX TO LECTURE I. Jewish authorities that they existed before the captivity? We are referred, in reply, to the silence of the Scriptures, which we have already noticed, and to the scarcity of the book of the law on certain occasions in Israel and Judah. The latter circumstance is not, I think, conclusive. The synagogues, if existing, were probably in idolatrous reigns forsaken, or converted into high places of idol- atry. Although the reading of the law was the principal part of the service when copies were multiplied, yet when they were scarce, the oral teaching of the prophets, who must have convened some assemblies of the people, might have supplied its place. Nor is it im- probable that in the schools of the prophets copies of the law were preserved and transcribed, from which their scholars might publicly read to the people. It should be observed that we find synagogues among the Jews who did not return from Chaldea, as well as among those of Egypt and throughout all the world. I do not suppose that the mode of worship was uniformly preserved. The substitution of the written law, and afterwards of the book of the prophets, for oral instruction, must have occasioned a considerable change. The mission of Jehoshaphat is sometimes adduced to prove that there was no public service in the time of the Kings, resembling that of the synagogue. It is said that Jehoshaphat ‘“‘sent to his princes. . . . and with them he sent Levites . . . and they taught in Judah, and had the book of the law of the Lord with them, and went about throughout all the cities of Judah, and taught the people.”’ 2Chron. xvii. 7—9. It might have been an extra- ordinary thing for the king to send persons through the cities, on account of the scarcity of prophets and leaders. In those days, as in the time of Eli, the word of the Lord might have been very pre- cious, and there might have been no open vision. What could have rendered this mission necessary, unless there had been some inter- ruption of the regular instruction of the people? May we not conclude that this was an extraordinary means of supplying the ordinary Divine service which had been neglected in the previous reigns ? , Our Lord evidently accredited the worship of the synagogue ; since he observed its usual forms, and united in its regular celebration. No attentive reader of the New Testament can imagine that He re- garded the service as a Pharisaic tradition. Judaism, we are frequently told, is abolished; but the service of the synagogue, correctly understood, was not Judaism. Whether it was derived from the patriarchal service, or was instituted by Ezra, it was no part of the Mosaic law. Moses was indeed read, as were APPENDIX TO LECTURE I. 53 the prophets, but the reading of the law did not bring the service within the Mosaic institutions. Judaism belonged to the temple, and its ritual was entirely abolished by the Gospel. This is so expressly declared, that we know not how any Christians could have imagined that the temple service was the model of the Christian church, A sacrificial liturgy for sin, typical of the work of Christ, is totally unlike the public worship of Christians. It pleased, how- ever, the ecclesiastics who corrupted the early discipline of the church, to found their hierarchy upon the sacerdotal offices of the temple. With the fathers, the bishops and presbyters were succes- sors of the priests and Levites, the Lord’s supper became a sacrifice, and the gifts of the faithful, the oblations of the altar, We are now prepared for the inquiry, What use was made of the service of the synagogue, in forming the early institutions of the Christian churches? This is a question of fact, and can be answered only by an induction of particulars. Let us confine the inquiry to those particulars which we know from the New Testament belonged to the Christian church of the apostolic age. The Christians adopted the name under apostolic sanction, and applied it to their places of assembly, James, writing to the twelve tribes of the dispersion, says to the Christians among them, “If there come into your synagogue’’ (English version, assembly,) ‘‘a man with a gold ring.’”” The use of the word may prepare us to expect a resemblance in the worship, It appears also from this passage in James, that, as there were chief seats in the synagogues, there were more honourable places in the Christian assembly. The apostle seems to allow the distinction, but to censure the Christians for as- signing the uppermost seats to the rich, rather than to the poor rich in faith. Ido not, however, ascribe much importance to this parti- cular, which might have been only an accidental distinction, though the apostle seems to speak of it as a general practice, for he did not write to a particular church, There were in the synagogues certain men of reputation, entrusted with the direction of the assembly, and called rulers. Thus Jairus was one of the rulers of the synagogue at Capernaum: Crispus and Sosthenes were rulers of the synagogue at Corinth.* They appear to have acted in concert, as at Antioch the rulers of the synagogue sent unto Paul and his companions. In the Christian churches officers were appointed, ‘“‘ who had the rule over them.’ The rulers of the * Unfortunately our version represents Crispus as the chief ruler of the synagogue, as it does Sosthenes; but the word is elsewhere used in the plural, and cannot. designate one ruler as superior to the others. See Acts xiii. 15, 54 APPENDIX TO LECTURE I. synagogue were called elders and bishops, as were the officers of the Christian church ; their council was called the presbytery,—so was that of the Christian officers. (1 Tim.iv.14.) Both in the synagogue and the church, the induction into office was by the imposition of the hands of the presbytery. ‘The presiding officer, or the person who publicly officiated, was called the legate or angel of the synagogue; each church of Asia Minor had its angel. Distinct from the presby- ters, were officers to minister in the secular affairs of the assembly, as in the church were faithful men chosen to serve tables, S:axovety tpamé(ais, to attend to pecuniary affairs. According to the Jewish authorities, the president of the synagogue ought to be a married man; and the apostle enjoins that a bishop be ‘*‘ the husband of one wife.’’ In the synagogues especial provision was made for widows, very much in accordance with the directions of St, Paul. Alms were collected in the synagogues for the poor; in every church there was a fellowship of saints. Contributions were made in the synagogues of the Hellenists for the poor of Jerusalem ; the apostles commanded the Gentile churches to remember the poor at Jerusalem, which Paul ‘‘ was forward to do.’’ Offenders were put out of the synagogue, ex- communicated. St. Paul commands the Corinthians to put away the unclean person. In every synagogue was a court of arbitration to settle differences among the members, the decisions of which were usually respected by the Roman authorities; the apostle reproves the Corinthians for not having adopted this expedient to prevent the scandal of their lawsuits. When Ezra blessed the Lord, the great God, all the people answered, Amen, Amen, lifting up their hands, which form of expressing assent in public worship was preserved in the synagogues. The apostle represents the unlearned as ‘‘ saying Amen, at the giving of thanks,”’ and he ‘‘ would that men pray every- where, lifting up holy hands.’’ It would be easy to multiply these particulars, but quite sufficient has been stated to prove the close analogy of the synagogue and the church in their forms and disci- pline. That the Jews would borrow their ritual from the church we cannot suppose, and in a subsequent age the Christians bore as little good-will to the Jews. Besides, we have scriptural evidence to sus- tain us in asserting that the above particulars were as ancient as the Christian era. We are, therefore, compelled to admit that the rites, offices, discipline, and government of the first Christian churches, were, in several particulars, derived from the synagogue, under the sanction of apostolic authority. We have in the lecture traced the resemblance between the sabbath feasts of the synagogue and the love- feasts of the church. There is another particular of considerable APPENDIX TO LECTURE LI. 5d importance, but as it is disputed, I shall not attempt the proof in this note, already too long, (although the evidence is easily accessible ;) the officers both of the synagogue and of the early churches were appointed on the suffrages of the people. On reviewing the subject of this note, it is pleasing to contemplate the evidence of the regular performance of public worship, one day in every week, in the assem- blies of the pious, from the creation to the present time, with less variation of form and ritual than in the great change of dispensations might have been expected. The venerable Amen of the days of Ezra is still heard in our assemblies, the Psalms of David are still sung in the congregation of the Lord, the sabbath of Paradise is still hallowed in the Christian church. For the Jewish authorities in support of the several particulars in this note, the reader is referred to Lightfoot, Selden, Vitringa de Synog. Vet. Calmet, Prideaux, Ikenius, Horne’s Introduction, pt. ili, ch. 1, § 4. Lardner’s Credibility, b. I. ch. ix. 6. Grotius in Act. xv. 21. LECTURE II. ON THE PERPETUITY AND DESIGN OF THE SACRAMENTS. “And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever.” —Exodus xii, 24. “Nemo in castra hostium transit, nisi projectis armis suis, nisi destitutis signis et sacramentis principis sui.”—Tertullian de Spectaculis, c. xxiv. In the preceding Lecture, we noticed the several insti- tutions which are observed as sacraments, or as of a sacra- mental character, by various denominations of Christians, and so prepared for the consideration of those two sym- bolical services, which, as we believe, are of perpetual obligation in the Christian church. It may be more con- venient, and may bring the subject, in both its parts, more distinctly before you, if, instead of diverging at this point to treat separately of baptism and the Lord’s supper, I notice, in one Lecture, the perpetuity and the symbolic character of these services, in opposition both to those who deny their permanent obligation, and to those who regard them as more than symbols, so far, but only so far, as the same arguments and the same objections are applicable to both institutions. i The society of Friends, as well as some small commu- nities of Christians on the continent, reject both baptism and the Lord’s supper, assuming as their distinctive prin- ciple, that all worship by means of forms and ceremonies PERPETUITY OF THE SACRAMENTS. 57 is utterly inconsistent with the spirit of the Christian reli- gion. It may seem too much like subtle evasion, to say that neither baptism nor the Lord’s supper is an act of worship, since they are both regarded by us as symbols of doctrine, representations of important truth by significant acts, instead of significant words; and therefore the objec- tion, strictly and correctly stated, ought to be, that all exposition of Christian truth, by significant actions or religious rites, is utterly inconsistent with the spirit of the Gospel. But as writers of reputation among the Friends object that we employ these rites in immediate connexion with the more direct and public acts of worship, I will, without demurring upon a distinction which they say they cannot acknowledge, although it appears to me both evident and important, admit the objection, as it is stated by themselves. If there is the most distinct and unexceptionable evi- dence of the practice of the apostles in observing the rites of baptism and the supper; it is, we maintain, little to the purpose to collect a multitude of passages which de- clare the spirituality of the Christian dispensation. That ‘‘the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but right- eousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost,” is a great and important truth, for in these words the apostle asserts the invariable distinction between the essential principles of Christian doctrine, and all symbolic institutions sub- servient to them. The kingdom of heaven—the reign of Christ—consists not in the latter, but in the former; not in the external signs, but in the truths signified. But in the assertion of this truth did the apostle construct an argument against his own practice in baptizing the Philip- pian jailer, or in breaking bread at Troas? If the argu- ment be valid in our times, it must have been equally so in the apostolic age; for the kingdom of heaven has not changed; and powerful as it may seem in the estimation of the society of Friends, it unquestionably had no such 58 PERPETUITY OF THE SACRAMENTS. power in the estimation of the apostles. To interpret this passage as implying that all symbolic observances are in- consistent with the true spirit of the Gospel, suggests the inquiry, Are we to suppose that the apostles authorized such inconsistencies, and imposed them for a time upon the church? The reply of ‘the Friends,” that they acted in condescension to the infirmities of the Jews, is of no avail. If the kingdom of God were not meat and drink, if it were not form and ceremony; would the apostles have made it meat and drink, form and ceremony, by a conces- sion to the prejudices of any men or women upon the face of the earth? But if their observance of symbolic rites did not adulterate the Gospel, neither does ours; if at the very time that they were baptizing their converts, and breaking bread among their disciples, they did not make the kingdom of God meat and drink, neither does it be- come carnal and ceremonial through our imitation of their example. We do only as they did. There may be, and if there are, let the Quakers produce them, good reasons for relinquishing the apostolic practice ; but we cannot admit that the apostles reduced the Gospel to shadow and cere- mony, or that their practice was in opposition to the truth of their own text so often cited against us. The slightest attention to this passage would show that it refers to things indifferent, and is much more appropriate to the peculiarities of dress and of speech which distin- guish ‘‘the Friends,” than it is to the symbols of our faith, which, if not of Divine authority, are profane inven- tions of men. If it be said, that the sacraments were allowed as things indifferent, then the argument of ‘“ the Friends’ must be abandoned, because being only indif- ferent, and not inconsistent with the Christian religion, there lies against them no such objection as they allege ; and things in themselves indifferent, that is, things in themselves innocent, when sanctioned by apostolic prac- tice, are surely not now to be made grounds of division PERPETUITY OF THE SACRAMENTS. 59 among the disciples of Christ. That previously to the advent of Christ God appointed a religious institute, in which evangelical truth was exhibited in ceremony and sacrament, is universally admitted, as indeed it is absol- utely undeniable. 'T'o what extent, on the coming of the Messiah, symbolic services were abolished, or retained, or modified, it is for no man to decide, without appealing to the New Testament, upon any general views of the sim- plicity or the spirituality of the Gospel. If for wise reasons God appointed in the Jewish church a number of magni- ficent, though burdensome ceremonies; for reasons equally wise, he may have ordained in the Christian church a few of a simpler character. -If in regard to the infirmities of the Jews, as “the Friends” assert, many ceremonial ob- servances were ordained in the ancient church, for aught they know, there may be infirmities so inherent in human nature, or so generally prevalent, as to render a few simple forms desirable, if not absolutely necessary, for the great majority in every age of the world. Is not the Christian church surrounded with infirmities, and for the sake of the weak brethren, if no better reason could be given, may not sacramental services be imposed even upon the strong? Every man is to look not upon his own things only, but also upon the things of others: for mutual edification is the chief end of that church-union in which believers are commanded to associate. If any man has attained to a Gnostic perfection, in which no sacraments can aid his pure and abstract contemplations of God, let him consider that there are many in the church whose infirmities place them on a level with the more prejudiced and feebler Christians of the apostolic communities. To say that these observances were for a season conceded to the pre- judices or the superstitions of the Jewish converts, but were subsequently to be renounced, would be to exhibit the apostolic churches, when acting in obedience to the apostolic authority, not as models for succeeding ages to 60 PERPETUITY OF THE SACRAMENTS. copy, but as beacons for them to avoid; not as exhibiting the strength and beauty of the Christian faith, but its feebleness and deficiency through the beggarly elements of the world. . Besides, is it not remarkable that if the apostles, from regard to the prejudice of the age, appointed these un- christian services, they should have made no provision for their gradual disuse; should have given no intimation of that glorious emancipation from sensual ordinances, to which ‘the Friends” have happily attained by their abstract contemplation of Divine truth in her simple majesty, unattended by the heraldry of painted symbols ? On the contrary, so far from having done so, they have left these carnal ceremonies unimpaired to their successors, who, in the next, and in every subsequent age, have scru- pulously retained them as the emblems and memorials of the truth of Christ. ‘The Friends,” however, say that intimations of the will of Christ do exist in the New Testament. Although the apostles observed baptism and the Lord’s supper, yet, it is asserted, these observances were relics of Judaism, opposed to the true spirit of Christianity. Let us then prosecute the appeal to the New Testament. We have already noticed one passage ; let us now turn to another, which is frequently cited, and which the early Friends, as Barclay, who is said to be unanswerable, if not infallible, as well as their modern defenders, place in the front of their battle. I refer to the discourse of our Lord with the woman of Samaria. Jesus said, in reply to the woman of Sychar, who had referred to him the dispute between the Jews and Sama- ritans respecting the worship of God in Jerusalem or mount Gerizim, “ Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jeru- salem, 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 PERPETUITY OF THE SACRAMENTS. 61 him. God is a Spirit, and they that worship him, must worship him in spirit and in truth.” The inference de- duced by Barclay from this passage is, that every system of worship by ceremonial observances, like that of the Jews or of the Samaritans, being entirely abolished, the worship of the Christian church is exclusively spiritual, without any external rite or symbolic ordinance what- soever. But is not this inference too general? That the spirit and character of the two dispensations are here presented in contrast, we readily acknowledge; but can we justly infer more from the passage than that the dispensation which was to succeed Judaism required no ceremonial, no visible mediation of priests or sacrifices, no sacred places nor seasons, as the means by which we draw nigh unto God? Do we not completely convey the sense and whole force of the passage, in saying that in every place, and not exclusively in one or two hallowed spots, and without any ceremonial or formal observance, every wor- shipper who presents the offering of a true and sincere heart is acceptable to God? In this doctrine we most entirely concur; but we can see nothing in it which forbids us to baptize a proselyte, or to observe the Supper as a memorial of our blessed Lord. If we maintained that these rites were indispensable to acceptable worship, or that they were anything more than signs of evange- lical truth, the passage, with some appearance of reason, might be cited against us. Our Lord says, “The hour cometh, and now is ;” but by the concession of our opponents, baptism was at that time practised by the disciples of Christ under his autho- rity, and the Lord’s supper was first solemnized on a sub- sequent occasion. If the words of our Lord were intended to exclude all symbols from the Christian religion, would he have introduced the clause ‘‘and now is,” when one symbolic service was recently appointed, though as they 62 PERPETUITY OF THE SACRAMENTS. say for a temporary purpose, and the other was about to be instituted by himself? The hour cometh, and after a short intervening dispensation of only two simple cere- monies, will arrive, would have been the proper phrase, if our Lord intended to teach that baptism and the Supper were to be eventually excluded from his church. If the passage, having in it the clause “and now is,” did not exclude the two symbols from the Christian service of the apostolic age, so neither does it exclude the same symbols from the Christian service of the present day. It can have no more force now than it had at that time; it cannot act upon the future with an impulse which it did not impart to the present; it is not a prophecy of this day, but a relation of that age. The Samaritans themselves, and probably this very woman, were afterwards baptized by the evangelist Philip.. These observations will apply to other passages of a similar import, cited especially from the Epistle to the Hebrews, of which Mr. Gurney gives us this summary,*—Then “ was the law of types abolished ;” to which we reply in few words, that baptism and the Lord’s supper did not belong to that law of types. “There is,” it is a favourite passage with the Quakers, “qa disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof, (for the law made nothing perfect;) and there is, on the other hand,” (such is the proper translation of the passage,)} ‘the in- troduction of a better hope, by the which we draw nigh * Observations on the Religious Peculiarities of the Friends, p. 64. + ’AOérnots pev yap yivetat Tpoayovons évToANs, dice TO adTHS dabeves Kai dvwpedés (oidévy yap éteNeLwoev 6 vouos) émetcaywyy dé Kpeittovos éAmidos, dt Hs eyyiComer ap Gep. Heb. vii. 18,19. Through neglect of the particles pév and 4¢, this passage is erroneously translated in the common version, as well as by Mac-. knight, Stuart, and other translators whom I have consulted. Instead of opposing the introduction of a better hope to the disannulling of the com mandment going before, they oppose it to the parenthetical clause, “ the law made nothing perfect,” and supply a verb, “but the bringing in of a better hope did.” PERPETUITY OF THE SACRAMENTS. 63 unto God.” Baptism and the Lord’s supper, we reply, did not belong to “the commandment going before,” but to ‘the better hope,” which was brought in with baptism, and commemorated in the Supper. If they have disco- vered that the true exposition of these passages utterly excludes all ceremony and sacrament in the most simple and intelligent form, as wholly repugnant to the genius and spirit of the gospel; then, by adroitly marshalling the texts of the apostles in opposition to their practice, the Quakers confront them with their own words, and in effect say, We follow your doctrine, but not your practice; we do as you teach, but not as you act. For the apostolic prac- tice let us now look into the apostolic records. That John’s baptism was from heaven and not of men, “the Friends” will not deny, unless they are more slow to believe than the Pharisees, who replied to the inquiry of our Lord, ‘* We cannot tell.” We are told, indeed, that John’s baptism may mean his doctrine, which was from heaven; but what saith John himself? ‘‘ He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and resting upon him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.” T'o this baptism Jesus submitted, not in condescension to Jewish prejudices, but that he might fulfil all righteous- ness. But righteousness must have respect to some law, and the inquiry is suggested, Of what law did: our Lord desire to fulfil ail righteousness? He could not have meant the law of Moses, nor that of the fathers, for neither Moses nor the fathers commanded to baptize in Jordan; he must have referred to the Divine commission which John had received. ‘The expression evidently implies that the dispensation of John was a law of God, without sub- mission to which Jesus, being a Hebrew of that age, would not have fulfjlled all righteousness. Afterwards, ‘‘ the Pharisees heard that Jesus made and 64 PERPETUITY OF THE SACRAMENTS. baptized more disciples than John.”* Baptism was, ac- cording to these words, administered under the sanction of the Founder of the Christian faith. Because the evan- gelist observes, ‘“‘ Although Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples;” would it be imagined by those unac- quainted with their writings, that the early Friends as well as their modern disciples have laid great stress upon this incidental notice? I know not how to express the feeling, with which I quote the words of so good and candid a man as Joseph John Gurney upon this passage. He says, “Those preachers of the Gospel, therefore, who consider it their duty, in conformity with the great fundamental law of Christian worship, to abstain from the practice of baptizing their converts in water, have the consolation to know that in adopting such a line of conduct, they are following the example of Him who is on all hands allowed to have afforded us a perfect pattern.”} Of ‘a Friend” we ask, Is an argument to be raised from the conduct of our Lord, against the practice of his own apostles acting immediately under his own eye? Our Lord did not ac- tually baptize, but would he have allowed his apostles to do anything inconsistent with his own doctrine in the dis- charge of their public ministry, and to do it in his own name? When the apostles administered baptism, would not every friend and every foe infer from their conduct that the rite was sanctioned by the authority of their Master? and if it was sanctioned by his authority, it is worse than irrelevant to this argument, to add, He did not actually baptize. The sense of the passage ought surely to be thus expounded, Although Jesus did not himself actually baptize, yet by the ministry of his apostles under his sanction, he virtually baptized more disciples than John. — We have now to consider the great commission which our Lord gave to his apostles: “Go, therefore, and dis- * John iy. 1, 2. + Observations, &c. p. 103. PERPETUITY OF THE SACRAMENTS. 65 ciple all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” We do not maintain, as do many, that our Lord on this occasion instituted Christian baptism, for the apostles under his authority had previously administered it to great multi- tudes of the Jews. If, therefore, it could be shown, by any refined process of reasoning, that these words do not con- tain a charge given by our Lord to his apostles to baptize with water, the argument from the apostolic practice, both previous and subsequent to the death of Christ, would remain unimpaired. The members of the society of Friends maintain, that by baptism we are here to understand, not the baptism of water which John administered, but the baptism of the Holy Ghost which Christ conferred. An able writer in the Congregational Magazine,* from whom I differ with reluctance, because his views and arguments on Christian baptism, so well and powerfully sustained, in almost every particular, exactly coincide with those which I have long maintained, agrees substantially with ‘the Friends,” and renders the passage: “ Go forth, and make disciples of all nations, purifying them for the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” I adhere to the usual interpretation of the verse for several reasons. ist. Although I place little dependence upon a traditive sense of Scripture, yet if uniformity of ancient interpreta- tion is anywhere to be found, it is in referring to these words of our Lord as an authority for baptism by water. Whatever may be thought of the golden rule of Vincent of Lerins, this is one of the very few places to which, amidst the vagaries of even the catholic and orthodox on the meaning of single texts, it may be applied, and with a breadth which even his comprehensive terms do not in- clude, for “all,” (the faithful, as he means,—we add, and all the unfaithful too,) ‘in all places, and at all times,” * Vol. v. New Series, p. 850. Ri. 66 PERPETUITY OF THE SACRAMENTS. have agreed in expounding this text with perfect uniformity, as containing the commission to baptize proselytes with water. ‘Those ancient heretics who did not practise bap- tism by water rejected, as I believe, the whole, or im- portant parts of the canonical Scriptures; but I confi- dently make the assertion of all who have received the Christian canon. The value of this reason will be variously estimated; let it go for what it is worth, be it little or much. Qnd. If there be nothing in the context to induce us to assien a figurative, rather than a literal sense to a word, we are bound to prefer its literal signification. To bap- tize, although used sometimes figuratively in reference to the mind, ought to be understood, unless there be some reason to the contrary, like every other word, in its ordi- nary acceptation. If it be said, the words literally are, baptizing into the name of God, and not into water or with water, we reply, in other passages, where it is said any were baptized into Christ, or into the name of a person, water was emblematically employed. 3rd. Without at present considering what has been said by some writers, who have contended that the word bap- tize in the New Testament means, to purify; it does not seem probable that the apostles at this time were so fami- liar with the reference of the word to the purification of the mind, as on hearing it without explanation to under- stand it in that sense. Wherein does it appear that, pre- viously to the Pentecost, they so understood the term? The Jews had a dispute about purifying, and they might have called it baptism, but if they did, they referred not to the sanctification of the mind, but to the ablution of the body. As to the baptism of the Holy Ghost, attributed by John to the Saviour, it is not probable the apostles as yet understood the meaning of John’s declaration. 4th. To purify into the name of a person is an unusual and unauthorised sense of the words, and therefore inad- PERPETUITY OF THE SACRAMENTS. 67 missible, if the usual and authorised sense is not excluded by the context. The words are rendered, purifying them for the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The word name, we are told, only denotes the person, and therefore may be omitted in translating; but this is not the dispute, for about this there can be no doubt at all. The question is, in the passages in which the sense of the phrase, baptize into the name, or if it be so preferred, into the person, can be ascertained, does it mean an ablution of the body, or a purification of the mind? ‘ All were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” ‘‘ Were ye baptized into the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius; lest any one should say that I baptized into my own name.” ‘The twelve men at Ephesus, on hearing him, were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. On the Samaritans, the Holy Ghost had not yet fallen, only they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. In these instances it is indisputable, that water was in some way employed; but there is no authority whatever for interpreting “to bap. tize into the name” of a person, or into a person, as though it denoted only to purify the. mind for the person. The dispute therefore, is between a well-authorised and an un- authorised sense of the phrase; and it is very little to the purpose to show upon an analysis of the passage, that the words taken singly and separately, when they ought to be taken collectively, may be as appropriate to one interpret- ation as to the other. 5th. The command, to purify all nations, interpreted in accordance with the general style of Holy Scripture, must be understood ceremonially. God purifies the heart, or men may be said to purify themselves by the truth, but they are not commanded to purify, to sanctify, to save others. The charge, “ Disciple all nations, purifying them,” is equivalent to a direct command to purify all nations, which is certainly not the usual style of Scripture 68 PERPETUITY OF THE SACRAMENTS. unless it be understood, as we understand it, in a cere- monial sense. 6th. The objection to the common interpretation, as it is often propounded, is the supposed incongruity between the general commission, Disciple all nations, and the men- tion of a specific precept, to baptize, when the converts were to be taught to observe all things whatsoever Christ com- manded. But this supposed incongruity is in accordance with the common phraseology of the New Testament, and therefore becomes an argument in favour of the literal in- terpretation. ‘Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized, every one of you; then they that received the word were baptized.” It may be here asked, Why should Peter add to the general charge, Repent, the reference to only one specific duty? ‘That he did so, whatever might have been his reason, is sufficient for our purpose. Baptism, as the sign of discipleship, was, in the first instance, en- joined upon every prosclyte. As, therefore, Peter charged his hearers, connecting the general and the specific, ‘‘ Re- pent, and be baptized,” meaning with water; so our Lord charged his apostles, ‘“ Disciple all nations, baptizing them,” meaning with water. Let me not, however, be here misunderstood. I do not say the commission is, Baptize into water, because it is plainly, Baptize into the name, and there is not a word about water in the text. From this passage alone, we could not prove that water was ever used in baptism. All I maintain is that, in baptizing into the name of a person, or into a person, baptizing into the name of the Trinity, or baptizing into the name of Christ, or into Christ, or into Moses, or into any one else, water was always understood to be employed as the sign of that baptism. I shall here- after have occasion to notice that, in the language of the New Testament, proselytes are baptized into Christ by water, and not into water by Christ. Respecting the observance of this commission by the PERPETUITY OF THE SACRAMENTS. 69 apostles, although they generally entrusted the administra- tion of baptism to evangelists and other assistants, yet from several intimations in their epistles, we may safely conclude that not a single convert was unbaptized, so far as their authority extended; and from the subsequent nistory we may infer that the commission was understood as not confined to the apostles. Although Quakers speak with marvellous complacency of the great apostle of the Gentiles being sent, not to bap- tize, but to preach the Gospel, yet even St. Paul sometimes baptized; if seldom in Corinth, yet occasionally elsewhere. The Corinthian converts were unquestionably baptized, and many of them, we have no reason to doubt, by the assistants of Paul, and under his direction. The remark, therefore, which we made upon the conduct of our Lord, in not baptizing, will equally apply to the practice of St. Paul. His commission was not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel, and, therefore, he generally left the baptism of the converts to others; yet its administration was sanctioned both by his practice and his authority. In reply to the argument derived from the apostolic practice, it is said that baptism was a concession to Jewish prejudices; and as it is admitted, at least by some Quakers, that the Lord’s supper was solemnized in the primitive churches, the same reply is offered to this apostolic precedent. As both baptism and the Lord’s supper were founded upon the usages of the Jews, it is said, they were allowed, in the infancy of the church, to conciliate the Hebrew converts. Barclay intimates that the apostles themselves were slow in casting off their Jewish prejudices, although he trusts chiefly to the notion that the two cere- monies of the apostolic age were allowed by the apostles in condescension to the weakness of Jewish believers. But let us hear their own language: ‘“ Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the re- mission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy 70 PERPETUITY OF THE SACRAMENTS, Ghost.” ‘For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.”’ Is it to be supposed that the apostles would employ language so solemn and impressive, if they were speaking of unmeaning ceremonies, tolerated, but not approved, from regard to the weakness of the Jews? Were these the instructions to lead them from carnal elements to the more excellent way? Would one of “the Friends” now repeat them in addressing a pious person of another com- munity, whose prejudices might be as unyielding, or infir- mities as pitiable, as were those of the Jews? Was this the style of address with which Fox and his friends extinguished their candles in the churches? But we maintain that the notion of a concession to Jewish prejudice is wholly gratuitous, or rather absolutely false. What prejudice had the Jew, which would not be offended rather than conciliated by either of these sacramental services? That both bap- tism and the Lord’s supper were founded upon Jewish practices, we readily admit. Our Lord adopted the rites of the Jews, and what is remarkable, rites unauthorised by the law of Moses, and consecrated them to be the symbolic services of his church; yet in their new form they must have been directly opposed to every Jewish prejudice. Whether we refer baptism to the divers washings of the Jews observed in accordance with the Mosaic law, or to the baptism of proselytes prevailing in the time of our Lord, the Christian rite must have been opposed to the prevalent opinions and feelings of the Jewish nation. If it were represented as a purification from legal pollution, would it have conciliated a Jew to require, indiscriminately PERPETUITY OF THE SACRAMENTS. 71 from all, clean or unclean, and specifically from himself, a legal purification, when he knew that he had contracted no legal pollution? Why was the scrupulous Pharisee, proud in his legal righteousness, moving with ever-wakeful scru- pulosity to preserve his long robes and broad phylacteries from every stain, to be thus treated, as if he had been living like a heathen man and a publican? He had ob- served most rigidly, not only the baptisms of the law, but the ablutions of the scribes ; he had purified himself from the touch of the dead, and had washed when he came from the market; he was perfectly clean according to the law of Moses, and equally so according to the traditions of the elders; why should he submit to a new cleansing, as if he were a common and profane man? His baptism, what- ever might have been the reason of it, was surely a prepos- terous mode of conciliating his prejudice. Mr. Gurney, however, relies especially upon the prose- lyte baptism of the Jews, as the origin of their prejudice in favour of such a rite of initiation, believing that every Gentile was, in the time of our Lord, baptized with his household, on his becoming a convert to Judaism. If the apostles had baptized only Gentiles, there might have been some plausibility in his opinion, but the baptism of a Jew was, in effect, saying to him, You are becoming a proselyte to a new religion, from which you, with the Gentile, have been equally estranged. You must wash away your un- cleanness, as if you had been a polluted Samaritan, or a Syro-Pheenician dog. The faith of Abraham, the law of Moses, and the institutions of your elders, have not availed to prevent you from appearing in the chavacter, and sub- mitting to the rites of a proselyte. Though a master in Israel, you must, like a Gentile, be born again of water as well as of the Spirit, or you cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. So far from being conciliated, the prejudice and wounded pride of the Pharisee would naturally dictate the reply of Nicodemus, How can these things be ? 72 PERPETUITY OF THE SACRAMENTS. Respecting the Lord’s supper, similar remarks, with at least equal force and propriety, may be made. The ritual of the supper is evidently derived from the usages of the Jews in celebrating the passover. ‘‘ Not the poorest in Israel might eat of it, till he was seated,” says the Talmud.* Jesus sat down with the twelve. The officiating minister or president of the feast broke a cake of unleavened bread, and gave thanks to God, who bringeth bread out of the earth. + Among the several cups of wine used on the occa- sion, there was one called the cup of blessing, or thanks- giving, over which they gave thanks, and sang the Hallel, or sacred psalms.{ These usages Jesus consecrated as the memorial of his own propitiatory death. But on this very account, the celebration of the Lord's supper, except on the day of the paschal feast, would have shocked the religious feelings of the Jews. ‘The rites of the passover were appropriate to the fourteenth day of the first month, the anniversary of the original institutién. Their obser- vance on any other day, unless, in an emergency, on the fourteenth day of the second month, especially their weekly observance, and their observance without the other parts of the paschal service, must have appeared unauthorised and profane to the eyes of such as looked with veneration on the institutes of Moses, or the traditions of the elders. Can we then suppose that this service was conceded by the apostles to Jewish prejudice ? What law of the nation, what tradition of the elders, what gloss of the scribes, could possibly require a weekly paschal feast without a paschal lamb? example of the Israelites, who, by the abuse of their relt- gious privileges, did provoke the Lord to jealousy. Of * Issure. Biah. c. 138. See Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. on John iii. + See Wall, Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. on Matt. iii. and John iii. Selden de Syned. lib, i.e. 38. + I Cor. x. ae 118 ON JEWISH BAPTISM. their privileges he enumerates the baptism into Moses, the eating of the same spiritual or typical food, the drink- ing the same spiritual or typical drink of the rock, which was Christ. Treating of the abuse of the Lord’s supper, he refers to the typical food and drink of the Israelites ; surely by baptism into Moses he must mean something more than the mere fact of passing through the sea and under the cloud. Of the bare fact, if it had not a spiritual meaning, the apostle could not have been so anxious the Christians should be informed, in order that they might be supplied with a salutary caution. He could not have referred to an ordinary affusion or immersion, whichever the baptism might have been, but to some affusion or immersion of a typical or sacramental character, like the | baptism of the Christians, for the introduction of an event of no spiritual import would have been irrelevant to his argument. St. Paul, therefore, declares that the whole nation of Israel was, previously to the giving of the law, baptized into Moses, which is exactly the doctrine on which the Jews found their baptism of proselytes. The apostle indeed seems to represent the baptism as referring to the cloud and the sea; the rabbins, for the most part, to the ablution, the sanctifying themselves and washing their clothes at the foot of Sinai. But both agree that the whole nation of Israel was, previously to the covenant of Sinai, baptized into Moses, initiated by water into the religion or covenant which he announced. According to the Talmuds and according to St. Paul, there was a baptism of all the tribes of Israel unto Moses. Another particular, worthy of attention, is, that the Jews considered the baptized proselyte as newly born, born a second time, having renounced his former parents on becoming one of a newnation. Wall, in his History of Infant Baptism, asserts, I think, too much, when he says, that “the baptism of a proselyte was called his regenera- tion, or new birth.” I can find no passage to support his ON JEWISH BAPTISM. TLS. assertion. The proselyte was represented as newly born, and his baptism was undoubtedly a sign of his proselytism, an indispensable rite by which it was accredited. But I do not know that the baptism, any more than the circum- cision, or any other act in the admission of a foreigner into the Jewish church, was exclusively called the new birth. He was proselyted, or newly born, by water as the sign; but the proselytism, not the baptism, was his new birth. The passages, as adduced by Lightfoot, are from the Talmud. “If any one become a proselyte, he is like a child new born;”* and from Maimonides, “ The Gentile that is made a proselyte, and the servant that is made free, behold, he is like a child new born.”+ The proselyte, therefore, was regarded as introduced into new connexions, a new parentage, and a new state. He became a child of Abraham, so far as external privileges were concerned, by circumcision and baptism. We have already proposed the inquiry hypothetically, if this were the language’ of the Jewish teachers, would it not illustrate the words which our Lord addressed to Nicodemus? We now have the illustration. ‘The ruler brought to Jesus by night a secret confession of his faith, which our Lord would not receive. Jesus answered, ‘ Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Unless he become a proselyte by baptism, he is not, ostensibly and as entitled to its ex- ternal privileges, a member of that kingdom; unless he become a convert by the Spirit, he is not, really and as entitled to its everlasting rewards, a member of that king- dom. ‘T'o be completely a member of Christ’s kingdom, both acknowledged by the church, and approved of God, he must be both a baptized and a converted man. That such is the true interpretation of these words of our Lord, may be inferred from several considerations. In the early * Jevamoth, fol. 62.1; 92. 1. + Maim. Issure. Biah. c. 14. (See Lightfoot, vol. xii. p. 255.) 120 ON JEWISH BAPTISM. ages no other meaning was ever assigned to the words. ‘* To be born of water and of the Spirit” was the double baptism: to be born of water was the external sign, the outward and visible baptism; to be born of the Spirit, the inward and spiritual ablution. Hence Cyprian* speaks of the sons of God as born from each sacrament, both of water and of the Spirit; and other} ecclesiastical authori- ties employ similar language. No other satisfactory interpretation of the passage has ever been suggested. If to be born of water was not bap- tism, what was it, as distinguished from the birth of the Spirit ? , This interpretation exactly applies to the character and conduct of Nicodemus. He hoped in his timidity, or pro- bably on account of his pharisaical connexions, to be saved without confessing Christ, and Jesus would expose the vanity of his hope. The badge of a disciple must be worn by Nicodemus; although a ruler, he was to be allowed no exemption from the ordinary profession of the members of Christ’s kingdom. He must take up his cross and enter the kingdom of God, precisely in the same manner as a despised publican or a polluted Gentile. It may, however, be objected, if the baptized proselyte was regarded by the Jews as new born, how should the ruler in Israel reply to our Lord, ‘‘ How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” But it is notorious that the Jews looked forward to the reign of Messiah, as a time of peculiar glory and happiness for themselves and their nation. ‘The kingdom was to be given to Israel. Strange to their ears was the announcement of their conversion. That they should become proselytes to another faith, and so be baptized and regenerated, was a new and offensive proposal. Already they were the children of Abraham. How, like the Gentiles, could they come into the new rela- * Ep. lxxii. + Hierom. Com. in Ezek. xvi. 4, 5. ON JEWISH BAPTISM. a tion of Israel, and be introduced into the covenant of mercy ? Had our Lord spoken of a Gentile as being born again, Nicodemus would probably have understood him to mean, that the stranger had become a proselyte, a new- born child of father Abraham; but for a true and legiti- mate son of Abraham, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, a master in Israel, in whose veins every drop of blood flowed pure and uncontaminated through the long line of honourable ancestry from the blessed patriarchs—to be born again, to be brought into a new relation, to acquire a new parentage and a nobler ancestry, must have appeared as inexplicable a mystery, as it would have been for a man to be born again of his mother when he was old. The prejudice of the Jew was deep in the proud heart of the rabbi, and he replied, ‘‘ How can these things be?” Was he to renounce the descent from Abraham? Was he to be regarded as the son of a stranger? Why should a child of Abraham seek another parent, or be born and baptized into another family ? There is another particular, in which the analogy be- tween Jewish and Christian baptism may be observed by those who believe, as I do, that the household, comprising the children and the servants of the family, were baptized in the apostolic age, when the head of that family offered himself as a proselyte for baptism. This I believe was the practice with regard both to Jewish and to Christian pro- selytes ; but at present I must confine myself to the Jews. The bearing of their practice upon the controversy with our Baptist brethren, must be reserved until we enter upon that subject; at present I have only to notice the evidence of the fact itself, which may be thus stated. If we would know whether the Jews, in the time of our Lord, were ac- customed to baptize the children of proselytes, of whom can we inquire but of the ancient expositors of Jewish rites, or what can we consult but such religious writings of the nation as the accidents of time have left us? These expos- 122 ON JEWISH BAPTISM. itors may have been weak and foolish men ; these writings may be filled with idle tales and old wives’ fables; but to ascertain a matter of fact, whether they did or did not bap- tize the children of proselytes, who else, more correctly than they, can give us the requisite information? We may undoubtedly use a wise discretion in hearing them, but on this subject theirs is the best, if not the only testimony, which can be procured; and on a simple matter of fact it appears to be unexceptionable. I know that the rabbinical depositaries of tradition are at variance with the ancient law of God, and if they were not, they would be worthless on this question; for our Lord expressly says that the scribes and Pharisees had made void the law of God by their traditions. If therefore the traditions of the 'Talmuds were entirely consonant with the law of God, they could not be the traditions which belonged to the era of our Lord and of his apostles. We have already seen, and any one who will consult them, or consult Schoetgen, Lightfoot, Selden, Wetstein, Hammond, and others who furnish ex- tracts from them, may see more extensively, how in their corban and their tithings, their everlasting washings and their vain repetitions, and every other particular noticed in the gospels, the books of the Talmuds correspond with the traditions of the elders in the time of our Lord. The Baby- lonian 'T'almud* says, “If with a proselyte, his sons and daughters be made proselytes, that which is done by their father redounds to their good.” ‘The Mishna speaks of a proselyte of three years old, which is thus explained in the Gemara: “ They are accustomed to baptize a proselyte in infancy upon the approval of the consistory, for this is for his good.” ‘They are accustomed to baptize,” says the gloss, “if he have not a father, and his mother bring him to be proselyted, because none is made a proselyte without circumcision and baptism.”+ As we read of infants being * Chetubboth. ec. i. fol. 11, according to Lightfoot. + See Selden de Syned., and Lightfoot’s Harmony on John i. 25. ON JEWISH BAPTISM. 128 proselytes and of the privileges of infant proselytes, and especially of female infants, we may conclude, according to these authorities, that if such had not been baptized they would not have been called proselytes. Maimonides also says,* ‘‘ An Israelite that takes a little heathen child, or that finds a heathen infant, and baptizes him for a pro- selyte, behold he is a proselyte! The person who baptizes the infant, acts towards him the part of a father.” So the Jerusalem Talmud treats of the difference of baptizing an infant, which has been found, for a slave or for a freeman.f From these authorities, Lightfoot infers, that among the Jews, ‘“‘the baptizing of infants had been a thing as com- monly known and as commonly used, before John’s coming and to the very time of his coming, as any holy thing that was used among the Jews; and they were as well ac- quainted with infants’ baptism, as they were with infants’ circumcision.’ Without dealing in quite 50 summary a way with rabbinical testimony, it may be desirable to exa- mine it carefully. I have said no better testimony is to be obtained; let it be added that there is no contradictory testimony what- soever. Neither Josephus, nor Philo, nor the ancient Targums, supply any information upon the subject. Both Talmuds agree, the glosses correspond, and Maimonides, the great interpreter of Jewish law, confirms and elucidates the Talmudists. Tried by every test we can apply, the rabbinical writings give a true account of the traditionary customs which prevailed in the time of our Lord. The baptism of infant proselytes was certainly the practice of the Jews when the T'almuds were composed. The writers must have known the customs of their own nation. These rabbins were themselves the great authorities of their age, and their writings, surely in accordance with their own practice, must have regulated the practice of the whole nation. The men whose opinions are recorded, were in * In Avadim. c. 8. + Jevamoth, fol. 8. 4. t Harmony on John i. 25. yb Bl ON JEWISH BAPTISM. their day the teachers of the great schools, the leaders of the great sects, the authorities whose broad phylacteries, long prayers, and self-denying fasts, procured the vene- ration of the people, and conciliated the most faithful re- gard for the correct preservation of their opinions in all questions of importance, civil or ecclesiastical. Nor can there be imagined any motive for misrepresentation ; much less was it possible that different writers, of different and, in some respects, opposing schools, should have combined to misrepresent the religious rites of their own nation. But if infant baptism was the uniform practice of the Jews at the time the Talmuds were composed from more an- cient fragments, there can be little doubt it prevailed in the time of our Lord; for subsequently, down to the Tal- muds, the religious customs of the Jews could have suf- fered very little mutilation. But further I maintain, if the baptism of proselytes prevailed at all among the Jews in the time of our Lord, which we have seen it must have done, unless we admit the most improbable supposition that they received the rite from the Christians, it would follow, as a matter of course, even if we had no testimony whatever upon the subject, that the children of proselytes were baptized in their infancy. The infant sons of prose- lytes were, of course, circumcised. According to the com- mand given to Abraham, every male child must have been circumcised before it was numbered with the people. As baptism and circumcision accompanied each other, if they were baptized at all, the inference is undeniable that they were baptized, as they were circumcised, in infancy. Being circumcised, they were deemed proselytes, and there was no subsequent time in which they could have been offered for baptism. Numbered with their parents in infancy among the children of Abraham, they must have received the rites of initiation, if they received them at all, when they were admitted into the visible church or kingdom of Israel. The child of a Hebrew was initiated in infancy, ON JEWISH BAPTISM. 125 the child of a proselyte would be initiated at the same age. How should baptism be deferred when circumcision was performed ? The child, as well as the parent, would need to be purified from the uncleanness of “living as do the Gentiles.” Indeed, among the Jews there was no rite pecu- liar to the adult proselyte. According to their rule, as was the parent so was the child. Independently, therefore, of the express testimony of their authorities, we may infer that the Jews, as they circumcised, so they baptized the infants of proselytes, and received the household with the parents as initiated into the covenant of Abraham. The probability of the thing, combined with the express tes- timony in its favour, places it, we think, beyond any rea- sonable objection or doubt. It may be expected that I should notice the opinions of those who deny that the Jewish baptism of proselytes was practised as early as the time of our Lord, although they are compelled to admit it prevailed two or three centuries later. Dr. Owen* thinks proselyte baptism was intro- duced by the rabbins, in imitation of the popular baptism of John; and Prof. Stuart} says this ‘is not improbable.” Few things appear to me more improbable. ‘This subse- quent introduction does not explain the allusions in the gospels. That the baptism of John was popular among the Jews, is certainly a strange reason to assign for the institution of a new baptism of which the Jews could not be participants, confined as it was from its very nature to the Gentiles, as they only could offer themselves to be proselyted. If the rabbins had been emulous of the po- pularity of John, they?might have followed his example in baptizing the house of Israel. We have inferred from the allusions in the New Testa- ment, independently of rabbinical authority, that baptism was a rite with which the Jews, in the age of our Lord, were very well acquainted. To account for these allusions, * Theolog. lib. v. d. 4. + Bib. Repository, No. x. 126 ON JEWISH BAPTISM. another hypothesis has been suggested and defended, especially in Germany, by those theologians who deny the antiquity of Jewish proselyte baptism. They suppose, that about the time of the appearance of John, there was a general expectation that the precursor of the Messiah— the Elias, or the prophet, would purify the whole nation by baptism, as the preparatory rite to the reign of the Son of David. This, it is thought, was the doctrine of the scribes and Pharisees. Mosheim, although he maintained the antiquity of proselyte baptism, adopted this opinion ;* and since his time it hath been received, we believe, by almost all who reject the views we have defended in this lecture. It well explains the allusions in the gospels; and if proselyte baptism was unknown, some such opinion must have prevailed among the Pharisees, who inquired, Why baptizeth thou then, if thou be not Elias, nor the prophet, nor Christ? Were I an unscrupulous pleader, casting about at the commencement of this lecture in search of the theory which would best sustain my own opinion on the question of Psedobaptism, I should cer- tainly have selected this hypothesis, rather than the one which I have endeavoured to defend. It would, I think, with equal authority, warrant the opinion that Peedobap- tism was practised among the Jews, and would confer upon their practice a sanction and importance which I have not ventured to assert. If the Jews generally ex- pected that the precursor of the Messiah would introduce his reign by a general baptism, it appears to me that the spirit of prophecy must have lived among them, and to its inspiration alone an expectation, so extraordinary and so well confirmed by the result, must be ascribed. Whether some venerated prophet, dwelling in the precincts of the temple, like Simeon or Anna, announced the evangelic symbol of a great ablution, or whether the oracle, moving * De Rebus ante temp. Const., cent. 1, § 5. The two opinions are not inconsistent. ON JEWISH BAPTISM. Ty% in the breast of some one, like Caiaphas, being high-priest that same year, uttered its response, or where or how the prophecy came, it was no tradition of men, no mere gloss of the scribes, no false premonition of the prince of this world. The precursor did baptize; but this foreknow- ledge was too high for the Jews, they could not have attained unto it. Even if this expectation were of human origin, God accrediting it by sending John to baptize, con- ferred upon it a sanction little less than divine. If such was the origin of baptism, we can entertain very little doubt, (forming our judgment from the whole character of the Jew- ish ritual; and from what else can we form any judgment ?) that infants, as well as adults, were included in the prepara- tory ablution. According to this theory baptism belonged to Judaism ; and what Jewish purification, what Jewish ce- remony of any kind, was restricted to the pious, or restricted to the adults? Judaism was in the most extensive sense national, and every part of its ritual belonged equally and indiscriminately to all the children of Israel. A restrictive ceremony was totally alien to the spirit of Judaism; and if it existed, must have been inconsistent with every prin- ciple of the national economy. So far as the baptism was Jewish, there could have been no distinction, and all Israel must have been equally competent to receive it. In this national baptism, unless the spirit of Judaism were com- pletely exploded before the time, infants must have been included. Had I sought the most favourable theory, to sustain the subsequent lectures, I should have selected this origin of baptism, and insisted upon the presumption which it affords in favour of infant baptism among the Jews, sanctioned by the prophetic intimations of Divine authority. But I cannot honestly avail myself of this argu- ment, because I think the theory of proselyte baptism quite sufficient to explain the allusions of the New Testa- ment, as it is sustained by historical evidence, of which the counter-hypothesis is totally deficient. 128 ON JEWISH BAPTISM. There is, however, in favour of the hypothesis, that the Jews expected there would be a general baptism on the approach of the Messiah, some slight presumptive evidence which may be collected from the prophetic descriptions of the purification which was then to be instituted. As this purification is often mentioned in the prophets, as it is sometimes described as a cleansing with water, as the Jews referred these passages to the Messiah, and as they always were inclined, like the modern millennarians, to a literal and carnal interpretation, it may. be thought not improbable that the general expectation of a national bap- tism arose simultaneously with the general expectation of the advent of Christ. I admit the presumption; the theory itself is not unreasonable; but it is, so far as I can find, destitute of historical evidence, unless the intimations in the gospels respecting Jewish baptism be considered evi- dence, which appear to me to admit of explanation from the proselyte baptisms, in favour of which we have direct Jewish testimony. As, however, several prophecies of the Old Testament were interpreted by.the Christian fathers as ancient predictions of the institution of baptism, it has been suggested that a similar interpretation might have been assigned to them by Jewish scribes, and so might have arisen an expectation of a general baptism. ‘The fol- lowing passages, among others, may be specified. Isaiah iv. 4: “When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by the spirit of judg- ment, and by the spirit of burning.” Ezekiel xxxvi. 25: “ Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall beclean.” Zechariah xiii. 1: ‘In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness.” By the fathers, as by Cyprian, who cites the prophecy of Ezekiel in proof of the validity of baptism by aspersion; by Origen, Euse- bius, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Jerome, Cyril of Jerusalem, ON JEWISH BAPTISM. 129 Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, as well as in several ancient rituals, these passages are referred to baptism. If the rabbins interpreted these and similar passages as pre- dicting that the Messiah would purify by water, we have a rational mode of explaining the allusions to baptism in the gospels; but, I repeat, we have no right to assume. this without historical evidence. The summary of this lecture is that, previously to the time of our Lord, the baptism of proselytes was customary among the Jews; that the Jewish and Christian baptisms correspond in many particulars, and their correspondence illustrates several allusions in the New Testament; that the Jews were accustomed to baptize the infants of prose- lytes together with their parents, and so to incorporate them into the kingdom of Israel; that without baptism no Gentile adult or infant could be received into the conere- gation of Israel, or admitted within the gates.of the temple of the Lord; or if these opinions prove incorrect, the general expectation of a universal baptism prevailed about the time of the appearance of John the Baptist, and how- ever it arose, received the sanction of the Divine autho- rity, in the institution of John’s baptism. LECTURE IV. ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. ‘T, indeed, have baptized you with water, but He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.”—Mark i. 8. MaXaias 76 téAOs, Kal Kawis SabyjKys apxy 7d Bawticopa’ "Iwavuns yap hv Upxnyors Cyril. Hier. Catech. Lect. iii. 6. Joun, the Baptizer, the son of Zacharias, was by his birth, of the sacerdotal office. It is not however probable, that he discharged any of the peculiar functions of the priesthood, for he received his special commission, as a prophet, to announce the coming of Christ, and to bap- tize into his name, as he was entering on the thirtieth year of his age, the year in which he would, in due course, have been installed and registered as a priest before the sanhedrim at Jerusalem. It is said “he abode in the desert,” the hill country where he was born, “until his showing forth unto Israel ;” which expression may denote, until he appeared to execute his important office as the precursor of the Messiah. As in sustaining that office he baptized great multitudes,—as he baptized them by Divine appointment, and baptized the Lord Jesus,—the consideration of his baptism may afford some assistance in the more important inquiry respecting the nature of Christian baptism. i John had to teach a new doctrine. He was com- missioned to declare that the kingdom of heaven was at hand. ‘The older prophets had described the reign of Messiah: John announced his advent. The proclama- ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. 181 tion of the near approach of his reign attracted the attention of great multitudes, who received baptism from him, and were thenceforth called his disciples. That his baptism was regarded as the initiatory rite by which the Jews were made his disciples, is evident from the words of the evange- list: “the Pharisees heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John.” Those that Jesus baptized were called his disciples, those that John baptized were his disciples. So closely were the baptism and the new doctrine connected, that the one term scems to be em- ployed for the other. ‘The baptism of John,” (the new doctrine) “was it from heaven, or of men?”* “After the baptism” (the doctrine) “‘ which John preached.”+ To be baptized was to be initiated as a disciple, or learner of the new doctrine—the speedy coming of Christ. It is true that the baptism of John‘is called the baptism of repentance, but then the repentance was in every in- stance founded upon the new doctrine, the uniform ex- hortation, the incessant cry of the baptizer being, ‘“‘ Re- pent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” The object of this baptism is stated by St. Paul, ‘“‘John verily bap- tized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him who should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” The amount of what we learn from the evangelical history is, that multitudes received the rite of baptism from John, and many of them were taught the new doctrine on which he founded his exhortation to repentance. It is indeed said, they were baptized confessing their sins, but whether they uttered an audible confession as they stood in crowds listening to his preaching, or their baptism was itself an act of confession, an acknowledgment that they needed repent- ance, we are not able to ascertain. The numbers bap- tized will not allow us to suppose that there was a dis- tinct and personal confession, anything like auricular * Mark xi. 30. + Acts x. 37. 132 ON JOIN 'S BAPTISM. confession, of their several offences made to John their baptizer. Of this baptism of John we have, I think, sufficient evidence in determining two particulars,—the one, that it was indiscriminately administered to all applicants; the other, that it effected no change, moral or spiritual, upon their minds. The baptism of John was indiscriminately administered to all applicants. Of the great multitudes who went out to his baptism, we have not the slightest hint of any person whatever having been rejected. Matthew* says, “There went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and. all the region round about Jordan, and were bapt zed of him in Jordan.” Mark} says, “There went out to him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan.”{ Although we do not understand these expressions literally, yet they must imply that great multitudes were baptized of him. Haye we any right to assume, in contradiction to the letter of the text, that there was any selection, any test of fitness, anything required beyond the application of the parties to receive the sign of his doctrine? It seems to have been the duty of every Jew to enrol himself as an expectant of the coming Messiah, or what was the same thing, as a disciple of John. The Pharisees and lawyers in not being baptized of him, “rejected the counsel of God against themselves.” Hence when John saw Jesus offer himself for baptism, there seemed some incongruity, something unsuitable in the greater enrolling himself as the disciple of the less, the Master receiving baptism from the servant. Jesus replied, “Suffer it to be so now, to fulfil all righteousness.” Although Jesus had no sins to confess, no repentance to practise, yet as a Jew he would * ch. iii. 5, 6. + ch.i. 5. + Or according to a various reading, “they of Jerusalem all, and were baptized.” ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. 133 act as became the men of his nation. As Moses purified the nation preparatory to the descent of Jehovah on Sinai, so it seems to have been the commission of John to purify the whole nation preparatory to the coming of Messiah. Hach dispensation was introduced by a general baptism. As it was the duty of every Jew to learn of the new prophet, so no one was forbidden to be initiated by baptism as his disciple. The baptism of John could have implied no more than the interest of the baptized in his doctrine, and their duty to become acquainted with it. But the general terms employed by the evangelists do not constitute the whole, nor even the chief part of our reasoning. Although no one has a right to limit their universal language, nor when Mark says, all, to reply, only a class was baptized ; yet if some do so narrowly interpret the evangelists, the language of John addressed to the pro- miscuous crowds of all classes, Pharisees and Sadducees, publicans and soldiers, will bear no such limitation. ‘““When he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come ? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance : and think not to say among yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.” Yet he continues, “I indeed baptize you with water, 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 throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”* From these words we infer * Matt. ili. 7—12. 134 ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. that John suspected the Pharisees and Sadducees, whom he ealled by the opprobrious name of vipers, of reposing in their national privileges as the children of Abraham, that he nevertheless baptized them wnto repentance, not after it, that the baptism of the Holy Ghost must be administered by one mightier than himself, and that the separation between the righteous and the wicked was not to be made at that time by him, but afterwards by his successor. No language, we think, can more expressly and decidedly prove that John administered his baptism indiscriminately to all applicants ; and this is but saying in other words, that he admitted all persons indiscriminately to become his disciples, the learners of his doctrine. ‘To say that John selected the parties to be baptized, is inconsistent with the evangelical narrative, for the parties went out to be baptized of him. They must have thought that his baptism would be conceded to them without hesitation, as it is not said they went to learn of him, but to be baptized. Baptism was the first thing they sought, the object they had in view, although they went to him as carelessly as if they had gone to see areed shaken with the wind, or a man clothed in soft raiment, a man of a vacillating and in- constant spirit, or of a soft and luxurious life. Of no one have we any right to say John refused or deferred his bap- tism ; he made no selection, and therefore by his baptism he did not attempt to discriminate character. No one has any right to attribute to him the delusion of supposing that the crowds of Jews whom he baptized were true peni- tents; still less to feign a qualification for baptism, and to say, without authority of Scripture, that John instituted it. Equally clear is it that the baptism of John produced no moral nor spiritual change upon the persons who received it. He disclaimed the power of producing such a change, when he contrasted his baptism with that of the Holy Ghost, administered by one mightier than himself. The subsequent history of the gospels teaches us that the ex- ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. 135 citement produced by the preaching of Jolin speedily sub- sided, and the multitudes, who for a time seemed willing to walk in his light, quickly relapsed into their former indifference. Although from the days of John the Baptizer all men pressed into the kingdom of God, yet they rejected the ministry of Christ, and refused the Gospel as a narrow and forsaken path. ‘The Pharisees remained as proud, and the Sadducees as sceptical, the publicans as extortionate, and the soldiers as violent, as they had been previously to their baptism; for nothing is more certain than that the Jewish nation, although so generally baptized by John and the disciples of Jesus, exhibited no permanent reformation, brought forth no fruits meet for repentance. Through baptism all men pressed into the kingdom of heaven, yet they were most disobedient, rebellious, and unfaithful subjects, so that both John and Jesus had to say to the multitudes whom they baptized, ‘‘ We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced: we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented.” I need not reason upon this point any longer, because I know not that I have any opponent. The Fathers, with their lofty language on the mighty and mysterious efficacy of baptism,—the Catholics of Rome, and the Tractarians of England, with their different theories of sacramental grace,—all admit that John had not the Holy Ghost to sanctify his water of baptism; and that, therefore, being destitute of the great power of God, his baptism was only a sign of the better and mightier baptism of the Christian church. The general opinion of ecclesiastical antiquity is expressed by Chrysostom.* ‘‘The baptism of John was indeed far superior to the Jewish, but inferior to ours; it was a kind of bridge between the two baptisms, leading from that to this.” The ancients frequently observe that it had not the Holy Ghost, and that it did not bestow the remission of sins. Thus Jerome says, + ‘If John, as he * Hom. Ixxxiy. + Ady. Lucif. § 7. 136 ON JOHN'S BAPTISM. himself confesses, did not baptize in the Spirit, neither did he remit sins, because sins are remitted to none without the Holy Spirit.” There are so many passages of similar import, that all who hold zealously to catholic antiquity admit that John’s baptism conferred no spiritual gift. Thus Dr. Pusey, contrasting the baptism of John with that of Christ, terminates the antithesis of several particu- lars in these words: ‘The one a baptism in which they knew not whether there be any Holy Ghost, the other a baptism in which the Holy Ghost came upon them, and dwelt in them, and manifested his presence within them.’* Tt is the uniform opinion of all these defenders of baptismal efficacy that the Jordan, when John baptized in it, was no laver of regeneration, no stream of life, because the Holy Ghost was not yet poured down from heaven. The least baptizer in the kingdom of heaven is, in their esteem, greater than John. We have now, in connexion with this subject, to solicit attention to the universal admission, or rather the indispu- table truth, that, previously to the resurrection of our Lord, there was no such a thing on earth as baptismal regenera- tion. It may be said the Christian church was not then constituted, nor was it endowed with the Holy Ghost until the day of Pentecost; to which we have only to reply, without commencing a controversy on the origin of the Christian church, that there were many truly pious and devout persons who, although never baptized, or baptized only by John, were members of the kingdom of heaven, and now inherit its promises. We assume they were faithful and godly men, and we assume nothing more; but this assumption, which surely no one will controvert, strikes at the root of sacramental efficacy, and will, we think, enable us to bring the controversy on baptismal regeneration to a successful issue. The traditional doctrine of the church on which Tracta- * Tracts for the Times, No. 67. ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. To" rians rely is, that neither the baptism of John, nor that of the disciples during our Lord’s personal ministry, was en- dowed with the power of regeneration; but if these early baptisms were really Christian baptisms, (and we have never yet seen the essential difference fairly proved, as we shall presently attempt to show,) it follows that Christian baptism at its institution and during its early administra- tion, had no immediate connexion with the regeneration of the Spirit. Tractarians, however, on the same authority of ecclesiastical tradition, maintain that baptism, since the resurrection of Christ, has been ever accompanied with the regeneration of the Spirit, and that the essential difference is apparent, for John baptized with water, but Christian ministers, like their Master, baptize with the Holy Ghost. On their own grounds, we proceed to inquire what moral quality, or what spiritual disposition, what Christian grace, what good fruit of the Spirit was there, which John the Baptizer, or his disciples believing on Christ, or the dis- ciples of our Lord during his ministry, or those baptized by them, did not possess, or might not have obtained, by prayer, diligence and faith, without being re-baptized, as assuredly many of them, if not all, died without receiving what our opponents consider to be Christian baptism ? It will be said of John, anda Nathanael, and many others, baptized without regeneration, they were good men, but not regenerate of the Holy Ghost. It follows that the unregenerate may be good men, God’s faithful servants, crowned with everlasting glory. We ask, were these men born good? and were they without any change fit for heaven? No, reply the Tractarians, for to say they were would be gross Pelagianism, against which vile heresy the -blessed Augustine, and the universal church, with one voice, have firmly and invariably protested. Then what power subdued the original corruption of their nature ? and whence was it derived? Was it from heaven or of men ? If from heaven, wherein did this sanctification of Divine 13 ON JOHN'S BAPTISM. CO influence differ frorn regeneration by the Spirit? If from men, what need for the baptism of the Spirit to do that which a man can do for himself? In what bath were their sins washed away ? How has that ancient source of sanctity and pardon, whatever it was, been deprived of its cleansing and absolving power, so that no man, having sinned after baptism, can now find it for the relief and safety of his soul? Some of the ancients maintained that unbaptized infants were saved from punishment, although not being born of water, they could not enter the kingdom of heaven. One might conclude that our opponents would place these first baptized of John and of Jesus in that state of partial salvation, that mansion for unbaptized innocents in the Father’s house in paradise, but not in heaven,—the place in which the patriarchs were confined until they were liberated by baptism administered by Christ himself, as some of the ancients fancied, when he preached to the spirits in prison. I know that Dr. Waterland, and some other Divines of the English church, have maintained that regeneration effected by baptism is not a moral nor spiritual change, but rather a change of state or condition, arelative and federal change, or an introduction into the covenant of grace. But this is not baptismal regeneration as generally understood. It is not the baptismal regenera- tion of the Tractarians, nor yet of the Church of England, which declares a sacrament to be an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. As we shall have another occasion to notice the system of Waterland, I return to reason with those who believe that baptismal regeneration is an inward and _ spiritual grace, and advance another step in saying, that previous to the resurrection of our Lord, not only was there no such thing as baptismal regeneration, but there was no sacra- ment, no ceremony whatever, which was associated with this inward and spiritual grace. Neither in circumcision, nor in any ablutions of the Mosaic law, in no symbol nor ON JOHN'S BAPTISM. 139 ritual whatever, was there conveyed the regeneration of the soul. Whatever in the ancient church might have pre- figured baptism or occupied its place, be it circumcision or be it ablution with water, it was utterly destitute of the power of sanctifying the heart. I must refer the reader to some remarks, in the second lecture, on the words of the apostle: “He is not a Jew which is one outwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter.” I need cite no other authorities upon this sub- ject; for the ablest of the defenders of baptismal regene- ration, and especially the Tractarians, agree that circum- cision was only a sign of internal purity, and a seal of the Jewish covenant, but not the channel by which its grace was conveyed to the subject. Thus Dr. Pusey maintains, “It was only a sign, a shadow, a symbol, having no sanc- tifying power, a mere type of baptism, just such a sign as Calvinists now consider baptism to be;”* and sustaining his Opinions by many citations from the Fathers, he asks, Is baptism still to be a mere type, because circumcision was ? We shall answer this question in the proper place ; at pre- sent we only notice the concession in accordance with ecclesiastical antiquity, (although divines of the Church of Rome, following the schoolmen and Augustine, have held a different opinion,) that circumcision was only a type, and that the sacraments of the law were only symbols pre- figuring the sacraments of the Gospel. Indeed the difii- culties of maintaining that circumcision was a medium of communicating grace, are so obvious and perplexing, im- plying that the grace was communicated to the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Ishmaelites, and all the numerous tribes descended from Keturah, to every predatory Arab, every wild man of the desert, and that it was a privilege in Israel imparted only to the males, that we do not wonder the Anglo-Catholic advocates of baptismal regeneration have discreetly surrendered this most dangerous outwork. * Tracts for the Times, No. 67. 140 ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. Having it now in our possession, we will do our best to fortify it as an advantageous point of attack. But if the Tractarians have surrendered the ancient sacrament of circumcision as only a symbol, and not a medium of grace, their opponent, Mr. Faber, maintains that circumcision corresponded with baptism, which, ac- cording to his view of the Christian rite, is a medium through which regeneration is occasionally, but not uni- formly conveyed. In his “ Primitive Doctrine of Regene- ration,” he says, ‘“‘ By the universal interpretation of the | early church, baptism and circumcision were ruled to be spiritually and sacramentally identical.”* Than such an assertion nothing can be more remote from the truth. The early church everywhere repudiated the doctrine of regene- ration by circumcision, and almost everywhere maintained, in some form or other, the doctrine of regeneration by bap- tism. HEven if Mr. Faber be right, that the doctrine of the early church corresponded with his own theory, that bap- tism was only one of the channels in which regeneration was conveyed, it does not appear that circumcision was ever in the first ages, or in any age, considered a channel of regeneration, a means of grace to the Jewish church. Jt was anciently regarded as a type of baptism; but the two rites were esteemed as “spiritually or sacramentally identical,” no more than the temple and the body of Christ, or than the brazen serpent and the sacrifice of the cross, of which one was the type of the other. The passages which Mr. Faber cites by no means prove his point. Passing over the citations from Augustine, who, we admit, expressed a different opinion from the earlier Latin and all the Greek Fathers, we notice those which he adduces from Chrysos- tom, from Athanasius, from Cyprian, from Justin Martyr.+ In all these circumcision is represented, not as equivalent to baptism, but only as the type of baptism, or the emblem * The Primitive Doctrine of Regeneration, b. II. c. ii. p. 106. + See Appendix A. ON JOHN'S BAPTISM. 14] of the true circumcision in Christ; and so far they agree with the general opinion of the Fathers. The type is represented as a mere sign, the antitype as the means of communicating grace. When Mr. Faber says that circum- cision was regarded by the ancient church “as an outward sign, representing an inward grace, which it was designed instrumentally and mediately to convey,” he says what his own citations do not preve, and he says it in direct oppo- sition to the whole tenor of ecclesiastical antiquity. Cir- cumcision is occasionally mentioned as an emblem of inter- nal sanctity, but not, as the Fathers supposed baptism to be, a means of imparting it.* The reverend ecclesiastics of the Council of Trent, car- dinal and archiepiscopal, with all their ‘minor theologians and canonists, knew better than to anathematize at once all Christian antiquity, when they intended to curse only such modern divines as, with Mr. Faber, hold the heresy condemned in their seventh session, ‘‘ That the sacraments of the old and new law differ only in ceremonies,” although unfortunately they involved St. Augustine in their ana- thema. The doctrine maintained by Mr. Faber and his admirers is, that regeneration, although not inseparably connected with baptism, is so frequently as to authorize the Anglican church, in the judgment of charity, to pro- nounce the baptized person regenerate. Maintaining, as he does, that circumcision and baptism are sacramentally identical, or “differ only in ceremonies,” he controverts * Of how little account circumcision was made by some of the early Fathers, may be seen in their disputes with the Jews, as especially in Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho, in which he contends that circumcision was neither the cause nor the symbol of personal sanctity—that it was, with much of the Mosaic ritual, intended as a restraint upon the Jews by making a distinction between them and other nations—that it was a sign of the destruction which should come upon the Jews—and that it had been imposed upon the Moab- ites, Edomites, and other idolatrous nations—(See Appendix A.) The author of the epistle ascribed to Barnabas says, ‘‘ You will say the Jews were circumcised for a sign; and so are all the Syrians and Arabians, and all the idolatrous priests; but are they, therefore, of the covenant of Israel ?’—c. ix. 142 ON JOHN'S BAPTISM. the Tractarian doctrine, that baptism is invariably the chan- nel of imparting regeneration, by proving that circumcision was not so; but this argument, if good for anything, will quite as effectually demolish his own doctrine. Baptism is not occasionally the channel.of imparting regeneration, for circumcision was not so, is the proper reply, in a few words, to his elaborate reasoning. ‘Tractarians, in accord- ance with Catholic antiquity, deny the sacramental identity of the two institutions, and so leave Mr. Faber on the wreck of his argument and piles of citation, to grow angry with their temerity, and comfort himself with the great St. Augustine. The Fathers speak of the Levitical ablutions exactly as they do of circumcision,—as types of Christian baptism, and shadows of the good things to come, not able to cleanse the worshippers; and therefore, we need not travel the same line of argument a second time. Here for the present we take up our position on ground fortified by antiquity, which our opponents will not dispute, that previously to the resurrection of Christ, there was no regeneration, no spiritual grace, either invariably or occa- sionally conveyed by any sacrament or ceremonial of any kind whatsoever. According to Scripture, on which we rely, according to ecclesiastical antiquity, on which our opponents depend, according to Catholic witnesses, ortho- dox at Oxford and at Rome, from Palestine, Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Africa Proper, Gaul, North and South Italy, catechists, bishops, and holy martyrs, with- out any contradictory voice, circumcision was a mere sign never accompanied with regeneration. Nor is any other ceremony ever mentioned as regenerating. But were no persons then regenerated ? or if they were, by what channel was the grace conveyed? or had the Jews nearer access to God without a ceremony? Did they receive communi- cations of grace immediately and directly from him? If so, Christianity has become more ceremonial in its oper- * See especially Justin Mart. Dial. c. Tryp. ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. 143 ations, more ritual in its character, than was Judaism ; it does through a sacrament that which Judaism was able to do without one. The embroidered veil of ancient hiero- glyphics which concealed the propitiatory, has been rent in twain, that in its place might be suspended another of closer texture and more opaque colouring, until the priest, clothed in apostolic powers, raise it with due formality to admit the initiated. Clement of Alexandria, in his fervid commendations of baptism, calls it the immortal eye-water, which enables the eye to look upon the immortal light; but Judaism, it would seem, with a stronger visual power, without the aid of the collyrium, could look undazzled upon the surpassing glory. Christianity directs her new-born babes to behold the reflected image, the softened splen- dour of the Sun of righteousness in the consecrated waters of the baptismal font; but Judaism taught her children to look upwards to the regenerating luminary, as in its strength and brightness it shone directly from heaven upon their hearts. Or is regeneration a blessing which no Jew, no disciple of John, no believer in Jesus before the Pente- cost, no patriarch, no prophet enjoyed? Is it more than the righteousness of faith which Abraham attained, more than the Divine communion of Moses, the rapturous de- ’ votion of the Psalmist, the evangelical spirit of Isaiah, the unbending integrity of Daniel, the incorruptible fidelity of John, or the sanctity of the ancient martyrs, of whom the world was not worthy, could ever attain? These men were surely born of the Spirit; although not baptized, they were surely regenerated. If they of whom the world was not worthy, through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought right- eousness, obtained promises, died in triumph, and entered the heavenly country, of what inward grace of the Spirit were they destitute? If they were regenerated without baptism, why may not we be affected in the same manner by the power of the same truth? Or if they entered heaven without regeneration, what is the worth of the 144 ON JOHN'S BAPTISM. grace, which to the unbaptized of the old economy was not a qualification for their entrance into glory? We are told that through baptism is conferred the remission of sins. Were not their sins forgiven them? We are told that through the same sacrament is imparted the Holy Spirit ; had not the Psalmist who, in his penitence, prayed, “ Take not thy Holy Spirit from me,” received that gift, although he was unbaptized? Be this as it may, we take our stand, preparatory to our next lecture, upon the ground conceded by our opponents, that there was no sacrament of regene- ration in the ancient economy. It will be observed that our reasoning upon the con- cession that the baptism of John did not impart the grace of regeneration, neither assumes nor denies the essential difference between his baptism and that of Christ. We have only cleared the ground so far as to show that there was, previously to the resurrection of Christ, no regene- rating sacrament, no such thing as regeneration in all the world, if that grace is invariably conveyed through a sacramental channel. But if the baptism of John was truly and essentially the same as Christian baptism, then Christian baptism itself, at its commencement, was only *a symbol, and not a means of regeneration. Hence the inquiry becomes of some interest, whether there was, or was not, an essential difference between the baptism ad- ministered by John, and that instituted by our Lord? To prevent any dispute about terms, we think the ques- tion may be better proposed in this form: Was the dif- ference between the baptism of John and that of our Lord so important, that those who had been baptized by John, were, or ought to have been, rebaptized on their becoming the disciples of Christ? That there was some variation in the form, or at least in the words employed, there can be no doubt whatever; but we should say the difference was or was not essential, according as it appears that the parties were or were not rebaptized, or that the ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. 145 objects of Christian baptism were not sufficiently accom- plished by the baptism of John. ‘This question was ‘deemed of considerable importance in the controversies of the Reformation, and was zealously prosecuted by the disputants on both sides. The Catholics, following anti- quity, maintained the essential difference; the Reformers, adhering as they thought to Scripture, denied it. The early Lutherans seemed to have wavered—Luther at first agreeing with the Catholics, afterwards asserting that the baptism of John did not much differ from that of Christ. ‘They, however, seem to have eventually adopted the theory which Zuingle, Calvin, Beza, and all the Calvinists zealously defended. The Council of Trent pronounced its first anathema respecting baptism upon the heresy of maintaining the validity of John’s baptism. It may be asked why the Calvinists should have uni- versally and zealously denied, and the Catholics as uni- versally and zealously maintained, the essential difference, and why both parties should have thought it to be a subject of so much importance in their controversy? On each side it was perceived, that if the baptism of John sufficed for all Christians who had received it, as all acknowledged that it had no spiritual gift of regeneration, the doctrine of sacramental efficacy, the endowment of the life-giving Spirit in baptism, could not be sustained, without direct opposition to the facts of the evangelical history. John’s baptism, said the Catholics, as say the Tractarians, was only an emblem of Christian baptism; but the sign could not have sufficed for the substance, the mere baptism with water could not have been identical with the baptism of the Holy Ghost. As all admit John had not the Holy Ghost to confer, it is evident that if his disciples were not rebaptized in the Christian church, a baptism which was confessedly not regeneration, was deemed suflicient in the apostolic age; and if the parties were regenerated at all, it must have been by some process distinct from x. L 146 ON JOHN'S BAPTISM. their baptism. The whole doctrine of baptismal regene- ration, with all its important consequences, was therefore in imminent peril, unless its supporters could prove the essential difference which we believe they never did prove; and although the defenders of baptismal regeneration have not, since the Reformation, until the recent con- troversy in the Church of England, very often directed their attention to the subject, the Tractarians, as we think, have not been more successful than the Romanists. John baptized; the disciples of Jesus baptized during his ministry; the apostles baptized after his resurrection: Were these baptisms essentially different, or if different in form, were they identical in their design and import? The several persons are said to have done the same thing. It, therefore, devolves upon those who maintain that their baptisms were different, to show the difference, and upon us to examine the particulars which they adduce. Here we at once concede, that the nearly uniform testi- mony of Christian antiquity is in favour of the essential difference. Those who believed in the impartation of spiritual gifts in baptism, as the Fathers did, would na- turally and of course adopt this opinion. Although some of them thought thai John’s baptism procured the remis- sion of sins, yet they supposed this remission was granted without the communication of the Holy Ghost; while others maintained that it was only to be expected on their being afterwards brought to Christian baptism. With those, therefore, who are guided in their belief by Catholic antiquity, its testimony will be conclusive, for on few subjects is it more uniform; but as the same authority will peremptorily enforce baptismal regeneration, we who do not receive that doctrine, must require some confirmation of even the unanimous testimony of the early Fathers. The ancients appealed to Scripture, and their followers in modern times cite the same texts. These texts, there- fore, we are bound to read and seriously consider. ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. 147 The passage so often cited by the Fathers, as well as by theologians of the Anglo-Catholic school, is Matthew iii. 2. “Thus,” says Dr. Pusey, “the inferiority of the baptism of John to Christian baptism, is declared by the holy bap- tist himself: ‘I indeed baptize you with water unto re- pentance; but he that cometh after me is mightier than I... He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.’”* We certainly admit, without a moment’s hesita- tion, that there is a great and essential difference between baptism with water and baptism with the Holy Ghost. About this there ought to be no controversy; our inquiry properly refers to baptism by water as administered by John, and baptism by water as solemnized by the minis- ters of Christ. The words of the contrast, with water in one instance, with the Holy Ghost in the other, suggests the inference that John did not refer to baptism by water at all, when he spoke of the work of Christ. The full force of the expression seems to be, He shall baptize, not with water as I do, but with a more sacred influence, the Holy Ghost; with a mightier and more searching purifica- tion, with fire. ‘T’o us, believing as we do that there isa baptism of the Holy Ghost without water, a cleansing of the soul by his purifying influence, an administration of the Spirit by Jesus upon his earliest disciples in a visible and miraculous manner, and upon all his people by an internal and life-giving process, according to the words of the apostle, “‘ 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 ;” the passage appears most clearly to exhibit the dis- tinction between the visible and the spiritual, the earthly and the heavenly baptism, but not between the baptism of John and that of the Christian:church. Dr. Pusey, citing the words of Zuingle in proof of the * Tracts for the Times, No. 67. 148 ON JOHN'S BAPTISM. identity of the two baptisms, because they were both signs of the same thing, and neither of them conveyed any spi- ritual blessing, appends notes of admiration, as if he were astonished that any one in this controversy should suppose that Christian baptism conveyed no spiritual blessing. “«The baptism of John worked nothing,’ says Zuingle. (‘I speak here,’ he adds, ‘ of the baptism of water, and not of the internal bedewing which takes place through the Spirit;) the baptism of Christ works nothing, for Christ was content with the baptism of John, both for himself and his disciples, whereas had his baptism had anything fuller, he could have baptized the disciples a second time, and not allowed himself to be baptized with the baptism of John!!!’” So Dr. Pusey cites Zuingle, and remarks, “Tt being settled on such grounds that the baptism of our Lord has no inward grace, the baptisms could not but be the same, 7. e. alike empty in themselves, and but appen- dages of the same teaching.” If Zuingle assumes that they were both only signs, and so by a petitio principti proves their identity, Dr. Pusey, in his application of the text, assumes that one of them was not a mere sign, with three notes of admiration to aid his logic, and so from that petitio principwt proves the essential difference. That the promise, He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, does not refer to baptism with water, may be not only inferred from the contrast, but proved from a passage which Dr. Pusey cites in defence of his own opinion. He says,* “This difference our Lord also inculcated at the same time that he instituted his own baptism. ‘John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.’” By what unfor- tunate mistake—in what moment of strange forgetfulness Dr. Pusey, whose memory is not usually treacherous, could have cited this passage in proof of his doctrine, I cannot imagine. It most evidently proves, that the bap- * Tracts of the Times, No. 67, p. 244. ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. 149 tism of the Holy Ghost was not connected with water bap- tism at all, therefore was not baptism as administered by the disciples of Jesus. John baptized with water ; without water the apostles were baptized by the Holy Ghost; the vi- sible sign of their purification was not water, but fire. The “not many days hence” was the phrase which announced the approach ofthe Pentecost. How was it possible to cite this passage without being convinced that the baptism of the Holy Ghost was essentially distinct from all immersions or effusions of water by whomsoever administered,—that it was shed down abundantly upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost, when no water was employed,—and that therefore the words of John, “he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire,” must be understood, not in connexion, but in contrast with baptism by water? It would be an extraordinary trope, a most licentious use of a figure, to speak of any baptism of water as a baptism by fire. ‘Though many of the Fathers explain this fire to be the invisible flame, which in baptism consumes sin in the heart, yet others, as Cyril of Jerusalem, refer it to the fiery tongues of the Pentecost; others, as Hilary, to the fire which shall purify the righteous in the day of judgment; and others, as Irenzeus and Tertullian, to the fire of hell. With any one of these three expositions, it is impossible to apply this passage to the sacrament of the Christian church. With any exposition whatsoever, it is impossible to find water in the baptism of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost. That the persons who maintain the doctrine of bap- tismal regeneration should cite the words of John, as a proof of the essential difference, is no very wonderful mis- application; as with them the identity of the baptism of the Holy Ghost and Christian baptism is always assumed ; but that Mr. Hall, in his Terms of Communion, should cite the passage for the same purpose, appears to me a most extraordinary and unaccountable fact. As he has 150 ON JOHN’sS BAPTISM. constructed an argument in defence of the essential dif- ference, with far more popular effect than any of the Catholic or Tractarian doctors, it might be thought an evasion of the question, were I not to notice the reasons which he assigns, although my object has reference not to the controversy on the terms of communion, but to the older and more important controversy on the terms of salvation. Whatever charge of presumption I may incur, I see not how I can escape, without incurring the heavier charge of unfairness in selecting Dr. Pusey, through fear of Mr. Hall, who, although the champion of another divi- sion, fights in the front of this fray with his sharp arrows of winged words, likely to do much more execution than all the heavy artillery of the apostolical polemics. He says, ‘‘ The baptism instituted by our Lord is in Scripture distinguished from that of his forerunner by the superior effects with which it was accompanied; so that instead of being confounded, they are contrasted in the sacred writ- ings.”* If they are contrasted in the sacred writings, we must of course admit them to be essentially distinct ; but where is the contrast to be found? Myr. Hall cites for his proof the words, “I baptize you with water unto repent- ance, but there cometh one after me, mightier than I: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” If the eloquent apologist for communion with the unbaptized believed the identity of the baptism of the Holy Ghost with his own immersion, the contrast would be sufficiently manifest; but how with his acknowledged principles he could have adduced this passage, it is not for me to hazard a conjecture. Yet he does make it the basis of an argu- ment, and proceeds with the illustration, until indeed at the close of his reasoning, this baptism of the Holy Ghost becomes only a frequent accompaniment of Christian bap- tism, which however we believe to have been a very infre- quent accompaniment. The whole church at Rome, for * Terms of Communion, p. 20. ON JOHN'S BAPTISM. 151 instance, was doubtless baptized, but as no apostle had visited them when St. Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans, they do not appear to have received the spiritual gifts which he desired to impart. Mr. Hall concludes his reasoning on this passage in these words: ‘Since the baptism of the Holy Ghost, or the copious effusion of spi- ritual influence in which primitive Christians, so to speak, were unmersed, was appointed to follow the sacramental use of water under the Christian economy, while the same cor- poreal action performed by John was a naked ceremony, not accompanied by any such effects; this difference be- twixt them is sufficient to account for their being con- trasted in Scripture, and ought to have prevented their being confounded as one and the same institute.” But where in Scripture is the baptism of the Holy Ghost ap- pointed to follow the sacramental use of water? Where is the effusion of the Holy Ghost represented as an essential element, or even as a frequent accompaniment of Christian baptism? In other words, was not every baptism which Mr. Hall administered, the same corporeal action as that performed by John, “a naked ceremony,” as he calls it, unaccompanied by any Divine power? or was it invariably followed by the copious effusion of spiritual influence? If this be the essential difference, baptism, as he adminis- tered it, and as all men now administer it, (unless the Catholic doctrine of baptismal regeneration be true,) is essentially defective; is, in short, not Christian baptism, but only the “naked ceremony” of John. Even the acci- dental distinction of the effusion of the Holy Spirit was not uniform, for at least on one occasion the Spirit de- scended after baptism administered by John, while on most occasions it did not fall on those baptized by the early Christians. In direct opposition to the opinion of Mr..Hall, that ‘the copious effusion of spiritual influence was appointed to follow the sacramental use of water,” it is to be observed, that the apostles were not exclusively, 152 ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. nor even generally the persons who administered Christian baptism, and yet they exclusively had the power of im- parting spiritual gifts. Baptism was not the office of St. Paul: ‘‘ Christ sent me not to baptize ;” and yet the com- munication of spiritual gifts was an important part of his work, the proper credential of his office, for which he longed to visit the churches on which the Spirit had not been poured down. Not commissioned to baptize, he makes the impartation of the Spirit the chief and manifest proof of his apostleship. That Divine effusion could have accompanied the baptismal rite only in the comparatively very few instances in which it was administered by an apostle; and even then upon some persons, as upon Cor- nelius and his friends, the Holy Ghost fell before they were baptized. Very few comparatively could have been the instances of the effusion of the Spirit as the accom- paniment of Christian baptism; rather ought it to be called the accompaniment of the imposition of the apostles’ hands, which might have been, and often was, performed many years after the baptism of the parties. I have in- sisted upon this point somewhat at length, because I am aware that any argument adduced by Mr. Hall has great weight with many persons, as it always deserves the most serious consideration; but surely in this instance, so- phistry has contrived to plume herself, and not very dex- terously, with the splendour of his eloquence. As to his citations from the Fathers, they would be quite consistent from the pens of those who believe the doctrine of bap- tismal regeneration, but are of no value whatever to those who, with himself, deny that doctrine.* * T am grieved to learn, that in the delivery of this lecture, I was under stood by some persons to ascribe to Mr. Hall the opinions of the Tractarians. Nothing was more remote from my intention. Mr. Hall agreed with them and with the Catholics on the one question of the essential difference, and in his reasoning employs the arguments which they generally adduce. In this paragraph I notice the apparent inconsistency of one of his arguments with his own evangelical theology, without for a moment imputing to him the smallest deviation from that theology. ON JOHN'S BAPTISM. 153 It becomes necessary to notice the other distinctions which Mr. Hall has adduced in proof of the essential dif- ference between the baptism of John and that of our blessed Lord. The first particular is, that Christian bap- tism originated in the express command of Christ, and John’s baptism had no such origin. But how does this prove the essential difference between them? how does it prove that such as were baptized by John ought to have been rebaptized by the apostles? The foundation is too small for the superstructure. John had a Divine commis- sion to baptize, as well as the apostles. Jesus said, “I and my Father are one.” However mysterious may be the unity, it is surely sufficient to sustain the conclusion, that an ordinance observed on the authority of the Father, is not superseded by a similar command of the Son. The Father sent both John and Jesus; and Jesus in com- manding his disciples to baptize, ‘ did nothing of himself but what he had seen the Father do.” The second particular is thus expressed: ‘“ The baptism of John was the baptism of repentance, as a preparation for the approaching kingdom of God: the institute of Christ included an explicit profession of faith in a parti- cular person as the Lord of that kingdom.” Admitting the correctness of this account of Christian baptism, about which Peedobaptists may hold a different opinion, the dif- ference is resolved into baptism previous to the public announcement of Jesus as the promised Messiah, and bap- tism subsequent to that announcement. John baptized because the kingdom of heaven was approaching; the apostles, because it was announced. But why should the announcement of the kingdom of Christ invalidate the bap- tism of its precursor? Is it credible that the event which proved the truth of John’s baptism, and conferred upon it all its importance, should in the same moment nullify its significance, and require from its possessors a second ablution? Had the kingdom of heaven not speedily come, 154 ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. John’s baptism would have been a falsity ; but the coming of that kingdom confirmed and established it. St. Paul tells us, that ‘ John baptized, saying, that they should believe on him that should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” If so, is it credible that his baptism should have become invalid, just at the moment when the opportunity was afforded to his disciples of fulfilling the requisition of their teacher and the engagement of their baptism? That John baptized merely into the general belief of the coming of a Messiah is not to be credited, because that was no new thing in Israel, but the universal doctrine of the Pharisees, of the Sadducees, and of every sect of the Jews. He baptized in the name of one coming after him, soon to be declared. His baptism was so far specific, and the appearance of the particular individual confirmed and vindicated its truth. The third particular is nearly connected with the se- cond: “ Christian baptism,” says Mr. Hall, “ was invariably administered in the name of Jesus, while there is sufficient evidence that John’s was not performed in that name.” John baptized, saying to the people that they should be- lieve on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. ‘The actual appearance of Christ did not change the object of faith, but revealed it with additional clearness, caused it to emerge from the shadowy horizon of prophecy into the conspicuous altitude of present ex- istence. ‘There was a difference of circumstances, but surely no essential difference in the mere distinction of the name of the same person. Besides, by those who maintain the essential difference, the disciples of Jesus during his personal ministry are said to have baptized with a baptism of the same kind as that of John, and not with Christian baptism. So say all,.I believe, from Ter- tullian down to Dr. Pusey, Fathers, Roman Catholics, and Anglo-Catholics; but is it credible that the disci- ples of Jesus did not baptize in the name of their Master, then present with them? If they baptized in his ON JOHN'S BAPTISM. TRE * name, this difference of the coming one and of him come could not have been essential, for none maintain the essential difference between the baptism of John and the baptism of the disciples of Jesus during his personal ministry, to which, as this argument equally applies, it proves too much. The fourth particular is that which we have already noticed, the difference between baptism with water and baptism with the Holy Ghost, and which, as we have seen, depends entirely upon the controversy on baptismal re- generation. The fifth particular is deduced from the supposed re- baptism of John’s disciples. Here we must acknowledge, if it can be clearly demonstrated that St. Paul, or any other inspired teacher, knowingly rebaptized any who had duly and properly received the baptism of John, the essential difference is incontrovertibly proved. We turn therefore to the nineteenth chapter of the Acts: “ It came to pass while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passing 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 Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of re- pentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on Him that should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” That these twelve men were rebaptized must, I think, be candidly acknowledged. Many ingenious suggestions, I know, have been offered by the reformers, in order to escape the conclusion. Thus Zuingle supposes, that by John’s baptism we are to un- derstarid the doctrine of John, and not the actual baptism of water. Into what were ye instructed? Into John’s 156 ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. doctrine. Calvin thinks that they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus, yet not by water, but by the effusion of the Holy Ghost, when Paul laid his hands upon them. Others say, that the words, “when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus,” mean, when they heard Paul’s account of John’s baptism into the name of Him that was to come, their previous baptism became to them, or was in their estima- tion, without a repetition of the rite, baptism into the name of the Lord Jesus. Beza contends, that the words, ‘“when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus,” are the words of Paul, and not of the historian; meaning, that the disciples of John were, on hearing their master’s testimony in favour of Him that was to come, baptized virtually into the name of the Lord Jesus. The reformers were versatile with many weapons in fighting these twelve Jews, but their weapons broke in their hands; and we must confess, these disciples of the eloquent Apollos constitute the most formidable phalanx in this engagement, without whose aid neither Tractarians nor open communionists could do much to damage the credit of John’s baptism. The opinion of Beza has been followed by many Protestant expositors, both Lutheran and reformed. The critical reason as- signed, is the contrariety implied in the two Greek par- ticles, nev and dé. ‘‘ He, on the one hand, baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying to the people, that they should believe on Him that was to come, that is, on the Lord Jesus: the hearers, on the other hand, were bap- tized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” But not to insist upon the unmeaning repetition, the only difference of the two members of the contrast being, that John baptized in the name of Him that was to come, and his hearers were baptized in that name; this per, the single particle on which all this exposition depends, is itself a most suspici- ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. 157 ous pretender of a few manuscripts.* If this particle be not genuine, the criticism of Beza and his followers must be abandoned with it. But if we believe, that these twelve men were rebaptized by St. Paul, it may be asked, how do we escape the conclusion that the disciples of John were baptized a second time by the apostles? I acknow- ledge the difficulty. Let us observe the connexion of the passage, and if we cannot escape the conclusion that these men were baptized by John, and rebaptized by Paul, we must resign this fact as one argument against us, which is not damaged on examination. The question is sug- gested, were they baptized by John or his disciples pre- viously to the death of Christ, or were they subsequently baptized by Apollos, in his ignorance of the death of Christ, after the manner of John’s baptism ? “Tt came to pass when Apollos was in Corinth.” These words suggest the inquiry, why the absence of Apollos should be mentioned, and what connexion he had with the narrative? Had he no connexion with it, the mention of his name would be superfluous and trifling. This clause connects the chapter with the preceding, and by its aid we correct the unfortunate interruption of the narrative by an inappropriate division. Of Apollos it is said a few verses before, ‘‘ Being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing,” and therefore administering, ‘only the baptism of John.” To know only the baptism of John, seems to intimate that he was acquainted with Jesus, as the Messiah whom John announced, but not with his death and resurrection. This man, having been a disciple of John, and believing his testimony, that Jesus was the one mightier than he, preached with great power and success the religion of John, before he was taught the way of the Lord more per- * Griesbach’s note is, “pév=AB D. 15, 15, 40, 66, * * 69. Aiii Mt. 1. Copt. Vulg. cant.” Being rejected by the Alexandrian, the Vatican and the Cambridge manuscripts, (the codex Ephrem is mutilated in this passage, ) it cannot be acknowledged of good authority. 158 ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. fectly by Aquila and Priscilla, probably giving prominence to the great doctrine of the Baptist, that Jesus was the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world. Im- perfectly acquainted with the Gospel, he baptized his dis- ciples after the manner which John employed, probably as John had done, unto the profession of repentance, pre- paratory to the reception of the Messiah. But if this form of baptism were proper and valid, as we believe it was, when administered before the resurrection of Jesus, for the apostles and early disciples had no other, it was manifestly improper, if so administered subsequently to that event. Apollos might have most firmly believed that Jesus was the Christ, and yet, when he Baptized these men, have known nothing of his death and resurrection, as he was residing at a great distance from Judea, and knew nothing of the effusion of the Holy Ghost. Had they been con- verted by any other ministry, it is not probable they would have been ignorant of the existence of the Holy Ghost. What teacher who knew the things which had been done at Jerusalem, would have said nothing of the effusion of the Pentecost, nothing of the baptism of the Spirit? Apollos knew not this baptism. St. Paul says, ‘John indeed baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying that they should believe on Him who should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” It was therefore the only proper baptism for his time. But sufficient as was its administration during the life of our Lord, so that none who then received it, so far as we know, were rebaptized ; it was not suitable after his resurrection, and therefore the disciples of Apollos were rebaptized in the name of the ' Lord Jesus. It is remarkable we do not read that Apollos himself, who had received John’s baptism, was rebaptized, when taught the way of the Lord more perfectly. It may be said I cannot prove all these particulars, but their pro- bability, even their possibility, is sufficient for my purpose. It must be shown, that these twelve men were baptized, ON JOHN'S BAPTISM. 159 not by Apollos, but by some one previously to the death of our Lord, to establish the invalidity of John’s baptism; but the aspect of the narrative being opposed to such a supposition, suggests the opinion that they were the dis- ciples of Apollos; and if Apollos, knowing only the bap- tism of John, baptized these men in ignorance of the re- surrection of Christ, (and who shall say he did not ?) the argument against us falls to pieces. Before these twelve men can prove the essential difference, they must show that the register of their first baptism is dated previously to the death of Christ. This exposition, I admit, was not usual in the ancient church; yet even there, prevalent as was the opinion that John’s baptism was not valid, on account of the absence of the Holy Ghost, it was not without its advocates. In Photius, we have an account of the books of Kulogius, archbishop of Alexandria, in the fifth century, against the Novatians; and we find him furnishing this exposition in defence of his opinion, that the baptism of John was per- fect before the resurrection of Jesus.* I, however, admit the difficulty, and must acknowledge I am not quite satis- fied with the solution. If these persons were baptized before the death of Christ, the essential difference is cer- tainly established. The sixth particular is founded on the probability that of the multitude baptized on the day of Pentecost, some had been previously baptized by John. To this I reply, the multitudes baptized by John were of Jerusalem and - Judea, and the country round about Jordan. The thou- sands baptized at the Pentecost were devout men, sojourn- ing in Jerusalem out of every nation under heaven. There is no reason to suppose that many of these sojourners were in Jerusalem, when John baptized three years before. To say that any one had been baptized by John is a gratuitous assumption. * See Appendix B. 160 ON JOHN'S BAPTISM. Neither the apostles, nor the first disciples who were Christians at the resurrection, were rebaptized; but ifsuch rebaptism were proper, it would have been peculiarly fit- ting that they, like their Divine Master, should have suf- fered it, to fulfil all righteousness. Is it credible that the first preachers of the Christian faith should have consi- dered themselves exempted from the obligation of submit- ting to its initiatory rite?* My chief anxiety, however, is to maintain that Jesus was baptized with the same baptism as his people. The founder of our faith submitted to the rule of his own religion. If the effusion of the Spirit was the sign of true baptism, in this instance it attested the baptism of John. Admitting the difficulties, I adhere to the faith that Christians are baptized with the baptism with which Christ was baptized. Another inquiry is suggested respecting the baptism of John. Did he, or did he not, baptize the young children of such as attended his ministry? In the evangelical narrative, we have no direct information upon this sub- ject. Our opponents will protest against our assuming that he did baptize infants, and we must with equal deci- * The Fathers are sadly perplexed in attempting to discover the baptism of the apostles, and to rescue them from the great peril of perdition, being unbaptized. Tertullian protests he had heard over-scrupulous people, or rather unscrupulous, question how salvation could belong to the unbaptized apostles. Chrysostom and others think they were baptized by John with water, and afterwards with the Holy Ghost—the one baptism of the church being administered to them in two parts, first with water and afterwards with the Spirit. (Hom.i.in Actt.§ 5.) He, however, seems elsewhere to hint they were baptized with water at different times, a strangely anabaptistical opinion. Augustine says they were baptized by our Lord with water, (Ep. 265. § 5;) others thought they were baptized when they were sprinkled with the waves in the ship; others, when their feet were washed by our Lord; though the Fathers generally, with equal reason, say that they had been pre- viously baptized, and, therefore, our Lord would not wash the hands and head of Peter, saying, “ He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit.” Clement of Alexandria, in a fragment of the fifth book of the Hypotyposes preserved by Moschus, says, Christ baptized Peter only ; Peter, Andrew; Andrew, James and John; and they, the other apostles. (See Bp. of Lincoln’s Clement of Alexandria, p. 442.) ON JOHN'S BAPTISM. 161 sion protest against their assuming, from the silence of the evangelists, that he did not. As the promise of the Messiah was made to the whole house of Israel in its national character, it would seem probable, that the whole nation, and not a part only, was entitled to receive the sign of his coming. ‘The infants of Israel had the same interest in the promise of the Messiah as the adults. When we consider that other religious rites of a national character were, according to the Jewish law, performed for infants as well as for their parents; this probability is greatly increased, for why should John for the first time distinguish parents from children in the religious rites of the Jews? Judaism was not then abolished; the principles of Mosaic law flourished with unabated vigour : with its spirit, every new ceremonial must have been ac- cordant; but nothing can be imagined more anti-Mosaic, more contrary to the spirit or letter of the law, than the separation of parents and children in the new rite of puri- fication. Of Israel, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, and all that was represented by the baptism of John, the sign of his coming, concerned the whole house of Israel. Why should we restrict the representation to a part only ? Preparatory to the descent of God on Sinai, Moses puri- fied all the people, not the adults only. Why should we not suppose that preparatory to the coming of the Son of God, John baptized all Judea, and all Jerusalem, and all the region round about, and not the adults only? I admit we may restrict this general description to adults, if there be good reason for doing so; but what good reason can be adduced for any such restriction? To say it is improbable that infants were included, is a perfectly gra- tuitous assumption, which, although many assumptions as gratuitous have been conceded in this controversy, I trust we are not so foolish as to allow without protest. Under a dispensation of Judaism the religious ordinances were of a national character, without reference to age or x: M 162 ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. class; and is it probable that a restriction was, for the first time, introduced into a service which proclaimed to the whole house of Israel the speedy accomplishment of the promise to which every infant was indubitably the heir? That John baptized only the select few, who truly and devoutly waited for the consolation of Israel, is a position which, as we have seen, cannot be maintained consistently with the evangelical history. By his preaching consider- able excitement was produced, so that vast numbers held him to be a prophet and crowded to his baptism. Nor have we the slightest intimation of any person whatsoever having been refused baptism by the precursor of our Lord. But if the baptism of John was indiscriminately admin- istered to all applicants, even to those whom the admin- istrator knew to be ungodly and impenitent, and if this was done during the continuance of a national dispensa- tion of religion which made no difference in its ritual between parents and children, as it did not between the pious and the profane, but regarded the whole house of Israel as its object, is it at all probable that the children of that nation were excluded from the great national sign of the advent of Christ? If in the last lecture I succeeded in showing that it is exceedingly probable, if not morally certain, that the infant children of proselytes to Judaism were baptized with their parents, the presumption in favour of infant baptism as administered by John, is so far confirmed. If the Jews were accustomed to see infants baptized with their parents, in an age when proselytes to the faith were very numerous, they would naturally take their children to be baptized with themselves by the preacher of the kingdom of heaven. Of John’s baptism I am fairly en- titled to say, that it was certainly not believer’s baptism, not baptism administered on account of any pious dis- positions belonging, or supposed to belong, to the parties ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. 163 baptized, — that it was the baptism of all classes and parties—Pharisees and Sadducees—publicans and soldiers —upon the principle that the whole nation was to be purified by a ceremonial of ablution preparatory to the coming of the Messiah. APPENDIX TO LECTURE IV. A. Page 140, MR, FABER’S CITATIONS FROM THE FATHERS ON THE SACRAMENTAL IDENTITY OF CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM. I rvLiy admit that Augustine at times held the sacramental identity of circumcision and baptism. Mr. Faber’s citations seem to imply so much, but he has overlooked the more direct and satisfactory proofs. Instead of introducing passages which only imply the opinion of Augustine, and which may be met by passages apparently of an opposite tendency, he might have adduced the direct assertion of that Father: ‘* Dominus Christus in ecclesia sud sacramentum Novi Testa- menti pro circumcisione carnis sanctum baptismum dedit.’’—Aug. Ep. 108. I fear, however, this passage must have involved the saint together with Mr. Faber in the anathema of the council of Trent. I wonder the Benedictines did not suppress the passage, and conceal the anathematized heresy of the canonized divine. For Catholic casuists it is a curious inquiry: if their infallible church both anathe- matize and canonize the same man, what becomes of him >} Omitting, therefore, the citations from Augustine, as his opinions on baptism require a more prolonged examination than this note will allow, I adduce the passages by which Mr. Faber seeks to prove that ‘‘the sacramental identity of circumcision under the law, and of baptism under the Gospel, was, from the first, a ruled case of inter- pretation.” From Chrysostom he cites, ‘‘‘H 5€ jperépa reprroph 7 Tod Banricparos, A€yw, Xdpis, dvddvvov exer thy iarpelay, kad pupioy &yabav mpdkevos yivero juiy, Kat Tis Tod Tiveduaros juas eumlrAnct xdpitos. Kal ovde Gpiopévoy exer Katpdy, Kabdmep eet BAN Fear, Kab ev ddpy jArrKia, Kad ev peop, Kal ey adt@ TO yhpa, yevduerdy twa, Tabryy détacbau Thy axetporolntoy wepirouhy. ’—Chrysost. in Gen, Homil. xl, He translates, ‘‘ Our circumcision, Iam speaking of the grace of APPENDIX TO LECTURE IV. 165 baptism, affords a cure free from pain, and is to us the administration of ten thousand blessings, and fills us with the grace of the Holy Spirit. Nor, as was the case with circumcision under the law, has it any set time; but, in infancy, and in middle age, and in old age, any one is alike permitted to receive the circumcision not made with hands.”’ This passage seems intended to establish the very opposite opinion to that for which it is cited,—the contrast, rather than the identity of baptism and circumcision ; as one is, and the other is not, ‘‘a cure free from pain,”’ ‘‘ the administration of ten thousand blessings,” filling us ‘* with the grace of the Holy Spirit.”’ From Athanasius, ‘‘‘H yap mepitouh ovdty &AAo edHAov, 7 Thy Tis yeveocws améxduow. Toy yap TH Extn arobarvdvTa arexdeducKducda’ Kal dvaxawvovpeda TH Kuptakh, Ored madquds amexdvdels aveyevyi}Oy TH ava- otdcet. Todto yap cal 6 Taddos &pn év tH mpds Kodoooeis’ “Ev & kal TepleTunOnTe wepiTomh aXepoTorjrm ev TH awekdvoe: TOD TeuaTos Tis capkds, ev TH wepiToMA TOD Xpictov, ovvTapertes adt@ ev TS Bawtiopate eis Thy Gdnv, ev @ Kal cuvnyepOnte. Tis yap 516 Tod Barticuaros am- exdvaews TUTOS hy N TepiToun.—Iorevous yap "APBpadu ZAaBe thy tept- TOMY, TNMELOY OVTaY THs 51a TOD BatTicuaTos avayevy}oews.’’—Athan. de Sabbat. et. Circum. Oper. vol. i. p. 968. ‘‘ Circumcision sets forth nothing else than the putting off the natural birth ; for we put off him who on the sixth day died as to the flesh ; and we are renewed on the Lord’s day, when the old man, being unclothed, was born again by the resurrection. This is it, which Paul speaketh to the Colossians : ‘‘ In whom ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ; buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him. Circumcision, therefore, was the type of putting off sin through baptism ; for Abra- ham, having believed, received circumcision, which was the sign of regeneration through baptism.”’ Here circumcision is only the sign of regeneration through bap- tism, but not like baptism the medium of regeneration. The two are clearly distinguished. From Cyprian, ‘‘Quantum vero ad causam infantium pertinet, quos dixisti intra secundum vel tertium diem, quo nati sint, consti- tutos, baptizari non oportere, et considerandam esse legem circum- cisionis antique, ut intra octavumdiem eum quinatus est baptizandum et sacrificandum non putares; longé aliud, in concilio nostro, omni- bus visum est. In hoc enim, quod tu putabas esse faciendum, nemo consensit ; sed uniyersi potius judicavimus, nulli hominum nato L66 APPENDIX TO LECTURE IY. misericordiam Dei et gratiam denegandam. .. Nam, quod in Judaica circumcisione carnali octavus dies observabatur, sacramentum est in umbra atque in imagine antepremissum, sed veniente Christo, veritate completum. Nam, quia octayus dies, id est, post sabbatum primus dies, futurus erat, quo Dominus resurgeret et nos vivificaret, et circumcisionem nobis spiritalem daret : hic dies octavus, id est, post sabbatum primus et dominicus, precessit in imagine, que imago cessayit, superveniente postmodum veritate, et data nobis spiritali circumcisione.’”’—Cyprian. Epist. lix. Oper. vol. ii. p. 160, 161. **So far as respects the matter of infants, concerning whom you have said, that those who are only two or three days old ought not to be baptized ; and that the law of ancient circumcision ought to be considered ; in agreement with which a child, in your opinion, ought not to be baptized and sanctified before he had attained the eighth day ; a far different judgment was given by all in our council. No one consented to what you thought fitting to be done; but on the contrary, we all judged that the mercy and grace of God ought not to be denied to any person born of man. For, as to the observation of the eighth day in the circumcision of the flesh, according to the Jewish law, that ordinance is a sacrament, appointed beforehand in shadow and in image, but completed in truth at the coming of Christ. The eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, was about to be that on which the Lord would rise again, and would confer upon us true life, and would give unto us the spiritual circumcision, Therefore this eighth day, the first and the Lord’s day after the Sabbath, went before in an image, which image ceased, when the truth afterwards supervened, and when spiritual cireum- cision was given unto us.” Here the ancient sacrament, the carnal circumcision, is distinctly opposed to the spiritual circumcision or baptism given to us, not identified with it. From Justin Martyr, “‘H 8 évroAt tijs mepirouts, Kedevovoa TH byddn juepa ex maytTds wepiréuvery TH yevvdpeva, TUmos Fy THS dAnbuwijs TEpiToUAs, Hy wepretunOnuey and THs wAdyns Ka wovnplas 5i& TOD dad veKpay dvacrdytTos TH mig TaY CaBBdTwy juépa’Inood Xpicrov Tov Kuptov npav. Mila yap tay caBRdtwv, mpoTn pévovea Tay Tacay jucpay, KaTa Tov apiOuoy mdAw TY TacGy jwepay THs KUKAOdopias, dyddn KaAEtTaL, Kal mpoTn ovoa wever.”’—Justin Mart. Dial. cum Tryp. Oper. p. 260. “The commandment of circumcision, which enjoins that infants should always be circumcised on the eighth day, was a type of the true circumcision, with which we were circumcised from error and wickedness through Jesus Christ our Lord, who rose again from the APPENDIX TO LECTURE IVY. 167 dead on the first day of the week; for the first day of the week, remaining the first of all days, agreeably to the entire number of the days viewed as revolving in the hebdomadal cycle, is called the eighth, though it still remains the first.” Here, if by the true circumcision baptism be intended, it is the antitype of circumcision, and not sacramentally identical. If the true circumcision be sanctity of heart, there is no reference to baptism in the passage; and that it is so, we infer from its being attributed to Enoch, Noah, and other unbaptized patriarchs. Having noticed the citation from Justin Martyr, I have only to refer to the many allusions to the principal Jewish rites, especially to circumcision, the Sabbath, and the ablutions in the earlier part of the Dialogue with Trypho, to show that in the opinion of the Martyr there was no sacramental identity between circumcision and bap- tism. See from p. 31 to p. 124 of S. Just. Mar. Dial. ed. a Sam. Jebb; corresponding, according to the margin, with pp. 227—262 of the Paris edition. Two extracts may suffice to show the opinion of Justin. “"H dad ’ABpadu kara odpka wepitouh eis onuetov €d60n, iva Fre amd Tov dhAwy vay kal Hav ddwpicpéevor Kal iva pdvor wAONTE, & viv ev Sikn mdoxeTe, Kal iva yévwvrat al Xopar Huey Epnuot Kal ai jwdAets mupikavaeTo.. - « « Od yap & BAdAov tivds yvwpiecbe mapa Tods GAAOus avOpdrous, }) amd ris ev capk) buay TepitouTs.” ‘‘The circumcision according to the flesh received from Abraham was given to you fora sign, that you might be distinguished from other nations and from us, and that you alone might suffer what things you justly suffer, and that your lands might be desolate, and your cities burnt. . . . For you are distinguished from other men by nothing else than by the circumcision in your flesh.’’—Dial., c. Tryp. p. 49. Jebb, p. 234. Paris. “Ov yap macw dvayKaia abtyn fh wepiTouy, GAN duty udvois, iva, os mpoegny, TavTa maOnTe & viv ey SiknmaoxeTE. « . «~ Kal duets wey, of Thy odpka TepireTunuevot, Xpiere THs HmeTepas wepitouys, jucis 5é TauTny ExovTes ovdev éxeivns Seducba.”” ‘‘For this circumcision is not necessary for all, but only for you, that, as I before said, you might suffer those things which you justl suffer . . . and you who are circumcised in the flesh, need our circumcision, but we, having this, are in no need of yours.’’—Dial. c. Tryp. p. 56, p. 236. Paris. He proceeds to show that the patriarchs Adam, Abel, Enoch, Melchisedec, and others, had no need of circumcision. Tertullian (ady. Judzos, c. 2, 3) reasons in the same manner that 168 APPENDIX TO LECTURE IV. circumcision did not purify the person; as Adam in paradise, and Abel offering his acceptable sacrifice ; and Noah, and Enoch, and Melchisedec, were uncircumcised, See also Ireneus adv. Her, iv. 30, a chapter written expressly to show why circumcision and the Sabbath were given to the Jews. Epiphanius represents the first circumcision as not perfect, but only a sign or type of the great circumcision completed in water.—Contra Ebion. If I thought the Fathers ruled these cases, I should say, in oppo- sition to Mr. Faber, it is “‘a ruled case of interpretation,’’ Augus- tine being excepted, that circumcision and baptism are not sacra- mentally identical. The sacramental identity of the two ordinances must be hereafter examined on scriptural grounds. B. Page 159. EULOGIUS OF ALEXANDRIA ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. Tue extract is from a part of the second book aginst the Nova- tians, preserved by Photius, in his Bibliotheca. ““"Or. 5& TéAciov iv SAov, dacl, Kal ek Gy ovdayod galverar tods pabnras Td Tape Iwdyvov Sedeyuevous Rdwticna avaBarticas. *Inoovs yap, nov, ovdéva tBdwriCev, GAN of padytai. “EE oy waAuw SiAov btu TéAciov bmipxe. Kat 6 cwrnp S& BapticOjva: adrd odK amrakidoas, bre TérElov Hy Gerkev. Od adrds, os SHAov earl, Kabdpaews Seduevos, GAA KaOdpoiyv Tav bdaTwy yivdmevos, Kal ayiacuds, Kal TeAElwois, TOs TéTE BarriCopevois. “Eicodoy 6& of téTe Bamwri(ducvor Tis eis Xpiorov yyaocews To Bdrricua wapadéxovTo. “Evel yup TovTo cis Toy épxduevoy €BartiCovro, eChrouy Aowmdy, Tis 6 épxdpuevos; Kal (nrodyTes, eUpiokdy Te Kal euan- TEVOYTO’ Kal TpocloyTEs TH THT pl, OVX Erepoy Rdwricua mpocerAduBavor, pdvov Se Tus evToAds mpocedéeXovToO. “Ews pty oby ovdérw edotdcby 51a Tod cravpod 6’ Inoots, TéActoy iv Td lwdvvov Bantiopa’ wera TadTa dé, obKETL. Awd kal, Toy ATOAAw ParricbévTa bd lwdyvov Kata Toy apudCovra Kaspdy, oddels dveBdrricev’ GAAG TpiciiAAa Kal ’?AxtaAas kata Thy "Edecoy mapa- ~vyeyovdta e& AAckavdpelas ris matploos mpocceAdBorTo wey adrdy, Kal dKpt- Béotepov edidakay ra wep) tod Kuplov “Iycod Xpiorov" Bawrioa S& odK eréApnoav. Tos pey tol ye bm airod BawricGévtas, ere) peta Tv TOD Kuptov eis odpavods &vodov TG “Iwdvvov Barticpari €BamrioOncay’ rt ov- Kétt iy epxduevos 6 Xpiords, GAN eAnAvOds 75n Kal wacay meTANPwWKoS oixovoulay, kal Béwricya dedwws oiketov : cixdtws TobTOUS cipwy 6 TadAos, Kal Ore ovde ef mvetpa Gyidy eorw decay, Tw Seomotixw Barriopate ‘ APPENDIX TO LECTURE IV. 169 mapeckevarey avaBarricbjvet. TWodraxdGev St, dyolv, earl AdBew, &s zérctoy hv To’ lwdyvov Banticpa mpd THs Tapaddcews TOV deoToTLKOv. Kal yap, onoly, 6 corhp Te lwdvvov Barricuart Mérpoy kat Tovs &AAous palyras BeBarricwévous, kara Toy Kapdy TOV TdOOUS HElwoe, TOY GpiKTaY pvoTnplov® oink by peradods To0 axpdyTou cdhuaros avTots, Kal TOU aluaTos, ei mi) TEAELOY adtois Td lwdvvou éxexdpioro Bdaticpa. "AAAG Kal bre Tléerpos wapyreiro Tous médas vibacbat, &xover Tapa TOD TwTHpos 6 AcAoumevos, ov xpelay Exet mddw Aovoacbat, BAN ZorTt Kabapds GAYS’ Kal dwets KaPapol éore. AL dy Kad §rt 6 Td TOD lwdvvov év KaipG BawricGels Bawricua ov Setrat Sevtépov Barricparos, émidetkvuTa’ Kal bri Sbvapuv eixe Tous BaBarricpévous avrd, aroalvew Kabapobs. “AAN oStw pty 6 EvAdyios, Tov TAcloTwY TAT EpwY aredts 82 SAov 7d “Iwdyvov Bdmricpa Seuvivtey.’’—Eulogius contra Novatianos in Photii Bibliotheca, cclxxx. «And that it (John’s baptism) was perfect, he says, is manifest, because he never appears rebaptizing the disciples who had received baptism from John. For Jesus, he says, baptized no one but his disciples. "Whence again it is manifest that it was perfect; for since the Saviour did not disdain to be baptized with it, he shows that it was perfect; he himself, as is evident, needing no purification, but being made a purification of the waters, and sanctification and per- fection to those who were then baptized. Those indeed who were then baptized received their baptism for an introduction to the knowledge of Christ. For when they were baptized in His name who was to come, they henceforth inquired who he was who was to come, and inquiring, they found and were instructed, and going to the Saviour, received no other baptism, but only received his command- ments. So long as Christ was not yet glorified on the cross, the baptism of John was perfect, but not any longer. Wherefore Apollos being baptized by John at the proper season, no one rebaptized ; but Priscilla and Aquila received him, having come from Alexandria to Ephesus, and taught him the things of the Lord Jesus Christ more perfectly, but they did not venture to baptize him, But those baptized by him, because they were baptized after the ascent of the Lord to heaven with John’s baptism, since Christ was no longer about to come, but had come already and accomplished all his dis- pensation, and had given his own baptism; Paul having found them, and because they did not know whether there was a Holy Ghost, re- baptized them with the baptism of the Lord. And from many things, he says, it may be collected that the baptism of John was perfect be- fore the Lord was delivered up. For the Saviour would not have deigned, he says, in the season of his passion to communicate to Peter and the other disciples, baptized with John’s baptism, the awful 170 APPENDIX TO LECTURE IV. mysteries of his spotless body and blood, unless the baptism of John had been made to them perfect. Moreover, when Peter re- fused to have his feet washed, he heard the Saviour say to him, ‘ He who is washed, does not need to be washed again, but is clean every whit, and ye are clean.’ How? because he who was baptized with John’s baptism at the proper time, did not need a second baptism, but were rendered clean by it. ‘© So says Eulogius, when most of the Fathers think the baptism of John was altogether imperfect.”’ LECTURE V. ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also 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.”—] Peter iii. 21. “Ti yap odedos Exeivov tov farticuates, 6 THv Tapka Kat dvov TO GHpa Pardptvet ; Barrtic@nte tHyv Wuxyv, amo Opyns Kai amo mAcovetias, dno PUovov, amo picous" Kat, idov, To cpa Kabapov éote.”—Justin Mart. Dial. cum Tryph. p.281. In our last lecture we arrived at the conclusion, that previously to the resurrection of our Lord, although bap- tism was administered by John and by the apostles, there was no such thing as baptismal regeneration. Our oppo- nents concede, as we have seen, that baptism by water was not then accompanied by the Holy Ghost, as they concede that no previously existing rite of Judaism, neither circum- cision nor any Levitical ablution, was the means through which the Divine life was communicated. We revert to this concession, because it is the basis on which we raise the argument of this lecture; and our reasoning will not be fairly appreciated, unless it be understood that we have already, with the consent of our opponents, and in accord- ance with all antiquity on which they rely, taken our position upon the ground that previously to the day of Pentecost there was no such thing upon the face of the earth as baptismal regeneration, or regeneration by an sacrament or ceremonial whatsoever. In controverting the doctrine of baptismal regeneration we have first to determine the sense which we affix to 172 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. phrase ; for unless this be clearly determined, we shall not be able to preserve the argument free from confusion and perplexity, especially as the defenders of the doctrine do not concur in its exposition. Dr. Waterland, in his ‘“ Re- generation Stated and Explained,” and Bishop Van Mildert in his ‘“ Bampton Lectures,” as ayowedly and earnestly defend what they call baptismal regeneration, as do Dr. Pusey and Mr. Newman; yet the former, by regeneration mean no internal change whatever, but only a federal change of condition, an initiation into the new covenant, an introduction to the privileges of the Gospel; while the latter include in regeneration, ‘‘ the actual death unto sin, and commencement of spiritual life, the unction of the Holy One, the illumination and sanctification of the soul, the dying in Christ, and rising in the power of his resur- rection.” * We may, however, consider the doctrine of regeneration by baptism as it is proposed in these four distinct senses, and I know no other in which it can be expounded. 1. Baptism so introduces a person into the evangelical covenant, as to give him aright to all its external privi- leges, by the good use of which he may acquire a title to everlasting life. 2. Baptism so changes the federal condition of a person, as to bestow upon him an immediate title to eternal life, which he retains until it be forfeited by sin. 3. Baptism produces a moral and spiritual change upon the soul in connexion with the federal change of condition, which entitles him to eternal life. 4. Baptism is the medium through which a moral and spiritual change is, although not invariably, yet so fre- quently produced, as to warrant the church, though not with certainty, yet in the judgment of charity, to declare the person to be regenerate. These four distinct theories of baptismal regeneration * Tracts for the Times, No. 67 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 173 have been strenuously defended by different members of the English church ; and, therefore, it is necessary to make a few observations respecting them, in order to show more clearly and distinctly the bearing of the argument upon every form in which the subject is propounded. I must, as best I can, while attempting to refute every form of baptismal regeneration, confine myself, as far as possible, to one course of reasoning. The first theory seems to be the least pernicious. It represents baptism as placing a sinner in a new and more advantageous position for secur- ing his own’ salvation. According to it, his regeneration is nothing more than the acquisition of those privileges of the Gospel by which he may, if he repent and believe, and live a godly life, attain the blessedness of heaven. Baptism places him in a state of salvability, and, therefore, it is implied that all unbaptized persons are excluded from that state, or, in the most favourable view which it will permit us to take, that they are not in a state in which we have any right to conclude that they will be saved. If it be not absolutely certain that they perish, they must be left, to adopt a phrase very frequently on the lips of formalism, when clad in the costume of ecclesiastical authority, to the uncovenanted mercies of God. But the scriptural doctrine, as we believe, is that all men, baptized or unbaptized, are in the state of salvability here supposed; that is, all men are invited and encouraged to avail themselves of the pri- vileges of the Gospel—all men are not only invited but required to believe the truth of God by which they may be saved. ‘The obligation to believe what God declares, and tc do what God commands, is imperative upon all, ante- cedent to any sacrament and independent of it. To the Philippian jailer, before his baptism, Paul said, ‘‘ Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” Was he not at that moment in the state of salvability? Had he not permission to avail himself of the privileges of the Gospel, and to be saved by believing on Christ? We are 174 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. taught unhesitatingly to regard all men as entitled to the privileges of the Gospel, and as forfeiting their title only by unbelief. ‘God so loved the world, that he gave - his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” If in this sense to be the object of Divine mercy is regeneration, then all men are regenerate. The free gift is as extensive in its application for good, as was the original offence for evil. “As by one offence, the judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by one righteousness the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.” “As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive.” The evan- gelical covenant has relation, on the one hand, to ail men as sinners needing its salvation, and on the other, to all believers as actually possessing a personal interest in that salvation; but it 1s nowhere represented as a covenant with any third class of persons, in a state preferable to that of the world, but inferior to that of the church. ‘ He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son hath not life.” We read nothing in Scripture of an inter- mediate state. The Gospel presents assurances of salvation only to believers, overtwres of salvation to all men. The second and third theories involve a principle so ex- traordinary, so opposed to all our previous opinions of the government of God, that we have a right to require in their support the most plain and unequivocal authority of Holy Scripture. The doctrine, be it observed, is that by washing a person with water and repeating over him a form of words, he is introduced into a state of grace, his past sins are forgiven, and he is the heir of eternal life ; and, moreover, according to the third theory, a great moral and spiritual renovation is wrought upon his soul by the Spirit of God approving and honouring the service. In other words, he is made by the ceremony really and truly a Christian, and is placed in a state of safety simultaneously with this extraordinary renovation ; or if there be no such ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. bee change of disposition and character, then according to the second theory, he is placed in this state without any per- sonal and spiritual improvement. In accordance with the third theory, baptismal regeneration is usually stated and defended by the Tractarian party, and we think with them, that if a change of state according to the second hypothesis be conceded, a change of heart had better be conceded also. If the texts of Scripture, which are adduced in support of a transition effected through water, apply to the state of the subject, they equally and incontrovertibly prove a renovation of character. All we demand is clear and incontestable proof, derived from Holy Scripture, of this extraordinary change. It will probably be said, with a contemptuous sneer, This is only a cavil of proud reason which calls for proof, when humble faith would meekly and implicitly submit. We will meekly submit to the lively oracles of God, but not to the uninspired traditions of men. From the ecclesiastical authority of the primitive church, we candidly admit our opponents have the best, though not the whole of the argument; but on this subject we main- tain, Scripture and tradition, the apostles and their suc- cessors, Christ and the early church, are manifestly at variance. Although some will blame us for making this admission, yet as far as we can understand the testimony of the Fathers, notwithstanding several inconsistencies and some apparent exceptions, the full and rapid stream of ecclesiastical authority from a very early source runs strong in favour of the theory of baptismal regeneration. ‘The defenders of the second and third hypotheses admit, that as the virtue of baptism may be repelled by mortal sin, so it may be subsequently lost by aggravated criminality. It follows that as baptism is the only means of regeneration, those who have lost this grace of God must be in an awful condition, if indeed it be possible to renew them again to repentance. There are, indeed, two other baptisms by which it is admitted the lapsed may possibly be recovered, 176 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. —the one the baptism in the profusion of the bitter tears of penitence, to what extent required, in what manner sufficient, no mortal can explain, as of this painful recovery of the fallen none can ever speak with confidence; and the other the baptism in the blood of martyrdom, which is generally admitted, in the words of Tertullian, to be ‘‘ the baptism which both stands in the place of the laver when it has not been received, and restores it when it is lost.’”* The fourth theory is received by many of the opponents of the Tractarians in the Church of England. It seems to have been devised in order to reconcile the preaching of Christ crucified as the wisdom and power of God to salvation, with the standards and formularies of the Eng- lish church; but it is held, I think, by no other Christians in any part of the world. Every administrator of baptism, _ according to the offices of that church, prays to God to ‘sanctify this water to the mystical washing away of sin,” and then gives thanks “that it hath pleased thee to re- generate this infant with thy Holy Spirit.” In these formu- laries it is clearly implied, that the effusion of the Holy Ghost is so connected with the baptism with water, that the child born of water is also born of the Spint. The Tractarian party maintain that, with the exception of the instances in which the false reception has frustrated the grace, the effusion of the Holy Spirit is inseparably con- nected with the baptism of water duly and canonically ad- ministered. Their opponents, whose views are defended at length by Mr. Faber, in his ‘‘ Primitive Doctrine of Regeneration,” maintain that the connexion is not insep- arable, but that there are two other modes of regene- ration; yet as it is one mode in which the grace of regene- ration is frequently imparted, the church, as it must pro- nounce some opinion, pronounces the most charitable, and declares the baptized to be regenerate. Why the church must pronounce some opinion upon a subject of which it * De Baptismo, c. xv. ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. | ar confessedly knows nothing, Mr. Faber does not conde- scend to inform us. It may probably be said, I have no right to attribute the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, in any form, to the whole of the evangelical clergy. I have a right to attribute it to every man, who thanks God immediately after bap- tism that the child is regenerate; because I cannot sup- pose that, with these words on his lips, in a solemn reli- gious service, he believes the child is not regenerate. In support of this statement I appeal to the testimony of the ablest opponent of the Tractarian party. In reply to one of the Oxford Tracts, in which it is said, ‘In coming, and we trust better times, it will I think be quoted as a cu- rious and remarkable fact, that there once existed a con- siderable number of the English clergy, who succeeded in persuading themselves that their church did not consider the grace of regeneration to be conveyed in baptism ;” Mr. Faber says, ‘“‘I never yet happened to meet with an English clergyman, who had either succeeded in persuad- ing himself, or had even attempted to persuade himself, that his church did not consider the grace of regeneration to be conveyed in baptism.”* There are some grave and serious objections to this fourth hypothesis of the evangelical clergy, which do not apply to the second, or even to the third, that of the Ox- ford theologians. Mr. Faber says, that regeneration may, ‘‘ according to the Divine pleasure, take place either before baptism, or in baptism, or after baptism.” In baptism he makes regeneration depend very much upon the worthy reception of the rite. The hypothesis is, that a person worthily disposed, that is, believing in Christ, and having the answer of a good conscience to the legitimate inter- rogatories, is often, he will not say always, regenerated in baptism. The interrogatory is, ‘“‘ Dost thou renounce the devil and * Primitive Doctrine of Regenevation, p. 81. i. N 178 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. all his works, the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all covetous desires of the same, and the carnal desires of the flesh, so that thou wilt not follow, nor be led by them? —Answer: I renounce them all.” The supposition is, that if this renunciation be not true and sincere, the per- son making it will not be regenerated. Whatever regene- ration may mean in the writings of Roman and Anglo- Catholics, we know what it means in the sermons and con- versation of evangelical clergymen; and we ask, is not the person who sincerely and cordially renounces the world, the flesh, and the devil, actually regenerated in their sense, although he be not baptized? As they contend, in oppo- sition to Tractarians, that regeneration sometimes pre- cedes baptism, ought they not to admit that it always pre- cedes, when the parties have the answer of the good con- science? And when they have not that answer, there is, on their own principles, no regeneration. Do they not thus reduce that regeneration, for which they thank God, to a mere shadow, a conception which can never be realized, an attenuated and metaphysical abstraction for the exist- ence of which no time is appropriated? Or if they reduce this answer of a good conscience, this preparatory fitness for baptism, to some good desires and resolutions distinct from the birth of the Spirit, yet absolutely necessary pre- vious to his regenerating power, what is this but the school notion, the old Pelagian doctrine of grace of congruity which, as Dr. Pusey most properly observes, belongs to every theory which makes regeneration in baptism depend- ent upon any previous good dispositions, and which is un- questionably and expressly condemned by the thirteenth article of the Church of England? ‘‘ Works done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of his Spirit are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ. Neither do they make men fit to receive grace, or, as the school-authors say, deserve grace of con- gruity, yea, rather, for they are not done as God hath ; ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 179 willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not that they have the nature of sin.” The answer of a good conscience, if it precede regeneration, as that term is ex- pounded by the evangelical party, precedes the grace of Christ and inspiration of the Spirit, and is here declared to be “not pleasant to God, but to have the nature of sin.” Thus the attempt to combine the evangelical doctrine of the cross with the most harmless form of sacramental effi- cacy, leads to the grossest Pelagianism, which Tractarians, in accordance with their own church and all antiquity, in- dignantly and consistently repudiate. Still greater and more formidable objections may be brought against this modified theory of baptismal regene- ration, in its reference to infants. It supposes that some infants are regenerated in baptism, and others are not. Is it not more reasonable, more in harmony with the great principles of Divine government, and more scriptural, to receive the Tractarian doctrine, than to admit a distinction so arbitrary and uncertain? Before the infants have done good or evil, as they lie unconscious on the arm of the priest, the washing with water becomes regeneration to one and not to another. Mr. Faber, however, thinks the distinction may not be arbitrary, and suggests two modes of obviating the difficulty: either the regeneration may de- pend upon the sincerity with which the sponsors renounce the world, the flesh, and the devil, on behalf of the bap- tized infants, or there may be in an infant “ the prepara- tory ingraftation of incipient holiness,” rendering some in- fants worthy recipients of baptism, in the phrase of the schoolmen, ‘“‘ according to the measure of the recipient.”* But is there in Scripture, or even in early ecclesiastical authority, if that be pleaded, the slightest shadow of au- thority for these extraordinary distinctions? Are they not purely gratuitous assumptions? Where is the proof that baptism produces different effects upon different infants ? * Primitive Doctrine of Regeneration, book iy. ch. iii. 180 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. Who can credit the assertion, that of two unconscious babes, the one worthily as by faith, the other unworthily as by mortal sin, each, ‘‘ according to the measure of the re- cipient,” receives the baptismal rite? These marvellous expedients to aid the child, who can act neither worthily nor unworthily, being wholly unconscious, are evidently contrived to reconcile the offices of the English church with the opinion of the evangelical clergy who hold the hypothesis, that the grace of regeneration is not uniformly, although it is frequently, imparted to baptized infants. In the long series of Oxonian tracts, there is nothing worse, more unreasonable, or more unscriptural, than this evan- gelical theory. When a child is declared to be regenerate, we are told that “ the principle of the Church of England, borrowed from the apostles themselves, is the systematic adoption of generic as contradistinguished from specific phraseology ;”* but the phrase, “this child is regenerate,” would seem to be as specific as words can make it, although Faber tells us it is “‘ made generically,” and should not “ be interpreted specifically.” His explanation amounts to this: baptized children are as a class regenerated, and therefore in the judgment of charity this child, of whose actual re- generation we know nothing, may be generically, though not specifically, declared regenerate. We imagine our readers will agree with us, that this modified doctrine of baptismal regeneration, the regeneration of a class, but not of the individuals belonging to it, has all the objections of the broader principle, together with some peculiar to itself. So far as we can show that the arguments in favour of baptismal regeneration are not sound, we think it will be acknowledged that this modification of the doctrine stands on no better authority than the others, and deserves no more forbearance at our hands. As to the distinction between generic and specific, by which they speak of a child as regenerated, when they mean nothing more than * Primitive Doctrine of Regeneration, book iv. ch. iii. ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 18l that a class of baptized children are regenerated, of which that specific child may or may not be one; I can only say, it is for those who make or maintain such a distinction, to speak a little more softly and gently of the ingenious Tract, No. 90, lest they should hear the reply, “ First cast out the beam from thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to take the mote from thy brother’s eye.” Having thus noticed the several theories, let us consider the reasoning which is employed in their support. The first text, and that which is cited with most confidence, is, ‘‘ Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Unless aman be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”* This passage therefore de- mands our careful consideration, not only because much reliance is placed upon it in this controversy, but especi- ally because if we can ascertain its meaning, we shall have the key to most of the other passages which are usually adduced upon this subject. To be born of water, I readily admit, for reasons which have been adduced in a preceding lecture, is to be bap- tized ; but the inquiry is, does it prove the doctrine of baptismal regeneration in the ordinary sense of that ex- pression? If it do not, no other passage can, for its meaning when ascertained will guide us in our interpre- tation of other passages, as we shall see when we have to examine them. ’ The leading question on which the sense of the passage depends is, are we to consider the birth by water and the birth by the Spirit as two distinct operations, or as two parts of the same operation? Is the person born of water necessarily and at the same time born of the Spirit, or may he be only born of water, and fail of being born of the Spirit? The words of themselves assuredly do not prove the inseparable union of the two things. In a corresponding passage, where no figurative terms are * John iii. 5. 182 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. employed, “he that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved,” no one supposes that faith and baptism mean the same thing, nor would any one think of proving from the words, that they are so inseparably united, that faith cannot originate before baptism, or that baptism cannot be ad- ministered without instantaneously producing faith. Tractarians say that the words, “of water,” are intended to teach us that our Lord is not to be understood as in- sisting only upon a spiritual and internal influence ; and on the other hand the words, ‘of the Spirit,” that he is not to be understood as restricting the new birth to any outward change of state or relation, however great may be its privileges.* We fully agree with them, for we also maintain, that to be born of water is not a spiritual change, and that to be born of the Spirit is not an external change. But why should the external and the spiritual be united in one operation? Why may not the birth of water pre- cede or follow the birth of the Spirit? Faith and baptism are, as we have seen, placed in apposition in the words of our Lord, and yet are they distinct in their nature, as T imagine a Tractarian, or even a Romanist, will not main- tain, that an infant, when baptized, believes on Him of whom it has never heard. Should it be said the infant believes by its sponsors, we reply, with as much counten- ance from Scripture it may be said, it is regenerated in its sponsors. And even then the argument remains, if faith and baptism are distinct operations though classed together by our Lord, so may the birth of water, or bap- tism, and the birth of the Spirit, or regeneration, be distinct operations, as they must have been, according to the opinion of all writers, in the instance of Nico- demus, if he had been at that time baptized. Or even if the appeal must be made from common sense to eccles- iastical tradition, the Fathers distinguished faith from baptism. Thus says Justin Martyr, “ Those who are * See Tracts for the Times, No. 67, ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 185 persuaded and believe what we teach to be true, are led by us to a place where there is water, and after the man- ner of the new birth by which we also were new-born, are they new-born; for they are baptized in water.”* And again, Tertullian says, “ Be it that in past time sal- vation was through faith alone, when faith was enlarged by the belief in his nativity, passion, and resurrection, there was added the seal of baptism, the clothing as it were of faith.”} By the same rule of interpretation why should not the birth of water and the birth of the Spirit denote two distinct operations, and not one indivisible birth ? To be born again, in Jewish phraseology, is to become a son of Abraham, and so to have a new father. To be born again, in Christian phraseology, is to become a son of God, to have a new Father in heaven. Of this new birth, baptism is the visible sign, regeneration the inter- nal reality. But if it can be clearly and incontrovertibly proved, not only from the evangelical history, but even from the concessions of our opponents, that the two phrases, as they were addressed specifically to Nicodemus, and as they must have been understood in his time, could not have designated one simultaneous operation, but must have described two distinct and separate things, there is an end. of the exposition, which binds together in this verse baptism and regeneration, and consequently of the pile of tottering argument erected upon this sandy foun- dation. Of this passage, be it remembered, Dr. Pusey says, ‘I would gladly rest the whole question of baptis- mal regeneration on this one consideration.’t I rejoin, So would I. Let us examine it. Dr. Pusey says, as we have seen, and all the Tractarians say with him, as the Roman Catholics said long before them, and the Fathers still earlier, a long catena of * Apol. prim. ‘t De Baptismo, c. 18. t Tracts for the Times, No. 67, p. 41. 184 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION authorities containing every important name which can be deciphered in the fading characters of tradition, that there was no such thing in the world as baptismal regenera- tion until the Spirit, the chief blessing of redemption, was freely given by the ascended Saviour. ‘here was, therefore, no such thing as baptismal regeneration when our Lord conversed with Nicodemus—no possibility on that night, nor for some time afterwards, of any man in this sense being born of water and of the Spirit. While “from the days of John the kingdom of heaven was preached, and all men pressed into it,” at that very time, when there was no baptismal regeneration, Jesus said, “Verily I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus might surely have entered into the kingdom of God; many did press into the kingdom of God, but even according to our opponents, none of these acquired baptismal regeneration. ‘The spring of living water had not then issued from the foot of the cross to fill the regenerating font; the angel of baptism had not then descended to trouble the holy waters, and impart to them their sanative virtue; the sacramental gifts were not conferred upon men; the priesthood was not consecrated ; St. Peter had not been invested with the keys; the life- inspiring baptistry was not erected in the porch of the church; the initiation into the greater myteries of the faith had not commenced. Did our Lord then speak to Nicodemus of what it was impossible for him or any one else to experience or understand until the day of Pente- cost, the date of the great gift of baptismal regeneration ? If he did, how could he say, ‘‘ Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these things?” Can any one seriously expound the passage, as though it were to Nicodemus, not a declaration of what then actually was, but a dark prophecy of what was afterwards to take place? If there was no such thing as baptismal regeneration at that time, ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 185 and yet if this verse declares that without it no man can enter into the kingdom of heaven, howis this conformable with the fact that many, during the ministry of our Lord, did enter into the kingdom of heaven? Either they en- tered that kingdom without baptismal regeneration, or else they had baptismal regeneration before the gift of the Holy Ghost was conferred upon the church. But if either proposition be true, as one must be, this Catholic exposition of the verse, ‘‘ Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heayen,” is obviously and demonstrably false. It may be asked, how did the Fathers resolve the diffi- culty respecting those who were baptized before the Pente- cost? ‘The general opinion seems to have been that of Chrysostom,* sustained by Augustine,} ‘‘ That they were afterwards baptized with the Spirit, for with us both [bap- tisms] take place in one; but there they took place sepa- rately.” If it were so, (and this is the explanation of our opponents,) Jesus said to a man to whom baptism by water, and baptism by the Spirit, must have been ex concesso, if they were obtained at all, two distinct opera- tions performed at two different times, ‘“‘ Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Im respect to him, on their own showing, the outward sign and the inward grace must have been distinct and separated, as they were to all who about the same time were baptized. But are we not bound to interpret the words of our Lord as they were applic- able to the person to whom they were originally addressed ? To Nicodemus our Lord must have intended to convey the idea that he must be born of water and of the Spirit, not simultaneously, but by two distinct operations, be- cause at that time the water was not imbued with the Spirit; and if this were the original meaning of the pas- sage, with what kind of logic, or on what principle of * Hom. i. in Actt. § 5. + Ep. 265, ad Seleucian. § 0. 186 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. hermeneutics, can it now be adduced in proof of their inseparable union? ‘l'o Nicodemus, not to us, these words were spoken; and we have certainly a right to demand an exposition of them applicable to the person to whom they were originally addressed. Whatever may be the consent of the Fathers adduced in defence of this Catholic exposition, it is in plain and direct contradiction to the facts of the evangelical narrative, even as the Fathers uniformly understood it, and as Tractarians now as uniformly explain it. If it be said, the authority of the Fathers is incontrovertible, I reply to the Anglo- Catholic who says so, Even admitting the uniform and concurrent testimony of the Fathers to be as complete as you affirm, you first assert that baptism at that time was not regeneration ; you believe, for you believe Scripture, ‘that many entered into the kingdom of God; these many, therefore, entered into the kingdom of God with- out baptismal regeneration; and if you venture to allege the infallibility of the Fathers, I ask, by what argument, more plain and obyious, can you prove their infallibility ? And if there be no such argument, in vain you adduce a long and unbroken catena of their authorities to prove a plain and palpable contradiction. The words of our Lord, ‘“‘ Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” in the sense in which our opponents understand them, were not true at the time they were spoken,—they were not true as addressed to Nicodemus. As they must have had another sense when spoken by our Lord, that sense they must still retain, for the evangelist merely records the words as part of a conversation. Time, the ereat innovator, cannot change the sense of a record, how- ever numerous may be the years which have gathered around it. Its language may become obsolete, but its meaning cannot vary; its truth may grow dim and obscure in the remote haze of antiquity, but a new interpretation ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 187 —the creature of more recent times, cannot belong to it. The true sense of words when spoken is the sense, whether perceived or not, which is inherent and indestructible in them for ever. The conclusion is inevitable—if when the baptism with water and the baptism of the Spirit were not united, but separate, our Lord declared, ‘“‘ Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” these words cannot now prove that baptism with water and baptism with the Spirit are invariably united in one operation. Yet this is the passage upon which Dr. Pusey says, and we join issue with him, he would gladly rest the whole question.* But if this verse, on which Tractarians place their chief reliance, so utterly fails them, it furnishes an admirabije guide to the exposition of other passages which they adduce. If to be born of water, and to be born of the Spirit, are distinct operations, then the washing of re- generation,} and the renewal of the Holy Ghost, men- tioned together by St. Paul, must be acknowledged to be also distinct operations. The terms of the two texts so resemble each other, birth by water and regeneration by washing, birth by the Spirit and renewal by the Holy Ghost, that however various may be the expositions of the passages, the exposition of either readily furnishes the key to the exposition of the other: As a person un- derstands the birth by water, so will he understand the washing of regeneration ; as he explains the birth by the Spirit, so will he explain the renewal of the Holy Ghost. The two texts, the Gospel and the Epistle, Jesus and Paul, teach the same doctrine in very similar language; and, therefore, if the two things are different and disunited in the words of our Lord, so are they in the writings of the apostle. If to be born of water be an external sign of the new birth, so is to be regenerated by washing ; and * See Appendix A, : + Titus iil. 5. 188 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. if the external sign was separate from the internal grace when our Lord addressed Nicodemus, how can it be shown that the same sign and the same reality became insepar- able when St. Paul wrote to Titus? His language is no more precise nor conclusive than that of our Lord: it admits of exactly the same latitude, and the same limits of interpretation; the true exposition of the Gospel is evidently the true exposition of the corresponding expres- sions in the epistle; and if baptismal regeneration, as it is now held, cannot be proved by the words of our Lord, as we have seen it cannot, neither can it be proved from the words of the apostle, obviously of the same im- port. ‘To ali the Fathers we prefer our blessed Lord him- self, as the expositor of his own apostle. I am aware that in maintaining this interpretation of the passage in Titus, [ am exposing myself to objections from opposite parties. There are not only those who contend that we are saved by baptism, but also those who, through extreme fear of the Tractarian doctrine, will not allow that St. Paul could have written, According to his mercy he saved us, by baptism and the renewal of the Holy Ghost. We think we can obviate the objection, and reply to both extremes, by reference to other passages of Scripture. Passing without further reference the passage which I have already noticed, “ He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved,” I would entreat attention for a moment to the words of the apostle: ‘If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.’* Here confession with the mouth, as well as faith in the heart, is represented as a condition of salvation. Yet is it evident that confession with the mouth alone will not save, will do nothing towards our salvation ; being false and hypocritical it is of the nature of sin, and will rather * Romans x. 9. ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 189 augment our guilt. Yet the apostle speaks of public con- fession exactly as he speaks of baptism. He teaches in the Romans, that we are saved by confession and faith; in Titus, that we are saved by baptism and the renewal of the Holy Ghost. As no one maintains that a public confession will save us, so on the same principle of inter- pretation, no one ought to maintain that baptism will save us. All Christians agree that the confession was regarded only as the appropriate and obligatory expression of the faith of the heart, and so it would follow that baptism was regarded only as the appropriate and obligatory sign of the renewal of the Holy Ghost. As the apostle wrote to professed and baptized Christians, his meaning, allowing him to be his own expositor, must have been, in one in- stance, if the confession of the mouth corresponded as a true sign with the faith of the heart, the person would be saved; so in the other, if the washing of regeneration corresponded as a true sign with the renewal of the Holy Ghost, the person would be saved. Professed and _ bap- tized men were taught that their profession and their bap- tism were or were not of avail, as they were true signs of the great and momentous realities,—faith and the renew- ing of the Holy Ghost.* This exposition of St. Paul is illustrated and confirmed by the words of St. Peter, which, although they are often cited by Catholics in proof of their doctrine, most plainly and obviously contradict it. ‘ The like figure whereunto even baptism doth now save us, not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”} The slightest attention to this verse would correct the errone- ous and untenable opinion in defence of which it is often cited. Let us glance at the connexion. The apostle had observed, that at the general deluge, “few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water.” He adds, * See Appendix B, + 1 Peteriii. 21. 190 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. “ Whereunto,” that is, unto which water, the antitype. “baptism, doth also now save us.”* The water of the deluge is represented as the type, the water of baptism as the antitype. As through the type eight souls were saved, so through the antitype are we saved. Wherein consists the resemblance? Our opponents affirm, and appeal to this passage in proof of their affirmation, that the water of baptism actually saves us, or is the instrument which God employs for our salvation; but if their appeal be sustained, it is obvious from the whole structure of the passage that the water of the deluge actually saved or was the instrument of saving the Gaile of Noah. The men- tion of the type exposes the absurdity of the interpreta- tion which is given to the antitype. We are saved by baptism, it is said, and the authority of Peter is adduced in confirmation: precisely, we reply, appealing to the same authority, as the family of Noah was saved through the deluge. But the deluge actually saved no man; al- though eight souls believing in God were saved amidst its waters; so baptism, on the authority of the parallelism, actually saves no man, although believers in Jesus being baptized, as in that age they invariably were, are saved through its waters. The apostle, however, as if on purpose to guard against the error which ascribes salvation to the sacrament of baptism, adds, “Not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God.” “The putting away the filth of the flesh” must denote the ablution of the body with water. That external bap- tism cannot save us; but the answer of a good conscience does. Is the answer of a good conscience inseparably * "ONlyar (tovr eat dKTw) Wuxat dseowOnoav 3d: Vdatos’ © Kal Has dvtituToy viv cwmler Banticpua (ob capkos amd0cous pimov, AAAG cuvecdijoews ayalhs EwmEepwTHUE eis Gedv) dc’ vagrasews 'Incov Xpiatov. The words type and antitype often ex- press only a resemblance, and not a prefiguration; as an oracle in the first book of Herodotus calls the blow of the hammer and rebound of the anvil of a smith’s shed type and antitype. ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 19] connected with the ablution of water? If it be, what practical object could the apostle have in saying, “ Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of .a good conscience,” seeing the answer was inseparable from the ablution? But if, as the text intimates, the ablution of the flesh and the answer of the conscience were distinct operations, the cleansing not of the flesh, but of the conscience, doth now save us, that is, not the baptism by water, but the baptism of the Spirit. This conclusion stands firm and unaffected, whatever may be the interpretation of ‘the answer of a good conscience,” whether it be the internal feeling corresponding with the external sign, or the honest reply of the heart to the pro- fession of the lips, or the stipulation publicly made by the baptized, honourably observed, if indeed the stipula- tion to renounce the devil and his works, made im reply- ing to the legitimate interrogatory, was as ancient as the apostolic age.* Appeal is also made to the great commission, “Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” These words are said to contain an awful mystery. The being baptized into the sacred names of the undivided Trinity is represented as ‘‘a real appropriation of the per- son baptized to the Holy Trinity, a transfer of him from the dominion of Satan to them—an insertion of him within their blessed name, and through their name into the Godhead.”’+ The reverence of the Jews when they fear to utter the incommunicable Name, is spoken of as * Even at the time in which sacramental efficacy was the general doctrine of ecclesiastics, we find the words of Peter appealed to in proof that by the true baptism we are to understand, not the washing with water, but the cleansing of the conscience. Thus, says St. Basil, “Et tis éotiv Ev tw vdaTe xapts, ovK €k THs pioens é éatt tov Udatos, GAN’ Ek THs TOY mvEetpaTos Reparanes, au rap éa7i. 70 Baatisua piwov capkos aroMects, GAAA auverdnoews ayabys Exepwrnua eis Gedv.”—Bas. de Spi. Sancto, c. xv. + Tracts for the Times, No. 67. 192 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. not unsuitable for us, as we meditate upon the mystery contained under the sacred names with which we are bap- tized. The citations from the Fathers, serviceable as they usually are in sustaining the advocates of sacramental efficacy, afford them very little aid in their appropriation of this text. As soon as we turn over the Bible in search of a similar phrase to illustrate the words, the whole pile of awful mystery begins to tremble. ‘The Jews were bap- tized into Moses, yet they were not regenerated by him; the disciples, before the gift of the Spirit, baptized mul- titudes into the name of Jesus, yet to them the gift of regeneration was not imparted. How then, without the authority of other passages, ought we to conclude that Christians baptized into the name of the Trinity are thereby regenerated ? Having noticed the passages of the New Testament which are usually adduced in support of baptismal regeneration, we leave the candid reader to determine whether they afford any countenance whatever to that doctrine in any of the forms in which it is held. The allusions to baptism, which are not so distinctly expressed, must be interpreted in accordance with those whose meaning can be clearly ascertained; and, therefore, we think we are fully war- ranted in saying that the extraordinary doctrine of bap- tismal regeneration, the power of effecting a moral and spiritual change in the soul by washing the body with water and repeating a prescribed formula, is sustained by no sure warrant of Holy Scripture. As to the passages of the Old Testament which are sometimes adduced in proof of the doctrine, such as, “I will sprinkle clean water upon them and they shall be clean,” or, “ Purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean, wash me and J shall be whiter than snow, we can only say, no one would think of applying them to Christian baptism, had they not been so applied by some of the early ecclesiastical writers. The value of these citations must, therefore, depend entirely upon the ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 193 authority which we assign to the Fathers, as expositors of Holy Seripture; for certainly, without their aid, we should never have discovered the meaning of the words of David, ‘Wash me and I shall be whiter than snow,” to be, Bap- tize me and I shall be sanctified and forgiven.* Dr. Pusey and his coadjutors tell us we are bound to take this exposition on the authority of the ancient church. Grave and venerable as may be that authority, it is scarcely sufh- cient to induce us to believe that king David prayed for baptism more than a thousand years before it was insti- tuted. But be it that before the weeping eyes of the peni- tential king the evangelical vision of the Christian church rose in all its grandeur and glory, and the sacred font, adorned with festoons of flowers, at the great festival, and glittering with the pellucid waters of regeneration, inspired his soul with fervent desires, so that, as he saw the par- doned and sanctified emerge from the purifying element whiter than snow, he longed and prayed with intense and irepressible eagerness to bathe in the holy life-giving laver; be all this true, are we also to believe all the won- derful things that the same venerable Fathers say in their expositions of the Old Testament, of the marvellous powers of the watery element; as for instance, when they interpret the words, ‘‘ What aileth thee, O thou sea, that thou fieddest ? thou Jordan, that thou wast driven back ?” as “the amazement of the waters, that our Lord would condescend to be baptized therein ;” or the words, “ Thou brakest the heads of the dragons upon the waters,” as denoting the destruction in holy baptism of the heinous sins of the baptised?+ Yet Dr. Pusey sees great beauty in these and many similar expositions which, unfortu- nately for them, a4 meagre and degenerate race of rational- ists cannot discern. * Theod. in Ps. li. Ambrose De Sac. iv. 1, § 6. Cyril. Hier. Lect. iii. 1. + Aug. ad Loc. ¢ 18. Theod.ad Loc. See also citations from Hesychius, Apollinarius, and the ancient liturgies, in Pusey on Baptism, p. 387. Pe 0 194 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. Tuet us now hastily glance at the ecclesiastical authority in favour of baptismal regeneration, which in the compass of a lecture it is very difficult to exhibit, and for the pur- pose of controversy not very easy to manage. That bap- tismal regeneration in some form was the general doctrine of the ancient church, that is to say, from about one hundred and forty years before the council of Nice, every person moderately acquainted with ecclesiastical writers ought candidly and honestly to acknowledge; yet although we find the doctrine in a milder form as early as Clement of Alexandria,* and Tertullian,t we are not prepared to ascribe it to those who are called the apostolical Fathers. Of course, all who believe that they distinctly see bap- tismal regeneration in the New Testament, and find it again prominent on the surface of ecclesiastical history, in the latter part of the second century, will conclude that it floated without interruption down the stream from the apostles, through their immediate successors, to the bishops and presbyters of a subsequent age. But if in the relics of Clement of Rome, of Ignatius, and of Polycarp, there cannot be found sufficient materials to enable us to ascer- tain their doctrine on the subject of sacramental efficacy, we cannot allow subsequent writers to speak for them, especially as these writers do not profess to expound the opinions of their predecessors. Believing that the doctrine in question has no apostolical authority, we are under no obligation to admit for it an antiquity higher than that which can be clearly proved from existing records. The precise date at which the doctrine in question arose in the church is not to be assumed without evidence, and no: evidence can be adduced which will connect it with the apostolic age, through the immediate successors of the apostles. If Justin Martyr and Irenseus should be cited as proving the doctrine to be earlier than Clement of * Ped. 1. 6, 26; 1.6,28. Strom.1.3; 1 4. + De Bap. passim. ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION, 195 Alexandria and Tertullian, we reply that, if their phraseo- logy be interpreted in favour of baptismal regeneration, good use may be made of them to exhibit the doctrine in its transition state from the simplicity of Christ to the cor- ruptions of the third century. The true state of the ques- tion respecting ecclesiastical authority on the subject of baptismal regeneration may, I think, be thus fairly ex- pressed. Of the doctrine previous to Justin Martyr’s first Apology, written about a.p. 140, or 150, we know nothing. From that date to the time of Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, at the close of the second, and beginning of the third century, it appears, as we think, rising in the church, an ill-defined and portentous shade. It afterwards comes forth to public view in its appropriate character, including a change both of disposition and of state, the accredited doctrine of the Catholic church, although some writers of a later period, and even as late as Augustine, and none more decidedly than that illustrious Father, employ at times language apparently irreconcilable with the doctrine, as it is maintained by Romanists and Tracta- rians; language which certainly no writer of either of those classes would now select to express his own opinions. The inquiry is, how far in forming our opinions ought we to be influenced by this consideration, supposing I have fairly stated the doctrine of the ancient church ? * But have I fairly stated it? In the scanty relics of Clement of Rome, of Ignatius, and of Polycarp, or in the * Scaliger,"Dodwell, Le Clerc, Neander, Semisch, and many other learned men, assign to the first Apology of Justin the date a.p. 138, or 139, chiefly influenced by the consideration that Justin does not give to Marcus Aure- lius the title of Cesar, which he received soon after the accession of Anton- inus Pius in the course of the year 139. Cave, Lardner, Augusti, and others, prefer av. 140. Tillemont, Grabe, the Benedictine editors, and others, ascribe it to a.p. 150. And as Justin himself speaks of Christ having been born 150 years before, his own computation seems to supply a better criterion than the absence of a title, which might have been neglected by the Christian apologist, or if adopted by him, been since obliterated by the accidents of time. 196 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. relations of the martyrdom of the last two venerable men, we have scarcely a particle of information respecting their opinion, or the opinion of their age, on the subject of bap- tism. In the paucity of the materials very little could have been expected. There is, however, a passage in the second epistle of Clement, (supposing the fragment to be genuine, and if it be not, it is undoubtedly of great antiquity, as it was publicly read in the church in the time of Epiphanius,) which speaks of repentance in connexion with baptism, in terms very unlike the language of succeeding ages, when baptism being regarded as the means of obtaining the par- don of sin, scarcely a ray of hope was afforded to those who had broken their baptismal seal, and violated their bap- tismal vow. Clement, or whoever was the author, knew nothing of this severe and gloomy theology. He says, Unless we keep our baptism chaste and unpolluted, with what confidence shall we enter the kingdom of God? And after a few sentences concerning those who keep not their seal, (by their seal undoubtedly he means their baptism,*) it is said, “their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be for a spectacle to all flesh ;”+ he adds, ‘‘ While, therefore, we are upon earth, let us repent, for we are as clay for the hand of the potter ; for as the potter, if he make a vessel, and it be turned amiss in his hands, or broken again, forms it anew; but if he have gone so far as to throw it into the furnace of * See Hermas Pastor iii. ix. 16. Illud autem sigillum aqua est in quam descendunt homines morti obligati, ascendunt vero vite assignati. ‘ert. ady. Marc,1.4. Barn. Ep. 9, and other passages noticed by Suicer, in verb. Epparyis. + Tov yap py Tnpnodvrwy, dno, his oppayida, © 6 cxwrné abtev ov TehevtHoEL, Kat TO mTuUp avt@y ov oBecOrioeta, Kat Ecovrat Els Spacw Tay oapki.” ‘Qs obv éopey én iss peTavonowpev. IIndos yap éopev els Thy xelpa TOU TexviTou" Ov Tpdmov yap o Kepapevs, &cav Totty okevos, Kat év Tais xepaty avTou deaotpapt, ? 7 cuvrpsBi, made avto GvamAdocet’ Ecvv dé pogdacy els 7H Ka@[uvov TOU mupos auto faXciw, ovKETE Bondnoee alty’ ovTwS Kai hpets, ews éopev ev TobTp Tp KooMw, ev TH capki @ émpafapey srovnpct, HeTavonowpey ef Ggs THS Kapdlas, tva cabGper t timo Tov Kupiou, éws Exopev Kaipov pletavotas Meta yap oO efedOeiv nuas ¢k tov Kdapov, ovKéTe duvapeda éxet GFopodoyyoacbat Hh pmetavocety &r:. -—Epist. ii. ¢. Pich ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 197% fire, he can no more restore it; so we, while we are in this world, should repent with our whole heart, for all the evil we have done in the flesh, while we have yet the time of repentance, that we may be saved by the Lord. For after we shall have departed out of this world, we shall be no longer able either to confess our sins, or to repent of them.” This is surely not the language of one who ascribed the pardon of sin to the efficacy of the sacrament. The punish- ment of the undying worm and unquenchable fire, he de- termined to be the consequence of breaking the baptismal seal; but he evidently believed that, during the whole of life, repentance was to be obtained, by which the pledge- breaker might be saved, although he had forfeited the ad- vantage of his baptism. The extract may be thought not very important, but it contains language which the be- levers in baptismal regeneration would not employ in speaking of the violation of the sacramental vow. Al- though, as we have noticed in the Appendix to the first lecture, much that is said of sin being only once forgiven after baptism refers to the restoration of the excommu- nicated, yet the spirit of subsequent writings is not recon- cilable with this extract. Although, in the epistles of Ignatius, we find it said that none may baptize without the bishop,* a statement which is utterly inconsistent with the diocesan episcopacy of modern times, yet we find no distinct reference to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, unless indeed a passage in the Epistle to the Ephesians} should be so interpreted, where Jesus is said ‘‘ to have been born and baptized, that by his passion he might sanctify water.” If this be the correct reading, of which there is some doubt, independ- ently of the general uncertainty and corruption of the text of Ignatius, as of it the interpolator was certainly ignorant, it must in candour be admitted that the opinion, inexpli- cable as it seems to us, that Christ by his baptism :anc- * Ad Smyrneos, ec. viii. + ¢. Xvili. 198 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. tified water, is the most ancient form, as it was the most general, in which we find sacramental efficacy ascribed to baptism. In the translation of Archbishop Wake it is added, “for the washing away of sin;” but this addition is without any sufficient authority: indeed, the true read- ing of the whole sentence is too doubtful to sustain the conclusion for which it has been adduced.* It is also true that Hermas, in his marvellous Visions and Simili- tudes, speaks of sins being forgiven in the waters of bap- tism, but we cannot receive the writings which pass under his name as the genuine productions of the first century. The discrepancy upon the subject of repentance+ would satisfy us, the Pastor of Hermas does not belong to the same age as even the second and doubtful epistle of Cle- ment. Surely I need say nothing further respecting this most impudent forgery, as all must acknowledge it to be, unless they admit its claims to inspiration. Professing to be inspired by the Spirit of God, the writer is to be either revered as of canonical authority, or rejected as a profane and wilful impostor. Let those who ascribe to it any au- thority on the subject of baptism, tell us what we are to say to the strange similitude of the Shepherd, in which he represents the apostles and first teachers of the Gospel baptizing after death seventy spirits of the ancient patri- archs and prophets, in order that having the seal of water they might enter the kingdom of heaven, from which, being unbaptized at death, they had been excluded.t But we may well leave the dreams of the Shepherd, and with them the epistle of Barnabas, and proceed to Justin Martyr. The celebrated passage in his first Apology, as it is the most ancient account we have of the mode of celebrating baptism after the apostolic age, deserves our careful atten- tion. “In what manner we having been renewed have * Compare the interpolated epistle, which assigns no such reason for the baptism of Jesus. + Com. iv. 3. t Sim. ix. 16. ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 199 dedicated ourselves to God, we will now explain. As many as may be persuaded, and may believe the things which we teach to be true, and engage to live in accordance with them, are instructed to pray with fasting for the forgive- ness of their sins, we also fasting and praying with them. They are then taken to a place where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner as we were regene- rated; for they are washed with water in the name of the Father and Lord of all things, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. For Christ says, Unless ye be born again, ye cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven; and every one knows it is impossible for those being once born to enter again into their mother’s womb.” And after a few sentences, he adds, ‘‘ that we should not continue children of necessity and ignorance, but of choice and of knowledge, and should obtain the remission of the sins which we have before committed, there is invoked over him who has chosen to be regenerated, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of all things.” He adds, ‘this washing is called illumination, because those who learn these things are illuminated in their understanding, and in the name of Jesus Christ, who ~ was erucified under Pontius Pilate, and the name of the Holy Spirit, who by the prophets foretold all things con- cerning Jesus; he being illuminated is washed.” After the baptism, the person was admitted to the bro- therhood of Christians, to the fellowship of their prayers, and to the communion of the Lord’s supper, with the apos- tolic token of recognition, the kiss of charity. In the time of Justin, as indeed, so far as we can ascertain, from the apostolic age, no unbaptized person was admitted to the fellowship of the church, or to the participation of the sup- per. Having mentioned the introduction of the baptized ‘to the Lord’s supper, he says, ‘‘ And this food we call ebyaptoria, Of which no one is permitted to partake who has not been washed with the laver for the remission of 200 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. sins, and unto regeneration, and does not live according to the commands of Christ.” With this passage we may compare another in the dialogue with Trypho, in which Justin contrasts spiritual baptism with the water baptism of the Jews. ‘‘ Through the washing of repentance and the knowledge of God, which is appointed for the iniqui- ties of God’s people, as Hsaias says, we believe and know that the baptism which he pre-announced is alone able to purify the penitent; this is the water of life. But the cis- terns which ye” (the Jews) ‘‘ have dug out, are broken and of no use to you. For what advantage is there in that bap- tism which cleanses only the flesh and the body? Be bap- tized as to your soul, from anger and avarice, from envy and hatred, and then behold, the body also is clean.”’* On all this we remark that Justin, in common with all ecclesiastical antiquity, refers the words of our Lord, “Unless a man be born of water,” to baptism, and that he himself therefore calls baptism regeneration. We cannot, however, with anything like certainty, infer that he believed baptism to produce a moral and spiritual change upon the subject. He considers the person as introduced by bap- tism into the fellowship of Christians, and initiated into the privileges of the church. It is not improbable that Justin, a Samaritan by birth, considered baptism, as we have seen the Jews considered it, to be arite of proselytism, and denominated the proselyte thus recognized by baptism, as the Jews would have denominated him, a new-born child, without reference to any other spiritual change. Although he speaks of obtaining remission of sin by water, he represents the person as having previously repented, making his remission consequent upon his re- pentance. Although he calls baptism regeneration, yet elsewhere he distinguishes them, for he speaks of the washing cis dvayéwyow, for regeneration, and therefore distinct from it. Would it not appear that he calls baptism, * See Appendix C. for these passages and for some other allusions. ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 201 regeneration, merely as a symbol of regeneration, the true and inward baptism ? He says, ‘baptism is called illumination :” a term very frequently employed by the Fathers, and yet he plainly distinguishes illumination from the act of baptism, for he says, ‘he who is illuminated,’—illumination preceding baptism—‘“ is washed in the name of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Ghost.” From the analogy of the language, we might therefore infer that the meaning of Justin is to be explained; he who makes his choice to be regenerated, is baptized, and therefore baptism is called regeneration ; as he who is illuminated is baptized, and therefore baptism is called illumination. This will appear from a passage in the dialogue with Trypho, in which he opposes spiritual circumcision to the carnal circumcision of the Jews : but by spiritual circumcision he does not mean baptism, as some assert; for Justin says, ‘‘ Enoch, and those like him, ob- served it;” and further, he says, ‘‘we have received it through baptism, on account of the mercy of God;”—thus distinguishing it from baptism. In the passage where Justin says, “The commandment of circumcision which enjoins that infants should be circumcised on the eighth day, was a type of the true circumcision with which we were circumcised from error and wickedness,” he is fre- quently interpreted as saying, the true circumcision denotes baptism; but ought not Justin to expound his own mean- ing? and if he do so, the true circumcision is that of the heart.* Lastly, in contrast with the Jewish baptism, which being only of the flesh and of the body, is of no advantage, he proposes a baptism without water of the soul from vice, as a sufficient purification, which he would scarcely have done if he believed in a mechanical or magical sanctification by the water of Christian baptism. There are, however, some remarks of Augustine, which ’ * See Appendix C. 202 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. may aid the exposition of the language of Justin, and favourably explain the use of the term regeneration as applied to baptism. ‘That great luminary of the African church says, ‘‘ If the sacraments had not some resemblance of those things of which they are the sacraments,” (or signs,) ‘they would not be sacraments at all. From this resemblance they very often receive the names of the things themselves. As, therefore, after a certain manner, the sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ, the sacrament of the blood of Christ is the blood of Christ, so the sacrament of the faith is the faith.’* And in an- other place he says, ‘‘ For the Lord did not hesitate to say, This is my body, when he gave the sign of his body.” + The same opinion is variously expressed in other passages. Taking Augustine as our expositor of Justin Martyr, we have less difficulty with his terms. He calls, as we have seen reason to infer from his own writings, baptism the sign, by the name of the thing signified, regeneration. The remarks of Augustine, as they are of great importance in. ascertaining the opinions of the early Fathers on transub- stantiation, so they materially assist us in expounding the terms in which they speak of baptism. The vindication of the later writers is hopeless, even with the aid of Augus- tine, who was struggling against the full tide of corruption, on behalf of a simpler and purer theology. We, however, are not prepared to deny that Justin Mar- tyr held the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, in a miti- gated sense, different from that of his successors, or that in his age there was beginning to appear the tendency to cor- * Si enim sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum, quarum sacramenta sunt, non haberent, omnino sacramenta non essent. Ex hac autem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt. Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est, sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est, ita sacramentum fidei fides est. Aug. Epist. 28. ad Bonif. + Non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere hoc est corpus meum, cum signum daret corporis sui. Contra Adim. Manich. ec. 12. ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 203 - rupt the simplicity of scriptural ordinances, which soon afterwards overspread the Christian community, and dis- figured the evangelical doctrine throughout the oriental and western churches. There is, we must admit, much perplexing ambiguity in sentences in which water and faith and the cross are classed together as means of repentance.* Thus much, however, we may maintain with safety, that the doctrine and practice of baptism in the age of Justin Martyr, as he himself supplies us with the detail, were very different from the doctrine and practice of the subsequent ages, the third and fourth centuries, to which Tractarians appeal in defence of their principles. We find no high- sounding titles of baptism, no exaggerated description of its virtue, no appearance of the veneration of awful mys- teries, no traces of the unscriptural doctrine of reserve. In the Apology he frankly discloses to the emperors, the senate, and the people of Rome, the rites and ceremonies, the worship and the doctrine of the Christian church. He raises the veil of the sanctuary without hesitation, and ex- poses to the public the innermost shrine of the church. Instead of the baptistry concealed with so much jealousy from the eyes of the uninitiated, we have in Justin only a place where there is water; and instead of the basilica, with its vestibule, and nave, and chancel, and sanctuary, and throne for the bishop, we have the place where those who are called brethren assemble. But no distinction is more remarkable than that which appears in the institution of the catechumens. Although in the succeeding age we find them in their several orders of advancement preparing for baptism, as for a great and awful solemnity, the critical period of their lives, their great transition from death to life, from ruin to salvation, from the devil to Christ; in Justin it is only said, “Those who are persuaded of the truth of the things we teach, and believe them, are taken to the place where there is water.” The catechumenical * Dial. cum Tryp. c. 138. See Appendix C. 204 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. services, of which we have no trace whatever in the New Testament, disclose, in the third and fourth century, an extraordinary change of opinion upon the subject of bap- tism. ‘The apostles baptized the converts on the same day as they preached to them the Gospel; the bishops of the third and fourth centuries placed them under a long and severe discipline before they were admitted to partake of the holy mysteries. As we have no mention in Justin of the audientes or the competentes, or any other class of cate- chumens, so there is no reference to what, in so circum- stantial an account, could scarcely be without notice, if it was at that time known, to sponsors acting on behalf of the baptized, although we find in Tertullian that such persons were required in the next age. From Irenseus we can obtain no further information. His language corresponds with that of Justin Martyr, in so far as he calls baptism regeneration. What he means by the term is variously explained, according to the theology of the expositor. We have seen that Justin both calls bap- tism regeneration, and yet speaks of regeneration as dis- tinct from baptism. And so Ireneus, if we may trust the barbarous old Latin translation, has the term regeneration, where there is no reference to baptism. Even later writers by regeneration often mean baptism, where no spiritual change could possibly have been intended. Clement of Alexandria,* and Jerome,+ for instance, speak of our Lord as regenerated by John, that is, baptized by him, but as- suredly not born again in any spiritual sense. Let it here be observed, as illustrating the use of the term regenera- tion, that while, as we have seen, the Fathers deny that any spiritual change was effected by the baptism of John, or that it could impart the Holy Ghost, or secure the par- don of sin, yet they speak of it as regeneration. How far this will explain the use of the term in the early Fathers, * Pedagog. lib. i. c. 6, ojpepov dvayevyners 6 Xpiotds. + Contra Jovinian. lib. i. ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 205 as a sign of regeneration when applied to baptism, I leave for the consideration of the reader. Ireneeus says, “‘ Jesus, committing to his disciples the power of regeneration, said to them, ‘ Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ The remainder of the passage deserves attention. Trenzeus evidently thought of a regeneration of the Spirit, distinct from baptism by water; for he adds, “ He pro- mised by the prophets, that in the last times he would pour out his Spirit upon his servants and his handmaids, that they should prophesy. Whence also this same Spirit descended upon the Son of God, made the Son of man, with him accustomed to dwell in the human race, and to rest in man, and to abide in the creature wrought upon by God, working the will of God in them, and renewing them from this old state into the newness of Christ.”* This renewing into Christ is represented as the operation of the Holy Spirit, and, therefore, as distinct from the regeneration committed to the apostles. So far as we can ascertain, the opinions of Irenzeus coincide with those of Justin Martyr. We now come to Tertullian, to Clement of Alexandria,+ * Potestatem Regenerationis demandans discipulis, dicebat eis: Euntes docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Hune enim promisit per prophetas, effundere se in novissimis temporibus, super servos et ancillos, ut prophetent. Unde et in Filium Dei filium hominis factum descendit, cum ipso assuescens habitare in genere humano et requiescere in hominibus et habitare in plasmate Dei voluntatem Patris operans in ipsis et renovans eos a vetustate in novitatem Christi. Iren. adv. Her. lib. ili. c.19. Some other references to baptism occur, but they are too brief and obscure to afford any assistance in this inquiry. See lib. i. c. 18. + If the Epitome of the writings of Theodotus, appended to the works of Clement, can be supposed to represent any opinions of that age, the doc- trine of baptismal regeneration must have expanded in its full bloom and perfection. More astonishing representation of the wonderful power of baptism is not to be found in the fourth or fifth century. Although in these passages, be they of Theodotus, or of whatever divine, there are some refer- ences to the internal baptism as distinct from the external, and the celestial water as distinguished from the earthly, which would intimate that the writer 206 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. to Origen, and to the other writers of the beginning of the third century ; and here we are compelled to surrender the argument. Although there are some exceptions, some pas- sages at variance with others, some contradictions, and some limitations, some remarks arising out of controversy, and some earnest warnings against the abuse of sacraments, out of all which a thorough partisan might easily construct a fair and plausible argument against the Tractarian hypo- thesis; yet we feel bound candidly to acknowledge, that baptismal regeneration in some form becomes the general doctrine of the Christian church, after the close of the se- cond century. In making this admission we claim the right of appending to it some qualifications. Although there is sufficient evidence to compel us to acknowledge that the teachers of the Christian church, in the third cen- tury, had departed from what we believe to be the sim- plicity of Christ, yet no consistent theory of baptismal regeneration can be so deduced from their writings as to enable us to say with confidence, this is the accredited doc- trine of the third or even of the fourth century. As there was no standard of faith other than Scripture to which they could appeal, and as they recognized among themselves no held some spiritual and correct views; yet baptism is represented as exerting a mystic and most marvellous power upon the soul, The great danger is, lest the unclean spirits should go down with the man into the water, and so acquire the holy seal of baptism with him. But the most extraordinary proof of the regenerating power of baptism—the experimentum crucis, is» that even destiny—the awful, resistless, inflexible 4 eiuapuévn, which with absolute sway ruled the Grecian gods—loses its power over the man when he enters the baptistry, for, as he becomes a new creature, so the nativities of his horoscope are reyersed—and the astrologers can predict nothing more respecting him—wéxpe tod Bamticpatos ovv if eiappévn, paciv, adnOys* peta dé ToUvTO ObK Er UAnMetovory ot dorporoyar, This book is sometimes considered to represent in epitome the lost Institutes of Clement, but I cannot believe, independently of the discrepancy in other particulars, that such absurdity existed in any teacher of the church or the school of Alexandria, so early as the age of Clement. Theodotus is usually regarded as a heretic, but such superstition would be unpardonable ina pagan. According to Photius, however, nothing can be too bad to attribute to the Hypotyposes of Clement. Bib. cix. ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 207 infallible head, no vicar of Christ upon earth, we have no right to assume that there existed among them unity of faith upon a doctrine which was nowhere proposed for the consideration of any general convention, nor expounded with the logical precision of authorized formularies. In the meagre symbols of their creeds, the nature of the sacra- ments occupied no prominent place. Whatever they thought of baptismal regeneration, they might have honestly pro- fessed without dissenting from the Apostles’ or the Nicene ereed. ‘There was only a general concurrence of teachers, not a uniform doctrine of the church. If there had been, we should none the less insist upon a final appeal to Scrip- ture; but the view we have taken will account for the in- consistencies of expression, and apparent varieties of opi- nion, which are to be found in the several writers. We have also to consider, that we are embarked in a controversy of which the ancients knew nothing whatso- ever. Had this discussion sprung up in the beginning of the third century, it is impossible to say how Origen, or Cyprian, or any other writer, would have expressed himself, when every word would be carefully considered, lest it should be abused; as it always is of extreme diffi- culty to ascertain what would have been the opinion of any man upon a controversy which was not agitated until a subsequent age. After the council of Nice, it is easy to infer, from the style of the writer, whenever he ap- proached the disputed point, whether he was Athanasian or Arian, unless he guilefully concealed his opinion ; but is it so easy to determine respecting Origen or any of the earlier writers? J ask any candid Trinitarian, if he is thoroughly satisfied with the ante-Nicene testimonies to the divinity of our blessed Saviour, considered as exposi- tions of his doctrine? Is he able clearly to ascertain from their writings, the opinions on that point of any class of Christian divines, as of the criticizing Origen, or the philosophizing Clement, the platonic Justin, or that most 208 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. unplatonie of mortals, Tertullian? Until their language was winnowed by the agitation of controversy, the doc- trine does not appear distinctly and formally enunciated. The faith, I doubt not, of most of them was sound, but it was not clearly nor consistently expressed. So in ap- pealing to the early Fathers upon the subject of sacra- mental efficacy, we are consulting them upon a subject which we do not know they ever seriously studied. They frequently reproved such as neglected or abused the sacra- ments, and hence they employed a loose and rhetorical style; but they no more thought of protecting the faithful by logical definitions from the angry controversies of a subsequent age, than they did of fortifying their churches by ramparts against the future attacks of Goths or Sara- cens. As Bishop Hurd well says of appeals to the Fathers, “The matters of debate are, for the most part, such as . had never entered into the heads of those old writers, being indeed of much later growth, and having first sprung up in the barbarous ages; they could not, there- fore, decide on questions which they had no occasion to consider, and had in fact never considered, however their loose and figurative expressions might be made to look that way by the dexterous management of controversial- ists.” It should also be observed that the Fathers, when speaking of baptism without an epithet, sometimes mean the baptism not of water but of the Holy Ghost, the Barricpa IIvevpatikoy, as when Gregory Nazianzen says,” “Jesus baptized, that is, with the Spirit.” Some of their lofty eulogies refer to this celestial baptism, as Ireneeus speaks of the celestial water. From Augustine alone many passages of an opposite tendency might readily be selected, although the great stream of ecclesiastical autho- rity, notwithstanding some eddies and whirlpools, was proceeding in his time with a strong and irresistible force in one direction. ‘To the eye accustomed to the New * Orat. xxxix. ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 209 Testament, the anti-Christian character of Catholic theo- logy appears too manifest to be mistaken for the evangel- ical truth. The mystery of iniquity throws off her veil, and exposes her countenance to the multitude, who had lost almost all acquaintance with the apostolical doctrine. The churchmen who represent Jewel’s Apology as the ablest defence of the Protestant faith, although the good bishop says, “ We, the Hnglish Reformers, have ap- proached as nearly as we possibly could do the church of the apostles and the ancient catholic bishops and Fathers which we know was yet a perfect, and as Tertullian saith, an unspotted virgin, and not contaminated with any idola- try or any great or public error,”* may speak with more caution, because they contend with Tractarians in a false position; but we think it best honestly to confess the fact, and deal with it as well as we can. With this confession, which we are compelled to make, how shall we carry on the dispute with Tractarians ? We are now brought to the rule of faith, and ground of authority in religion. If the Fathers are irrevocably to decide, and ecclesiastical authority is to be Christian law without appeal, we must quietly submit; but, let our opponents say plainly and decidedly how far we are bound by the authority of the ancient church. Is every obiter dictum of the Fathers to be cited for gospel? The pre- ponderance of testimony, we admit, is greatly against us; but still, if the Fathers be declared infallible, we can pro- duce counter-testimony, not, indeed, equal in amount, but quite sufficient to confute the claim of infallibility. If they be not infallible, how can we safely rely upon their authority? Supposing they had the general, although not the uniform and unfailing guidance of the Spirit, how do we know that baptism may not be one of the very few points, if very few they were, on which they have fallen into error? Without the assertion of infallibility, the appeal * c. yy. 10. oh P 210 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. to the Fathers is unsatisfactory; but where they contra- dict one another, and we have ‘“ councils against councils, Fathers against Fathers, and Fathers against themselves,” the assertion of infallibility only provokes a smile. On this very question it is easy to adduce numerous passages from the Fathers, in manifest opposition to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration; but these will prove, not. that the doctrine was rejected by the primitive church, but that fallible men were often inconsistent with one another as well as with themselves. The following instances may suftice to illustrate this remark. The baptism of Simon Magus is referred to by Jerome,* by Augustine,} Cyril of Jerusalem, and others, to show that the baptism of the body is not sufficient for the purifying of the soul. “Simon Magus,” says Cyril, “approached the washing. He was baptized, but not illuminated. His body was bap- tized with water; but his heart was not illuminated with the Spirit.” Baptism is by no term more frequently de- signated than by illumination, yet Cyril here distinguishes baptism from illumination, as elsewhere he distinguishes it from regeneration. ‘“Ispeak not,” he says, “of the re- generation of the body, but of the spiritual regeneration of the soul.”§ He speaks of persons, though baptized, as not buried with Christ, and not having on the wedding garment, and charges the baptized to keep the seal un- broken,|| which, however, in another place he calls indis- soluble. Yet no man extols baptism more than Cyril. “Great indeed,” he says, “‘is the baptism which is offered to you. It isa ransom to captives, and the remission of your offences; the death of sin, the regeneration of the soul, the garment of light, the holy and indissoluble seal, * Comment. in Ezek. xvi. 4. + Aug. contra Cres. Grammat. lib, ii. c. 15, vi., in Ps. ciii. 1, 9. + Proém. in Catech. § Catech. 1, Expos. in Evan. Joan. Tract. {| Proem. ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. ST the chariot to heaven, the pleasure of paradise, the obtain- ing of the kingdom, the gift of adoption.” But on this subject no writer speaks more decidedly than Augustine, whom I quote because he seems elsewhere to assert the inseparable connexion between baptism and regeneration, in which assertion, so often adduced, one of two things is certain: either that he contradicts himself in this particular, or else that by regeneration he means only the external privilege of an accredited Christian, the outward or church state into which he is introduced by baptism. Hither supposition will shake the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, founded upon this great ecclesias- tical authority. What language can be more express than that of St. Augustine, when he says, ‘‘ The washing of regeneration is indeed common to all who are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; but the grace of regeneration, of which these are the sacraments, by which the members of Christ’s body are regenerated with their Head, is not common to all; for heretics, and false brethren in the communion of the Catholic name, have the same baptism as ourselves.”+ In another place he says, “It is clearly shown that the sacra- ment of baptism is one thing, and the conversion of the heart another. Nor if one of them be wanting, must we conclude that the other is also wanting, because that” (baptism) ‘without this,” (conversion,) ‘“‘may be in an infant, while in the thief without doubt this ” (conversion) “existed without that,” (baptism.) ‘Baptism may exist where conversion of heart is not, and conversion of heart may be where baptism is not understood.’{ So Augus- * Proém. + Sicut et nunc jam revelata fides quee tunc velabatur, omnibus in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti baptizatis commune est lavacrum regenera- tionis; sed ipsa gratia cujus ipsa sunt sacramenta, qua membra corporis Christi cum suo capite regenerata sunt non communis est omnibus. Nam e¢ heretici habent eundem baptismum, et falsi fratres in communione catholic? nominis. August. Enarr. in Ps. lxxvii. t Aug. de Bap. lib. iv. c. 25. 212 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. ~ tine speaks of baptism as regeneration where he cannot mean a spiritual change, for he speaks of Simon Magus being baptized without charity, as having been brought forth by the church, but having been born in vain; and adds, ‘“‘ it might have been better for him not to have been so born.”* Again, Augustine considers Simon Magus to have been regenerated to a greater condemnation.+ Are we to conclude that Augustine is inconsistent with him- self, or that in commending the virtue of baptism he some- times employs rhetorical exaggeration, which must be cor- rected by his more sober statements? Be this as it may, there is no ecclesiastical writer who more clearly asserts the distinction between baptism and a moral and spiritual change of heart; and refreshing it is to turn from the tumid phraseology of Chrysostom and the Greeks to some- thing like the simplicity of Christ in the African Fathers. If it be easy, on the one hand, to adduce some passages in favour of the high mystery of baptism, it is not difficult, on the other, to find many distinctly impugning the doc- trine which Tractarians defend. We have glanced at the testimony of the Fathers, and expressed our belief that, although from the close of the second century they generally teach the doctrine of the sacramental efficacy of baptism for the remission of sin, and for the regeneration of the sinner, a clear and con- sistent statement of the doctrine is not to be collected amidst the conflicting assertions of their venerable folios. Sometimes they appear to make baptism, if duly adminis- tered, the infallible means of salvation, the unfailing chan- nel of grace; according to Athanasius, who says, without any limitation, ‘‘ He who is baptized puts off the old man, and as born from above, is renewed by the grace of the Spirit.”{ Sometimes they make the virtue depend upon » * Quia caritas defuit, frustra natus est et ei expediebat fortasse non nasci. De Bap. cont. Donat. lib. i. ce. 10. + In Ps. ciii. i. 9. t ‘0 38 BamtiCopevos Tov pev madaidv dmekdidioxetac” dvakawiletar dé, ds dvobev ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 213 the faith of the recipients, as Jerome, who, speaking of heretical baptism, says, ‘which may be understood not only of heretics, but of such in the church as did not receive with a full faith her salutary baptism; they received the water, yet did not receive the Spirit.”* And sometimes they represent the faith of the sponsors as the means of securing the grace of baptism; as the author of the work entitled ‘‘ Questions and Answers to the Orthodox,” ap- pended to the works of Justin Martyr, but assuredly not written by him, says of children, ‘They are accounted worthy of the blessings obtained through baptism, by the faith of those who offer them.”} And sometimes conver- sion is declared to have preceded baptism, and baptism is only the sealing, or assurance, or act of faith, as when Tertullian says, ‘ The laver is the sealing of faith, which faith begins from the faith of penitence. We are so washed, not that we may cease from sinning, but because we have ceased since we were already washed in heart, for this is the first baptism of the hearer.”} Nor will it be difficult to cite from St. Augustine different passages which seem to prove these several views of baptism; so that as far as that great doctor of the African church is an authority, it is not easy to say which party have the best right to claim the sanction of his venerable name. A great and extra- ordinary man he undoubtedly was, the chief luminary of the Latin church, to whom it is under inestimable obliga- tion; but it is not easy upon any system, and least of all yevynbeis, TH Tov Mvedpatos xa¢pitt Athan. in illud Evan., Quicunque dixerit. Oper. vol. i. p. 767, * Quod quidem non solum de hereticis, sed de ecclesiasticis, intelligi potest qui non plena fide accipiunt baptismum salutarem. De quibus dicendum est quod acceperint aquam sed non acceperint Spiritum. Hieron. Comment. in Ezek. xvi. 4, 5. + ’Abvovvtae 6€ rH de TOU Bamticpatos ayabHy, TH mictE THY MpOTPEpdvTAYV aiTa 7p Bantiopatt. Quest. et Respons. ad Orthod. Quest. lvi. in oper. Justin. } Lavacrum illud obsignatio est Fidei: que Fides a Penitentie fide inci- pitur et commendatur. Non ideo abluimur, ut delinquere desinamus, sed quia desiimus, quoniam jam corde loti sumus. Hee enim prima audientis intinctio est. Tertull. de Penit. cap. 6. 214 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. the Tractarian, to reconcile his various statements on Christian baptism. Keeping in view the passages in which he so clearly and expressly distinguishes the washing of regeneration from the grace of regeneration, the baptism of water from that of the Spirit; considering also, as we noticed in a pre- ceding lecture, that he speaks of circumcision as having had the same relation to the new life in the old covenant, as baptism has under the new; and that as none of the Fathers regarded circumcision to be a means of grace, this opinion is as opposed to baptismal regeneration, as it is to the prevalent doctrine of the ancient church; and employ- ing his own principle that on account of the resemblance, the sacrament is sometimes spoken of as the thing sig- nified; so that even when he founds the necessity of baptism upon the doctrine of original sin, he may only mean there could be no need of the sign, if there was not of the thing signified,—we may regard Augustine as the most evangelical of the later Fathers on the subject of baptism. With regard to children, we doubt not he means by the regeneration of baptism little else than admission into a church state. How else can we understand him, when he says, “In baptized infants the sacrament of re- generation precedes, and if they retain Christian piety, conversion follows in the heart, of which the mystery pre- ceded in the body?”* And even with regard to adults, how else can we reconcile his language with his decided * In baptizatis infantibus, precedit Regenerationis Sacramentum: et, si christianam tenuerint pietatem, sequitur etiam in corde conversio, cujus Mysterium preecessit in corpore. August. De Baptism. cont. Donat. lib. iv. e. 24. The following passage, cited by Mr. Faber, is translated by him, ** When little children are baptized, no less a thing is done than that they are incorporated into the church.” Nihil agitur aliud, cum parvuli baptizan- tur, nisi ut incorporentur ecclesiz ; id est, Christi corpori membrisque soci- entur. De Peccat. Merit. et Remiss. Cont. Pelag. lib. iii. c. 4. We insist upon the literal version. Nothing else is done when little children are bap- tized, except that they are incorporated with the church; that is, they are associated with the body and mombers of Christ. ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION 915 and strong views of grace and predestination? In these remarks upon Augustine, I do not intimate that he avow- edly differed from his contemporaries, nor do I say that he agreed with them; but as he has written more largely and distinctly upon the subject of baptism, we have better opportunity of ascertaining his opinions, and certainly many passages are very stubborn in the hands of Catholic theologians. The Jesuits acted with their wonted craft and skill in opposing the Dominican notions of the pre- ponderating authority of St. Augustine; and we think the Anglo-Catholies have as much reason to fear his views of baptism, as had the Jesuits his doctrine of free grace and predestination. But having admitted that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration in some form, if not in that of the Tractarians, is supported by the preponderance of eccles- iastical authorities, we are not bound to find the explana- tion of their apparent contradictions. The moderate theologians of the English church, who represent baptism as one means of regeneration, which although frequently effectual sometimes fails, have en- deayoured, upon the accommodation of their theory, to reconcile the apparent inconsistencies of ecclesiastical writers. We noticed this scheme in the previous part of this lecture, and we must now say it does not meet the requirement of the case in reconciling ecclesiastical authorities, while it imposes peculiar and pressing diffi- culties upon its supporters. Baptism, according to this theory, is a charm which sometimes succeeds and some- times fails. The efficacy of the water is dependent, it may be thought, upon the dispositions of the parties re- ceiving it; but if their good dispositions exist previously to the baptism of the Spirit which is bestowed solely in consideration of them, we are brought directly upon the Pelagian heresy of the prevenient grace of congruity, in the support of which no true son of the church would expose himself to the fierce anathemas of his mother. 216 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION, Tf, on the contrary, baptism is in some instances effectual without previous faith, and in some instances it is not, we are compelled to admit that it is or is not regener- ation according to an arbitrary appointment of God, of which no man can ascertain anything with certainty. This middle path has, we conceive, all the objections of the Tractarian doctrine, nor does it afford the least aid in explaining the conflicting statements of the Fathers. A reference to the passages we are about to cite for another purpose, will show that if the holy bishops and martyrs of the ancient church are to be admitted as the witnesses of evangelical doctrine ; if their voices not always harmonious are to be heard as authorized preachers of the new covenant; then not the views of the moderate churchman, nor even those of the loftiest Tract- arian, sufficiently exalt and magnify the wonderful pro- perties of illuminating, quickening, sanctifying, absolving, immortalizing baptism. There is no medium which we can find between being content with scriptural authority in receiving baptism as a symbol, and admitting the ex- position of the Fathers in support of the most extravagant and incredible dogmas. At these dogmas it becomes necessary for our purpose to take a rapid glance, as the argument in favour of bap- tismal regeneration chiefly depends upon the authority of the venerable men, ‘“ wiser than any persons” of this degenerate age, who propounded them. It is proper we should consider the extravagances and superstitions which we shall be compelled to adopt, if we admit their authority as our directory of faith and practice on the subject of Christian baptism, especially with no more discriminating rule of interpretation than -that which Tractarians apply in citing every sentence of any old writer not branded with heresy, as an authority in religion. In reasoning with Tractarians, I do not press the argu- ment from the incredible superstitions which some of the ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. Pay Fathers attached to the baptismal service, in order to show that their authority proves a great deal too much, for I scarcely know what Tractarians will acknowledge to be incredible or superstitious. Dogmas, which but a few years ago would have been instantaneously rejected, are now received with veneration ; and practices then invaria- bly repudiated, are now pronounced to be of considerable authority. The influence of the theory is progressive, so that we cannot conjecture what practice or belief, if only it be ancient, will be, in a few years, regarded as super- stitious. I think, however, every person should know whither the plausible argumentation of the Oxford theolog- ians, if fairly pursued, will assuredly conduct him; and should seriously consider how far he is prepared for the inevitable result. First of all, it was believed that the element of water at the creation, by the Spirit of God moving upon it, re- ceived a peculiar and specific virtue, by which it was es- pecially fitted and appropriated to cleanse and sanctify the soul. Of the metaphysical impossibility of the power of water, or any other material substance, by contact with the body to effect a moral and spiritual change upon the soul, our opponents in their sublime contempt of meta- physics and philosophy may take no account, or probably convert it into an argument in their favour, with the ancient Credo quia impossibile est. We have only to say, we are very thankful that in Holy Scripture our faith is subjected to no such rigorous test. Tertullian deems it necessary, in the commencement of his treatise on Baptism, thus to extol the excellency of water :—‘“ You have, O man, first to venerate the age of water, because it is an ancient substance, and next its dignity, because it was the seal of the Holy Spirit more agreeable to him than the other elements. Thus the nature of water, sanctified by the Holy One, itself received the power of sanctifying.” And again, ‘All waters, from that first pre- 218 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. rogative, at their very origin, when God has been invoked, obtain the sacramental power of sanctifying.”"* Allusions to the same wonderful power may be found in Ambrose, in Jerome, and others, of which Dr. Pusey says, ‘ Their view seems to have been of this sort,—that since God had appointed the use of water for baptism, there must have been an appropriateness in it; and again, God im- parted to the physical agent properties corresponding to its moral uses.”+ Yet this ancient virtue and first prero- gative of water do not seem to have been sufficient, for the doctrine of the Fathers is, that our Lord submitted to baptism that he might sanctify water to the washing away of sin, and impart to it the power of cleansing the soul. St. Ambrose, for instance, says, that ‘‘the waters were washed by the flesh of Christ, that they might have the power of cleansing us from sin.”t This doctrine is recognized in the baptismal office of the Church of Eng- land: ‘‘ Almighty and everlasting God, who... . by the baptism of thy well-beloved Son Jesus Christ, in the river Jordan, didst sanctify water to the mystical washing away of sin.” It has been asked in the Tractarian controversy again and again, From what scripture do those who reject the authority of tradition derive this doctrine, for unless the evangelical clergy had some ground for their belief, they would not solemnly thank God for the sancti- fication of water? The answer, I am sorry to say, is long delayed, and the evangelical clergy seem to be content with tradition as the only reason of their belief in that most orthodox and catholic doctrine of the ancient church, Oriental, and Greek, and Latin, that Christ by his baptism sanctified all water, that it might by its cleansing efficacy * De Baptismo, § 8, 4. + Dr. Pusey adduces on this curious subject the prayer of the old Latin liturgy: ““O God, whose Holy Spirit was in the very rudiments of the world borne above the waters, that the nature of the waters might even then receive the power of sanctifying.”—T'ract on Baptism. t Ambr. Exp. Ev. sec. Luc. 1. ii. § 83. ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 219 wash away the sins of the baptized ; unless, indeed, as they repudiate tradition, their faith in this doctrine of the sane- tification of water, is faith in the lst of Elizabeth, or in the 14th of Charles the Second, commonly called the Act of Uniformity. Why do they not reply to the Tractarians, and give us their authority, if it be anything else than the royal arms of England prefixed to an act of parliament ? With some inconsistency the English church, having al- ready recognized the fact of the double sanctification of all water, presents the prayer: ‘‘ Regard, we beseech thee, the supplications of thy congregation—sanctify this water to the mystical washing away of sin.” In this inconsistency, however, the ancient church had its full share, for the consecration and exorcism of the water formed an import- ant part of the baptismal ceremony. “It is proper,” says Cyprian, ‘that the water be cleansed and sanctified by the priest, that it may have the power in baptism to wash away the sins of him who is baptized.”* So the council of Carthage decreed in his time that ‘‘the water, when sanctified by the prayer of the priest, washes away sins.” But I need not multiply citations, as the sanctification of the water is in the ecclesiastical writings often represented as an indispensable part of baptism. All this is asserted by ecclesiastical writers of the best credit in the early ages; and, contradictory as the several propositions ap- pear, and absolutely impossible as it seems, that water should have any power of exculpating the guilty, or sanc- tifying the depraved, all this is received as of indubitable certainty on the authority of the ancient catholic church. But may we not ask, Why do Tractarians stay at the triple sanctification of water, instead of following the vene- rable authority of ancient and orthodox saints, as far as their doctrine can be ascertained, or their example pro posed? Or do Tractarian writers, proceeding further in the same course, for this is no resting-place, and they pro- * Cyprian. Ep. 70. See also Tertullian. De Bapt. c. 4. 220 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. fess to look higher than to profane acts of parliament, practise some degree of reserve, and conceal their views in loose and indefinite language, intimating rather than asserting the revival of the great wonders of antiquity? Why not consistently and uniformly follow the authority of the ancients? Why not maintain the presence of Christ’s blood in the water after consecration with Gregory Nazianzen,* and Basil,} and Prosper,t and Jerome,§ and many others? Why not declare that the consecrated water is red as it moves in the blessed font of immor- tality ?|| Why not say with Isidore, that it is really the water which flowed from the side of Christ? But where can we stop in these inquiries? We may go through a long series of similar questions until we reach the climax of absurdity, or rather of blasphemy, and ask, Why not believe with Leo, the pontiff, that a man, after baptism, is not the same as he was before, but the body being regene- rated, becomes the flesh of Him who was crucified ?4 These opinions are all more or less dependent upon the same authority, the same traditions, the same holy Fathers, sainted bishops, and blessed martyrs, as are the acknow- ledged doctrines of the Tractarian party. I have no right, however, to assume, in asserting that these doctrines are supported by ecclesiastical authority, that they prove more than Tractarian writers are prepared to acknowledge at the proper opportunity. In their writ- ings may be found so many references to these statements, without a word of exception, or of suspicion, or of surprise, and so much equivocal and indefinite language respecting them, that it is impossible to say, whether they do or do not believe these marvellous powers and wonderful trans- elementations in baptism. I think their readers have a right to know more distinctly their opinions on these sub- * Naz. Orat. 40. de Bapt. + Basil. De Bapt. lib. i. ¢. 2. { Prosper. De Promissis, lib. ii. cap. 2. § Hieron. in Esai. i. 16. || Aug. Tract. ii. in Joh. | Leo Serm., 14, de Passione. ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 291 jects than as yet they have chosen to divulge.—When they celebrate the virtues of holy baptism in the verse of their favourite poem, “The Christian Year,” which Dr. Pusey prefixes as his motto, “ What sparkles in that lucid flood, Is water by gross mortals eyed, But, seen by faith, ’tis blood Out of a dear Friend’s side.” We have a right to inquire, whether to see by faith means to believe; and whether they really follow antiquity so far as to believe that the water of baptism becomes blood, or is mingled with blood after consecration; or if they do not, why they are so fond of the ancient terms, and what sense they assign to them. When writers of this school speak of the incarnation of Christ being im- parted to us, and of our being baptized into his body really, and of his descending by the union of baptism into us bodily, we ought to inquire, do they mean the trans- formation of the body of the baptized into the person of Christ; or, if they do not, what is the precise meaning of the language they employ? ‘They sometimes speak as if, by baptism, the element of the resurrection of the body was implanted by the union with Christ, the resurrection and the life, all which is indeed very ancient and catholic; but do they mean that the bodies of the unbaptized will not rise at the last day? Many similar inquiries are sug- gested by the indefinite and obscure statements of Tract- arian writers, who advert to the language of the Fathers, without saying distinctly whether they receive it in its obvious meaning, or with some reservation. Distinct statements ought to be demanded on questions of such vast importance, that we may know how far this portentous movement has already proceeded. Its future course is sufficiently obvious. But whatever may be the benefits of baptism, as they are taught by the Fathers, we have a right to inquire of the 922 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. Tractarians, and, indeed, of all churchmen who maintain regeneration in baptism on the authority of catholic anti- quity, how they know that they inherit the ancient bless- ings, seeing that they administer the sacred rite after a mode so exceedingly different? Hither the holy Fathers, “wiser and better than any who live in these degenerate days,” added many superfluous and superstitious ceremo- nies, to which, however, they attributed great importance, or the modern baptism of the church is a maimed and defective right, destitute of many indispensable properties. Of catholic theology, prostrate with unqualified submission before the shades of departed saints, and never venturing to whisper a doubt at the sight of a mitre, appearing sreater than life in the dim haze of antiquity, especially if stained with the blood of martyrdom, we have a right to ask, If church customs be of authority, and ancient tradi- tions be valid, and venerable bishops be the best guides, and the universal voice of the uncorrupted church (before its catholicity was rent by schisms) be infallible, where now are the various orders of the docile catechumens and the learned catechists, carefully preparing in their pre- scribed courses for the regeneration of the next festival ? Where the studied reserve respecting the mysteries of the baptistry, which the initiated might on no account dis- close, and on which the eyes of the profane were not permitted to gaze?* Where the powerful exorcism by breathing upon the candidate, and expelling from him the demon, who, if by misfortune he were baptized with the eatechumen, would pollute and desecrate the thrice-hal- lowed water?+ And where the courageous renunciation of the devil, with the face turned boldly towards the west, and the hand raised in resolute defiance?+ And where the anointings before and after baptism with the sacred oil, itself by consecration of the bishop having mystically re- * Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. Lec. Int. + Cyr. Cat. Lec. xx. 3. 1 Cyn six ape ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 095 ceived the Holy Spirit?* And where the most expressive emblem of putting off the old man, by putting off the apparel,y that the candidates, being naked as at their nativity, might be born again as babes in Christ? And where the white robes, the garments of salvation, emblem of the new and glorious nature? And where the trine immersion, great mystery of mysteries, as it signified the three witnesses of the spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three days of Christ’s burial, and the three Persons of the holy and undivided Trinity ?{ And where the lighted tapers held by the newly baptized, as the sign of their illumination?§ And where the milk and honey conse- crated on the altar, and placed on the tongue as the fore- taste of the fruits of the heavenly Canaan? || And where the many other important ceremonies of ancient times, sanctioned and observed by great confessors and martyrs, bishops and patriarchs? Where, I ask, are the ancient baptism, and the honours of the ancient baptistry? The answer of the Tractarians will be, The church is in cap- tivity, the oppression of the secular power is upon it, the profane hand of the civil government has violated the sacredness of the baptistry, rent its veil of awful mystery, exposed its interior to the gaze of the multitude, extin- suished its lights, cast away its sacred oil, and given it to be the habitation of unclean spirits, who may haunt it with impunity, as they feel no breath of exorcism, hear no voice of adjuration. The carved work of the sanctuary is broken, and only the scattered stones of Zion remain for the rude altar of her oblations. But have we not a right to inquire, seeing they omit so much of the grand and ancient cere- monial, what authority have they for citing, in defence of their miserably defective rite, all the great and glorious things by which ancient bishops, doctors, martyrs, and confessors, have magnified the full and perfect administra- * Cyr. xx. 3. xxi. + Cyr. xx.2. { Cyr. xx. 4. Tert. Adv. Praxeam, c. 26. § Mosheim, Cent. iv. part ii. ch. iv. || Tert. de Bap. c. 7. 224 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. tion of holy baptism? Ifthe ancient rites of baptism were unmeaning and unauthorized appendages, what becomes of the incontrovertible authority of those who practised them? If they were duly authorized customs of the church, (and they have all the value which tradition or antiquity can confer,) how is the modern church to be assured that in the neglect of these ancient rites her naked baptism has all the validity and virtue of the original and complete sacrament? But why not stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made his people free? Why allow the tyranny of the profane in the house of the Lord ? Why not boldly assert, by deeds as well as words, by glorious actions rather than by stifled complaints, the right of the church to rule in her own sanctuary? Why profanely surrender the holy mysteries of the baptistry, the honours of the cathedral, the privileges of the clergy, and the sceptre of Christ in the hand of his bishop, for a mess of pottage, the miserable secularities, the revenues and baronies, the panis et circences of the civil government of this realm? Above all, why make a great schism in the unity of the catholic church for the sake of a national church, which has no communion with the rest of Christ- endom, no provincial assembly worthy of the name, no convocation (but a shade) for the regulation of its own business, or the assertion of its doctrine and discipline in the rights of its clergy, the liberties of its people, the solemnities of its worship, and the full administration of its sacraments? Who would have thought that to the eyes of ecclesiastics the ancient light was so refrangible as to suffer these extraordinary angles of deflection on descending into the denser medium of these dark and degenerate times ? APPENDIX TO LECTURE V. Note A. Page 187. AN argument on the inconsistency of the reasoning of those who maintain the doctrine of baptismal regeneration with the evangelical history, similar to that which I have adduced from the words of our Lord to Nicodemus, may be derived from the date of the institution of the Lord’s prayer. The anachronism is quite as palpable. Ac- cording to all writers of this school, the spirit of adoption is the re- sult of regeneration in baptism. The children of God, and they only, have a right to cry, Abba, Father. On this account, the cate- chumens in the ancient church were strictly forbidden to be present at the repetition of the Lord’s prayer. From that service, the prayer of the faithful, as Chrysostom calls it, all the unbaptized were most scrupulously and rigorously excluded. (Chrysost. Hom. 2, in 2 Cor., August. Ser. 42., Tert. De Orat. Dom., Greg. Nyss. Hom, 10, in Ep. ad Coloss., and others.) But were they regenerated by baptism to whom this form of prayer was originally given? Before the Pente- cost, the disciples were taught to say, Our Father, which art in heaven. On them the noblest privilege of adoption was conferred ; and therefore regenerate, but not through baptism, they were early taught to look up to God as their Father, without the intervention of a sacramental service. ‘To give consistency to the theory of bap- tismal regeneration, the Lord’s prayer should have been reserved as a diseiplina arcant until the day of Pentecost. Equally, if not more glaringly, inconsistent with the Catholic theory of baptismal regeneration, is the anachronism of the favourite notion of Tractarians that Jesus, by his own baptism, sanctified water to the washing away of sin. The doctrine is, that water had no such cleansing virtue until the effusion of the Spirit at the Pente- cost; the assertion is, that this virtue was imparted three years before by the baptism of our Lord, which previous impartation is x. Q 226 APPENDIX TO LECTURE V. recognized in the baptismal offices of the English Church. If our Lord by his baptism sanctified water to the washing away of sin, how did it remain unsanctified until the day of Pentecost ?—if it were unsanctified until the day of Pentecost, how did our Lord sanctify it by his baptism? ‘The answer to these and similar in- consistencies is, the sainted Fathers knew better than we can know, and they declare all these things to be true. The reasoning we have pursued in respect to the necessity and value of baptism as the medium of regeneration, of which the patri- archs and pious men of the old dispensation were destitute, is pre- cisely that which the Fathers themselves selected in their contro- yersies with the Jews, who insisted upon the necessity and saving virtue of circumcision. As Justin Martyr replies to Trypho, ‘‘The just men and patriarchs who lived before Moses, and regarded none | of the things which the Word assures us were originally appointed to be received through Moses, are they saved in the inheritance of the blessed? And Trypho said, The Scriptures compel me to con- fess that they are.”” Dial. c. Try. p. 292. B. Page 189. ON THE WORD REGENERATION IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. Ir may have been observed, that in the remarks on Titus iii. 5, I considered the clause, ‘‘the washing of regeneration,’”’ solely in reference to its connexion with the phrase, ‘‘he saveth us,’’ without interrupting the course of the reasoning by noticing the meaning cf the word radryyevecia, translated ‘regeneration ;’ because its precise meaning, whatever it may be, cannot affect the general argument, In conceding, however, that the washing of regeneration may denote baptism, I am far from conceding that a personal regeneration is in this passage intended. The doctrine of personal regenera- tion is clearly and distinctly taught in many passages of the New Testament, but into those passages is never introduced the word madvyyevecia, Although not uncommon in the classics, it is found in only one other place in the New Testament, (Matt. xix. 28,) ‘‘ Verily I say unto you, That you who have followed me in the regeneration,” or, as the punctuation is uncertain, ‘‘ in the regeneration ye shall sit upon twelve thrones.” The word manifestly denotes a general and glorious change of the state of things,—the glorious reign of God on APPENDIX TO LECTURE V. 227 earth or in heaven: it seems precisely equivalent to the phrase, the kingdom of heaven. In the classics, the word is applied to the spring of the year, and to the restoration of a conquered country to liberty and independence. Josephus speaks of the Jews, on receiving the decree of Darius for the restoration of their temple, as feasting seven days for the recovery and regeneration (madryyevecia) of their country. In this sense, the apostle seems to refer to the regeneration of the church rather than of individuals, or, in other words, the washing instituted in the kingdom of heaven, the sign of the world to come, the new age rising upon the earth. The Platonists, in imitation of their master, apply the term to the entrance of the soul upon a new state of existence. Plato, in the Meno, (§ 14,) represents Socrates citing Pindar and the other divine poets, as saying, that ‘the soul of man is immortal, and when it comes to an end, which they call death, then it lives again (wdéAw vyiyveoO@a) and never perishes.”’ The wadryyevecia of the Platonic soul, in the words of the expansion of the Pindaric fragment by some modern translator, was— ‘* Loosened from body, winged and fleet, Freely she mounts to purest sky, No more on earth to live, no more to die, = * * * Who freed from earthly dross, And every element of body gross, To intellectual bliss in heavenly seat shall climb.” C. Page 201. PASSAGES FROM JUSTIN MARTYR. Some controversy has lately sprung up in Germany respecting the opinion of Justin, on the subject of baptism. He is regarded by some as holding more pure and simple views of this Christian rite than other and later Fathers. In the work on Justin Martyr, by Semisch, recently translated for the Edinburgh Biblical Cabinet, Miinscher (Handbuch der Christ. Dogmengeschichte) and Starck (Geschichte der Taufe und Taufgesinnten) are specified as maintain- ing this view of his theology. Semisch himself adopts the opposite opinion, although he does not ascribe to Justin the extravagant notions of the efficacy of baptism which were held by the later eccle- Q25 APPENDIX TO LECTURE V. siastics. (See Semisch’s Justin Martyr, translated by J. E. Ryland, vol. ii. p. 330—337.) I append the passages of Justin, translated and sometimes abridged in the lecture, that the reader may form his own opinion, if he haye not the opportunity to turn to the writings of the Martyr. é Ul lo fol , A Ov tpdroy 8€ kal aveOjxapev Eavro’s TH Oe, Kaworroinbévres Sta ~ 7 e 7 ~ Tov Xpiorod, eEnynodpeba Stas py, TovTo mapadurdvres, OdFopev , lod , Tovnpevely TL Ev TH EENYNCEL. - , cal - 2G a "Ooo dv wet Odor kal miaTeVeow adnO7y TadTa TA OP Hpav didac- , \ ‘ = \ a ¢ , ¢ a Kéeva kal Neyopeva etvat, kal Buiodyv ovtas Svvacba tmioxvavrat, r e ~ ~ cas evyecOai te Kal airely yvnortevovtes Tapa Tov Ocod TaY mponuap- Thevev adeow SiOdoKovTal, juav cvvevyopevay Kal cuvYnOTEVOYT@Y > . avrots. wy > Le ie a ee, ton o 3 , A 4 > v Ereita dyovra vp nay evOa dap éoti, Kal Tpdroy avayevyncews, a - = = Ov Kal pets adtol aveyevynOnpev, avayevvavra’ én dvdpuatos yap TOU lal , ~ ~n n rn ~ Ilatpos tv Gdhov kal Seardrov Geod, kal ToD Sarnpos npav “Inoov A \ , gd Nos no , \ a“ Xpicrov, Kat IIvevpatos “Aylov, To ev TH VOaTL TéTE AovTpoY ToLovy- 5 \ \ ¢ \ a n % 19 a Sica te A > Ta’ Kal yap 6 Xpioros etrrev, “Av py avayevynGyre, ov pn eioeAOnrTe Eis \ , a > PA yO) A INE . \ , rn Thy Baowelay TOY ovpavev’ (dre dé Kat advvatoy eis Tas uNTpas TAY 4 A e 4 > aA A Los 3 / X Texovoay Tos dat yevvapévous eyBnvar, pavepoy waow éotl.) Kal i% 9 f a , ¢ Ms A / , dia.’Hoatov tod mpodpyntov, ws mpoeypayyaper, etpntat, tTiva Tpdmoy , \ ¢c / (aes i \ a ? , devfovra Tas dpaptias of auaprnoavtes Kal petavoovvtes. “ENE XO \ ¢ / \ , cps Ae \ em d€ ovtws. Aovoacbe, kaOapol yeverOe, apédere Tas Tovnptas amo “ lod ¢ lod / i ° / > o \ ¥: TOY WuxGy tpay, padere kadov rrovety, Kpivare dppared kal Stxarocare “~ lol 7 > xnpav, kal devre kat OvadexOadpev, Aeyet Kupios* kal ey @ow ai c , Loe c A c vy a \ aay 5 c dpaptiat tbuay ws ouikovy, cel Epioy NevKava, Kal cay dow as , c , ~ > A \ \ ° 4 ¢ , KOKKLWoY, @s xlova NevKav@. “Eay O€ py eicaxovonré pov, paxatpa Paes 4 e A \ , / a: a upas Karéderar’ TO yap ordua Kupiov eddAnoe Tadra. Kai \éyor O€ eis ToUTO Tapa TOY droaTéAav eudOopev TovTOV. > A A , ¢ c lod ~ > Ere.on, THY TpoTHY yeveow nay ayvoodvres, KaT avayKnY yeyev- , > is nn cal A , A a , A > , vynpeba €& vypas oTopas Kata pik THY Tey yovewv mpos aAdnAovS, \ > Aa) ON . cal > al , ud ‘ kat ev €Geat Gavdrors Kat wovnpais avatpodais yeydvapev, Oras py / \ > dvaykns TéKva poe ayvolas pévapev, ad mpoatpecews Kal emt- , ’ , , c ”~ ¢ ‘\ e , ~ oTnuns, aperews Te apaptidy Urep Sy mponudpropey TUX@pEY, EV TO a > / al « / > un , vdate emovopaterar TH Eopev@ avayevynOjvat, kal petravonoayte emt o c , \ a A faa er \ , ~ . Tols npapTnpevots TO TOU Ilarpos Tay Gov Kat Seomdrov Ocov dvopa Mle \ a , > d , fa) \ , ei peal. ‘ avuTO TOUVTO UOVOY ETL \EVOVTOS TOU TOY ovadpevoy ayovTos €7t TO APPENDTX TO LECTURE VY. 929 ~ , a \ Oe 319, OV ~ 2 \ »” ae Al: , , Aoutpév. “Ovoua yap Te appnT@ Ge@ ovdeis Exet eimetv’ ei S€ Tis 7, 3 /, 4 \ a+ , ca ‘ ~ Tohunoerey eivat Aeyetv, pEmNve THY AGwToy paviay. Kadetrar dé todo A \ Us ekg , \ , a = F Td hourpoy hatiapos, as PariCopevayv THyv Oiavoray TGy TavTa pavOavdv- Tov. Kater dvdpatos dé Incod Xpiorov rod ctavpaberros émi Tov- 7 a a a tiov IluAdrov, cat én’ ovdpatos Ivevparos “Ayiov 0 dia ray mpodntay e \ \ A > ~ / is , , mpoexnpv&e Ta KaTa TOV Inoovy Tmayta, 6 PaTidpevos hoverat. cal > n , Kal To Aourpov 67 TodTo axovaartes of Saipoves dia Tod mpopyrov , e A Keknpuypevoy, evnoynoay Kal pavri¢e éavrovs Tovs els Ta tepa avTav 3 , \ / > Ca \ ‘\ , ] emtBaivovtas, Kal mpootevar avTois péAXovtas, AowBas Kal Kvio‘as aTro- ~ 7. cal Tehovvras. Téeov dé Kai Aover Oat amidvras mpw EhOecty evi Ta iepa, a4 ad 3 A evOa tOpuvrat, evepyovct, * * Kk sl Pa € = \ \ X o A \ , ‘ Huets dé pera Td ovTw@s Nodoat Tov TeMELcpLEvOY Kal oVyKaTaTebEL- > 4 pévov, ert Tos eyouevous “Adehovs ayouer, EvOa curmypévor cic, Kowads evyas Toinodpevoe UmEp TE EavT@Y Kal TOV heaticbéyTos Kal = Soe) a a Gov Tavtaxod Tavrey eitdves’ Oras karakia@bapey, Ta adynb7 pab- a s > 7 > L \ ‘ , lal > , évtes, Kat O. Epywy ayabot mohitevtal kat puAakes TOY evTeTa\péevey sy e cal > evpeOnvat, Oras THy aiwvioy catnpiay coOGmev. *AAjdovs Pyare aora{opucOa, mavodmevot TOY EvYOY. + 7 a n a 3 rt EA t Enetta mpoopepetat, T@ Ilpoectate trav “AdeApoy dptos kat , A \ , \ = \ = \ , a moTHploy vOaTos Kai Kpduatos, Kat obTos haBwy aivov kai dd£av TO Ilarpt t@v ddwy dia Tod ovduatos Tod Yiov Kat Tov Ilvevparos Tov SA , > f \ > / iz \ A n ys ylov avaréumer kal evxyapiotiay vmep Tod Katné&tacOa Totter > a = 2 Tap avTov emt moAV Toletrat” ov duYTEheGaVTOS Tas Evyas Kal THY > , cal e x A b al , oe ? , > evxaplotiav, Tas 6 map@y ads emevhnpet Aeyov' “Auny. Evxapio- U A an , a A Tnoavtos S€ Tod IpoeaT@tos Kai emevnunoavtos mavrTos Tov haod oi , Le rc , , ¢ , cal , Kahovpevot tap nuty Avaxovot dwWdacw éxdoT@ TOY TapdvTmY jreTa- r A EA v4 lal AaBeiy amd Tod evyaptaotnOevTos Gprov Kal otvov Kal VdaTos Kal Tots > ~ b) 4 AY A tA fal SG. es, > ov Tapovow amodpéepovot. Kal 7 tpody avtn Kadeitat tap jpyiv Ev- LAN Sh ees) > < 2 ~ Ins 3 By a , Xapioria’ js ovdevi GAM petacxelv eEdv eoTW, 7} TH TLoTEVOYTL > a > n , GAn9n etvar ra Sedidaypeva bp jyav, kal ovoapev@ Td trép ade- ¢ a a A gews apuaptiav kal els avayévynow dovtpoy, Kal oUT@s BiovyTe ws 6 Xpioros mapéd@xey. Ov yap ws kowvdy aptov ovde Kowvdy TdOpa TavTa / . lad Aap Pavopev.—TJustin Apol. I, cap. 61, 62, 65, 66. In the Dialogue with Trypho, we find several allusions to baptism in the same strain— 230 APPENDIX TO LECTURE V. Et tis xaOapds ovK exer xeipas, hovedcba, Kal xabapds eotiv® e Ce oh om ov yap 5n ye eis Badaveiov iuas emepumev Hoaias arohovaopevous eket ca c \ Tov dbdvov kat Tas GAXas dpaprtias, ods ovde TO THS Oaddoons ixavov - A r , wav vOwp Kabapioa’ adda, ws eikds, mada TOUTO ekeivo TO TwTTpPLOV Aourpoy jv, O elero Tois peraywvmoKovot.—Dial. cum Tryph. p. 229. Ed. Par. A A Ov ravrny Thy Kata odpka TrapehdBopey rreptTopny, GAAd mveEv- patikny, hy Evoy kal of Guowo epidagav. ‘Hyeis dé dia rod Barrio- > \ I A € Ai 2 / \ A a A A a fatos avriy, eme.dr auaptadol eyeydvetpey, Out TO Eheos TO Tapa TOU cod eXdBopuev, kai maow edheroy dpoiws AapPaverv.—Ibid. p. 261. Again, after having represented the deliverance of Noah as a type of the salvation of Christ, he says, “O yap Xpiotds, mpardroxos , , xX» A > A , e) , 4 “a maons Ktivews dy, Kal apy) madw GAdov yévous yéeyovev, TOU > , en) > lal oe \ , \ 4 Le) Ls avayevynbevtos tm abrov Ov vdaros Kal mictews Kal Evdov, Tov TO , a ~ + 5 A , A ¢ na > , HuvoTnptoy Tov aTavpov €xorTos’ Ov tpdmov Kat 6 Noe ev Evlo duer@On eroxovpevos Tois Vdaor peta Tov idiwv.—Ibid. p. 367. > Eiroy dé, d¢ vdaros kal riotews Kal Evdov of mpomapackevaldpe- \ a 249 <9 oe > , A vol, Kat peTavoovytes ed ols nuaptov, expevéovrar THy peAovaay erépxerOa Tov Geov xpiow.—lIbid. p. 868. To the mode of interpreting the words, regeneration, illumination, washing, forgiveness, and similar expressions, I have adverted in the lecture. See also the passage which is prefixed, and which, although it refers to Jewish baptisms, intimates that Justin did not regard any baptism of water as an opus operatum, a mystic deed for the salva- tion of the ungodly. He also clearly distinguishes water baptism from the baptism of the Spirit.—Dial. c. Tr. p. 246. LECTURE, VE. THE MODE OF CHBISTIAN BAPTISM. “And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.” —Acts xi. 15, 16. “ Hi vero qui in ecclesia baptizantur, minus indulgentie et gratis divine consecuti esse videantur, et tantus honor habeatur hereticis, ut inde venientes non interrogentur utrumne loti sint an perfusi, utrumne Clinici sint an Peri- patetici.”—Cyprian. Epist. lib. iv. ep. 7. Brrore we venture upon the controversy respecting the proper subjects of Christian baptism, it may be convenient to defend, as briefly as perspicuity will allow, the opinions we hold upon the mode of its administration. Two in- quiries are suggested: the one, Are we bound by the terms of the commission to administer baptism according to the form of words there prescribed; that is, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost? The other, Is immersion the only proper mode of administer- ing this ordinance ? As to the former inquiry, the command of our Lord seems so clear and absolute, as to admit of no exception. I do not see how any person can baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with- out mentioning the names of these Divine Persons; by an act of invocation, imploring their blessing; or by an act of authority, administering by their commission; or by an act of dedication, devoting the person to their service. I 939 THE MODE OF dare not absolutely assert that baptism, in the name of Christ only, would require to be repeated in the full and complete formula, but I maintain that the administrator, so far as he makes this commission his authority, is bound by its terms to baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Before this commis- sion was given, baptism, administered by John into the name of Him who was to come, or by the disciples of Christ into the name of Jesus, was, I believe, legitimate and perfect for ail purposes, because it was so ordained by the supreme authority; but since the recognition of the Persons is distinctly prescribed, to omit any of them would be an act of disobedience to the command of Christ. It is true that in the Acts of the Apostles persons are said to have been “ baptized into the name of Jesus ;” but in the brief notices of the several baptisms mentioned in that book, the expression may denote that they received Chris- tian baptism. However that may have been, such inci- dental notices are not, as authorities, to be opposed to the clear, distinct, formal, and express commission of our blessed Lord. I do not assert that the precise words are essential, for if they were, we must use a Greek formulary ; but the distinct recognition of the Persons is not the ex- ternal form, but the great truth of the service. In ecclesiastical antiquity, there is a remarkable uni- formity respecting the form of words employed in baptism, From Justin Martyr, who says in the passage cited in the preceding lecture, that ‘“ converts are washed in the name of the Father and Lord of all things, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit,” we find an uninter- rupted series of references to this formula. Irenzeus cites it as the commission of regeneration given to the dis- ciples.* ‘Tertullian says, ‘‘ Christ appointed baptism to be administered, not in the name of One, but Three: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.”} The apostolical canons * Ady. Her. 1. iii. c. 19. + Cont. Prax. c. 26. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 233 order bishops and priests to be deposed who presume to baptize in any other way.* Athanasius and others declare such baptism to be void as was performed without the mention of the Trinity ;{ although this was not the general opinion, as in many instances, heretics who had been bap- tized only in the name of Christ, were admitted into the church without re-baptism, on their confession of the Trinity under the hand of the bishop. The dispute on the validity of heretical baptism was made very much to depend upon the use of this formulary, as will appear on consulting the letters of Firmilian and Cyprian on the controversy, which in those times provincial bishops were not ashamed nor afraid to maintain with the bishop of Rome. The trine immersion became catholic, as an im- mersion before the name of each Person, and citations to superfluity may be easily found upon the invocation of the Trinity in baptisra.t This discussion, therefore, need no longer detain us. The second and more controverted question respecting the mode of administering baptism, may be thus proposed. Is it indispensable, in the administration of this rite, to immerse the subject? We believe that immersion is not indispensable,—that pouring or sprinkling is sufficient to constitute the Christian rite, which is the emblem of the cleansing of the heart by the truth and Spirit of Christ. But let the opinion we advance be distinctly understood. We do not plead for any one specific mode, we do not con- tend for sprinkling in preference to immersion, except as a question of right. ‘lo act only upon the defensive is our purpose. If, however, it be asked, why we do not submit to immersion, seeing we violate no principle, as we have no religious scruple upon the subject, we reply, that to allow anything which is not imposed in a ceremonial * Canon. Apost. ¢. 49. + Epist. ad Serapion. { Expos. Fidei, in Opera Justini Mart. p. 377, Ed. Par. 234 THE MODE OF observance to be obligatory upon Christians, is to convert a form into the substance of a sacrament,—to invest the sign, which may be conveniently changed, with the import- ance of the immutable truth. To immerse, unless we think it obligatory, for the sake of union, would be, as we conscientiously believe, to concede a principle of more importance than baptism itself. If I eat what I honestly believe to be the Lord’s supper, even though I should use rice for bread, or the juice of the currant for the fruit of the vine, that to me is the act of submission to the legisla- tion of Christ in commemorating his death; and so, if I observe what I believe is Christian baptism, even though I may be mistaken, that observance is to me the act of sub- mission to the legislation of Christ, in receiving what I believe to be the authorized symbol of Christian truth. He who denies that the washing which I administer in honest obedience to the command of Christ is Christian baptism, ought to have very clear and incontrovertible evidence on which he rests; as he maintains that my con- scientious submission to the authority of the King of Zion, in performing a religious ceremony, is invalid, because I have mistaken the form of its administration. Is not this to make a mere form a matter of inherent importance ; and is not such a procedure at variance with the spirit of the Christian religion? Sprinkling can be nothing in itself; immersion can be nothing in itself; the kingdom of heaven is not in either, but in ‘righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost;” each must depend for its validity, whatever that term may mean, upon the command of Christ; that is, upon the conscientious construction which each disciple puts upon the words of that command, as he honestly strives to understand it. In any sacrament there is nothing moral, nothing holy, nothing religious, nothing of the least worth, except conscientious obedience to Christ. If I believe that sprinkling is an act of obedi- ence to the command of Christ, in silently submitting to CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. ao0 be immersed with no better reason than that no other mode will satisfy my neighbour, I allow him to legislate for me in the kingdom of Christ. His opinion may be honest, it may be correct, and it is law to him; but it must not become law tome. So long as I honestly believe sprinkling with water to be Christian baptism, of what greater value would immersion be to me, were I to prac- tise it? It would not, in my hands, be submission to the will of Christ, and so far it would not be a religious ser- vice. Yet the Baptists declare we have no baptism, deny that to be baptism which we conscientiously believe to be so, on account of a difference in form; and in their contro- versy among themselves, whether we ought or ought not to be admitted to the Lord’s supper, make the whole of the argument turn upon the question, whether unbaptized believers are admissible to the communion of the Christian church. ‘Their doctrine is that, in reference to a positive ordinance, conscientious obedience to what is honestly believed to be the command of Christ, is not sufficient to constitute the Christian symbol of the blessings repre- sented, and that we are to be regarded as unbaptized disciples. Can this doctrine be consistently maintained by those who believe that no spiritual virtue is derived either from immersion or from sprinkling? Will they deny that the institution is absolute law to others as they conscientiously interpret it? What can there be important in any sacra- mental institution, any religious emblem, (unless we admit the Catholic or Tractarian theology,) more than the con- scientious act of obedience to the understood will of Christ? If I believe sprinkling to be baptism, in so ad- ministering the rite, and acting according to my inter- pretation of the commission of Christ, I do that which my Saviour will acknowledge to be what it really is, my sincere act of obedience to his own command. In these things, whatsoever is not of faith is sin. But if I do all that I 236 THE MODE OF believe Christ requires, and all that with my present belief Christ does require, who is the man to demand more at my hands, and to say I do not virtually baptize, although to the best of my knowledge, and therefore of my ability, I observe the commission of Christ? Have I no Christian baptism because I do not understand Greek quite so well as my Baptist brother? for the whole question is resolved into the meaning of a Greek word. If in that learned tongue I cannot say Shibboleth, but only Sibboleth, has he the right for the philological inaccuracy, and for nothing else, to exclude me from the number of those who are born of water, and therefore have entered into external relation with the kingdom of God? Good Baptist, be not so severe on an erring brother. 'Than conscientious obedience to the command of Christ, what else there is sacred, what else important, what else valuable, I wish you would tell me; as I have, I trust, as well as you, this conscientious obedience, the essence and reality of the service. The principle for which I contend being the very life of all obedience to positive institutions, a principle distin- guished from all formalism, and identified with conscience, with charity, with liberty, with the right of private judg- ment, and even with the supremacy of Christ in the church, appears to me far more important than immersion or sprinkling, or any other mode of administering a sacra- ment. This is our answer to those who say to us, Why do you not, for the sake of union, cease from your sprink- ling, and submit to immersion, to which you acknowledge you have no conscientious objection? The Baptist creates the objection by insisting upon the obligation. I can easily imagine the reply that may be advanced. How far, it may be said, will you carry your principle? will you acknowledge every kind of service, in whatever way performed, which any person may imagine, in the wild vagaries of his fancy, to be baptism, or the Lord’s supper? CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 237 To this objection I rejoin, The principle is not to be sur- rendered because it may be abused, or because its applica- tion in some supposed instances may be attended with perplexity and doubt. The objection is equally applicable to mixed communion, and to every other recognition of religious acts or religious persons. ‘To the inquiry, How far will you go, and where will you stand? the reply is, So far, and only so far, as I believe the parties, being Chris- tian, have in a Christian spirit arrived at their conclusion. I have no hesitation in saying, I do not regard the sacrifice of the mass by a Romanist, as the commemoration of the death of Christ, because I do not believe that any Chris- tian man could, with due diligence, honestly arrive at such a conclusion; but if I see a Christian man of stern tem- perance principles, who conscientiously believes, after care- ful and devout examination, that it is his duty to abstain from wine at the supper, and that his ordinary beverage is the proper substitute, if he communicate with bread and water, dare I take upon myself to say he does not com- memorate the death of Christ, and observe all that to him is necessary in the supper of the Lord? If he conscien- tiously thinks that he observes the dying command of his Saviour, who am J, because I believe that wine should be employed, to say that his conscientious act of obedience to the command of his Lord, according to his own honest construction, is not the emblematical commemoration of the death of Christ? ‘T'o act otherwise would be not only to walk uncharitably towards my brother, but to impose my fallible interpretation of a positive precept as a uni- versal rule upon the Christian church. The denial of the principle for which I contend, involves in it the assertion that Christ has not imposed upon his disciples the duty of observing his positive institutions, according to their own interpretation of his words. I am here contending, not with those who say immersion is right, but with those 238 THE MODE OF who say there is no virtual baptism without it; and that I, through my mistake, am not in the kingdom of heaven, or have got into it without being born of water. So important do I consider this principle, that it creates the chief interest I feel in the controversy respecting the mode of baptism. ‘T’o decide upon the comparative merits of sprinkling or immersion would, in itself, occupy very little of my thoughts; but when I find the assertion posi- tively made and maintained, that sprinkling is no baptism even to those who conscientiously observe it, | am induced to look a little further, and to inquire what is the plain, direct, and incontrovertible evidence in favour of this ex- clusive mode, the defenders of which are so confident and well satisfied, as to declare all Christians except them- selves to be unbaptized. When one party asserts that the Independents have no church, and another that we have no ministry, and a third, about as coolly, in the same exclusive spirit, that we have no baptism, they must excuse us, if in this pitiable and forlorn condition, without apos- tolic church, ministry, or baptism, we attempt to do a little more than to vindicate our own right to decide for ourselves; and seeing we are thus attacked, to contend for the validity of sprinkling in a controversy on which the exclusiveness of our opponents has conferred a fictitious importance. I say the importance is fictitious, for, reasoning from an analogous instance, I do not believe the apostle Paul, were he now living upon earth, would think it worth his while to decide the question between the immersionists and the sprinklers. He, as I think can be clearly shown from his conduct in a similar controversy, content with the act of obedience to the command of Christ, according to the understanding of each party, would scrupulously avoid expressing an opinion in favour of either, but would zeal- ously maintain his own doctrine: ‘‘ Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind,” or let every man act upon CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 239 his own persuasion. I do not wish to affect an air of paradox, but I ask both parties to consider, if this was not precisely his conduct in the controversy respecting the observance of particular days. ‘‘ One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike.” Whether this controversy respected the religious observ- ance of the Lord’s-day, which we believe to be obligatory upon Christians, or whether it respected the Jewish sab- bath, which we believe not to be obligatory upon Chris- tians, or whatever was the day esteemed above others, is of no importance in the discussion on which we are en- tering. The dispute respected a positive institution, and there must have been a right and a wrong in their contro- versy. ‘The controvertists, in their zeal for truth or party, no doubt plentifully charged each other with disobedience to the positive law of Christ, on the one side probably with making a sabbath without Divine authority, on the other, with breaking a sabbath which Divine authority had made. These men in the apostolic age were the worthy precursors of modern polemicals. How easily might the apostle, in the plenitude of his inspiration, have decided between them! He knew very well whether the day was, or was not, of Divine institution. Although one word from his lips would have silenced the angry disputants, and esta- blished the truth, that word he carefully suppressed. He saw on both sides the same unfeigned respect for the authority of Christ; he saw on both sides all that was good in hallowing the day, if it were appointed to be hal- lowed, or in not hallowing it, if it were not so appointed; and, therefore, instead of adjudicating the question immed- iately in dispute, he decided one of far more importance arising out of it: ‘‘ He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.” Can we suppose that, were he upon earth, he would construe the dispute upon immer- sion more strictly than he did the question of the Divine 240 THE MODE OF authority of a holy day? Would he not be content with the service which each party believes to be in accordance with the will of Christ? The fair interpretation of his — words, so as to be intelligible in the noise and turmoil of modern controversy, is, as I think, He that immerseth, immerseth unto the Lord, and he that sprinkleth, sprink- leth to the Lord. All that is good in baptism, both parties retain. ‘This, as we contend, is the true principle in all positive institutions; and for little else than the Christian liberty implied in it are we careful in this lecture. . I can, and I do, most conscientiously avow, that I have not the slightest wish to make a single convert to sprink- ling. Having no preference for any mode, I only attempt to vindicate our right to be regarded as baptized Chris- tians, to which character we have, I believe, as good a title as any church on earth can supply. If, in entering the holiest by a new and living way which Christ hath conse- crated for us through the vail, we can but satisfy ourselves that our hearts are sprinkled from an evil conscience, we are in no trouble because our brethren, as they emerge from the baptistry, say that our bodies are not washed with pure water. Although they insinuate, I am grieved to say it, by the press of the Baptist Tract Society, that we are the least in the kingdom of heaven, we have no desire to adjudicate the position which they occupy in the com- mon temple of the Lord’s congregation. May both they and we become greater in that kingdom! As it is our opinion that neither the use of the verb Barrifo in the New Testament, sustains the conclusion of our Baptist friends on philological grounds, nor even conceding that the word invariably means to dip, are we, on that account, so to restrict the administration of the Christian rite as to exclude pouring and sprinkling, it would be the most logical arrangement, in the first place, to notice the use and construction of the word, and after- wards to elucidate the principle of interpretation for which CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Q4] we contend in reference to positive institutions. It may, however, be more convenient to preserve the connexion of what may be called the theological part of this lecture as distinct from the philological; and, therefore, for the sake of completing what we have to say upon the principle of interpreting positive institutions, we venture to reverse this order, and to observe, in the first instance, that, even conceding the whole of the philological question, we are not restricted to the conclusion of our Baptist brethren ; and in the next, that their philology is not to be conceded in the discussion of this question. We controvert the conclusion which they deduce from their premises,—we demur to the premises from which they derive their con- clusion. I trust that the use of the analytical, rather than the synthetical, order will not obscure the reasoning. If, however, any resolute adherent to logical arrangement should think that we ought first to examine the premises, and afterwards estimate the value of the conclusion, he may, if he please, first read the latter part of this lecture, and then resume the subject from this passage. Many readers will probably think it not worth their while to read, in any form, a lecture upon the everlasting dispute between sprinkling and dipping; and I agree with them, that the dispute in itself is about as trifling as any—ver- micular question (Lord Bacon would call it, because the life of the disputants is quickened by the deadness of the subject,) over which the seraphical doctors of the schools ever sharpened their logical intellects. Were it not for an important principle of more general application, which is involved in the inquiry, I would not write another line upon such a subject. By this arrangement, faulty as it may seem, I also consult the comfort of the reader who has np taste for philology, and who may safely get through one part of the argument, without being scared by the barbaric forms of dead languages. ‘ That our baptism ought to be acknowledged, even if we x R 242 TH MODE OF have mistaken the mode of administering it, I have main- tained; because the ordinance itself being only a sign of evangelical truth, the recognition of the truth signified in obedience to the command of Christ, comprehends all that is essential or important. I have now to maintain that we are not labouring under mistake, but that we have full liberty, according to the principles of interpretation stated in the New Testament, in construing the words which relate to a positive institution, to consider its nature and design, and preserving the integrity of the emblem, to adopt in exhibiting it any mode which is in accordance with its nature, and by which its design may be carried into effect. This principle appears to me not only to be scriptural and important, but to demand a prominent place in theology, as the proper antagonist of Tractarianism, and every other species of formalism. Amidst the tendencies of the present day to magnify the importance of form and ritual, it becomes us strenuously to maintain that the signs are made for the things signified, and not the things sig- nified for the signs,—that the signs are not of the slightest value, any further than they symbolise the evangelical truth. Such a principle, it is conceded, is liable to great abuse, and therefore it becomes those who defend it to consider carefully by what restrictions it ought to be guarded, and how it is distinguished from the power of the church to decree rites and ceremonies. Yet, surely, there is an obvious distinction between regarding a sign as having no other importance than that which it acquires from the truth which it signifies; so that, if the significa- tion of the truth be preserved, all that is important in the sacrament is secured; and ascribing importance to a sig- nificant act, because it is ordained by an uninspired church In the former instance we interpret the command of @brist in the spirit which, as we believe, he himself has recom- memded ; in the latter we observe forms because they are enacted by that notorious usurper, called ecclesiastical CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 243 authority. In the former, we say, Christ, the only legis- lator, has ordained so much and no more; in the latter, men, affecting his authority, have ordained so much and no less. Whether we are right or wrong in our opinion, this distinction is plain, obvious, and undeniable. It is often said by immersionists that in positive institu- tions we are bound to observe strictly the very words of the precept by which they are appointed, as, unlike moral laws, these institutions have no other authority than that which is derived from the words of the enactment. Mr. Booth and many other Baptist writers strenuously insist upon this obligation. We believe that such a representa- tion is more specious than solid, and that it will not bear the proper test of Scripture. The spirit of moral law is the congruity of the action with the fitness of things; the spirit of positive law is the congruity of the ob- servance with the truth symbolised. In moral obligation there is a right and a wrong, independently of verbal or written law, which is only an exponent of man’s duty, and cannot be varied without a compromise of truth. In positive institutions, the congruity of the sign, and consequently its propriety, may vary with the changes of circumstances; and in the variation the spirit of the sacrament may be preserved, when the letter has become inappropriate. The phylacteries of the Pharisees, which incurred the censure of our Lord, arose out of the literal observance of a positive precept, to which neither our Lord nor his disciples ever paid the least regard. The injunc- tion of the Mosaic law was expressed in terms the most distinct and plain—‘“ 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 thine house, and on thy gates.” Was every Jew obliged by this law to wear the phylactery upon his hand, and the frontlet upon his forehead, and to paint Scripture upon his door-post? During the scarcity of copies of the law, this Q44 THE MODE OF institute was probably observed ; but the erection of syna- gogues and multiplication of copies rendering it unneces- sary, the observance, like many others corresponding with the letter of the law, became Pharisaic, and was so regarded by our Lord. The letter of the sabbatical institution has faded, but its spirit survives in the religious observance of the Lord’s day. It may happen, that in the mutations of time the sign may express the reverse of its original significa- tion, and so its unvaried preservation may remain, at the expense of all the significancy of the rite. In such in- stances, is the external ceremony to be conceded to the evangelical truth, or is the evangelical truth to be sacrificed to the external ceremony? Scripture must decide; but, before I appeal to its decision, let me observe, that our Baptist friends concede the principle for which we contend, and uniformly act upon it in every positive institution, except that of baptism. let us glance at their deflections from the literality of positive institutions. ‘Salute one another with a holy kiss,” says St. Paul to the Romans. ‘ Greet ye one another with a holy kiss,” he says twice to the Corinthians. “Greet all the brethren with a holy kiss,” he says to the Thessalonians. ‘‘ Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity,” says St. Peter to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. Here is a positive institution, une- quivocally enjoined by apostolical authority. Churches, in various circumstances, and in distant places, are expressly commanded to adopt a specific mode of salutation. Two apostles ordain the ancient sacrament of the holy kiss, the sacred sign of Christian brotherhood and love. Can more be said for the sacrament of baptism? There is in the New Testament no positive command to Christians gene- rally to be baptized, no positive command to any except the apostles to administer baptism; for the original com- mission was given to the apostles specifically, as is obvious from the assurance of miraculous power with which it was CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Q45 accompanied. That baptism is to be perpetuated in the church is a matter of inference, from the fact of its having been administered by those who were not apostles. But for the sign of the kiss we depend upon no such inference ; it is armed with apostolic authority, and allows no room for reasoning; we have, what we have not with regard either to baptism or the supper, an express command addressed to several churches. We ask our Baptist brethren, are these five verses of the New Testament frivolous and unmeaning? If it be said the sign of the holy kiss (and we do not read of holy baptism, or of the holy supper,) was. intended only for the apostolic age, we ask, by what argu- ment can this be proved, which does not equally apply to baptism or the supper? A perpetual sign, or sacrament of brotherly affection, may be as desirable for the church, as a perpetual sign or sacrament of the death of Christ. The only defence, I imagine, our Baptist brethren can offer— at least the only defence I can make for myself—is, the form or sign of brotherly love may be varied, notwithstand- ing the express injunction, delivered in words as plain as words can be written, provided we express the thing signi- fied ; and in our churches all that is important in the holy kiss belongs to the right hand of fellowship, or to any other affectionate mode of salutation. The kiss is nothing more than a sign of which we retain the thing signified, in a form more expedient in this age, and more accordant with modern feelings. I do not immerse, for the same reason that I do not kiss church-members, with this differ- ence against immersion—baptism was a sign expressly committed only to the apostles, and by us received through inferential reasoning—the kiss was a sign expressly en- joined upon the churches ; and with this also, in baptism we retain the sign, the use of water, if we change the mode; for the kiss we substitute entirely a new sign. Sacraments have been defined by Augustine and ot ers as visible words. They are signs of truth addressed to 246 THE MODE OF the eye rather than to the ear. As to the literal observance of signs, whether visible or audible, the principle must be identical. If the disciples of Christ are expressly com- manded in their religious observances to repeat certain words, or to do certain acts, as the signs of truth, what- ever they may think of the question respecting the duty or propriety of literal adherence to those signs, the words and the acts resting upon the same authority, and de- signed for the same purpose, are obligatory in the same degree, but only in the same degree, upon the members of the Christian church. How then do we decide the ques- tion in verbal formularies? ‘ One of his disciples said, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also-taught his disciples. And he said unto them, (not to the applicant only, but to them all,)‘ When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven,’” andso on. Nothing can be more express than the words, ‘‘ When ye pray, say.” The verbal signs of the Lord’s formulary of prayer are prescribed with quite as much dis- tinctness and directness as were ever claimed by the most zealous Baptist for the commission to immerse. Must we, therefore, repeat the Lord’s prayer in every devotional service? Must we restrict our public devotion to these words? Or do we regard the formulary as simply a guide for our religious exercise, without being restricted to the use of the identical petitions? Our Baptist friends shall fight this battle on our behalf with such as insist upon imposing this formulary in every devotional service. Every argument they adduce in defence of their departure from the form of prayer will tell with equal force against their exclusive practice of immersion; or if they can devise arguments applicable to words but not to acts, their ingen- uity greatly surpasseth our poor comprehension. Should it be said the name of the rite is implied in immersion ; precisely, we reply, as the name is implied in the holy kiss. Sprinkling is in no sense immersion, says the Baptist; and the right hand of fellowship is in no CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. QA7 sense a kiss, responds the echo of his aphorism. If he reply, Baptism is a sacrament, a sacred thing, something more than a mere emblem; then here is the first blush of that Tractarianism which some of our Baptist brethren have recently and most unwarrantably charged upon us. Whatfis there in a sacrament more than an emblem? What is there in baptism essentially different from the kiss of charity? But allowing the mystic sanctity of the sacraments to escape without farther remark, let us notice another illustration of our argument in a rite which is ~ admitted to be of at least equal authority with baptism— an illustration derived also from its scriptural and appro- priate name. Our Baptist friends admit, (at least I have never heard of any who deny it,) that the apostle, by the phrase kupraxdy Seizvov, the Lord’s supper, in the eleventh chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, means the sacramental commemoration of the death of Christ. With them, as with us, the service is commonly called The Supper of the Lord. But what would our brethren say to any person who, haying”studied logic and philology, “‘ after the most straitest sect of our religion,” should stoutly and stiffly contend that a repast in the morning could not be the supper of the Lord? Whatever may be the meaning of Barrito, the signification of detmvov in the time of our Lord ,is incontrovertible. Relying on the proper and literal translation of the word, would the straitest of the Baptists maintain, that whenever the religious rite is not literally a supper, it is not the authorized and sacramental ¢ommemoration of the death of Christ? Certainly insti- tuted after sunset, and receiving the name of the evening meal, must it therefore of necessity be invariably solem- nized in the evening? Will any say the first Christians, who assembled before daybreak to observe this rite, did not come together to eat the Lord’s Supper? Will they maintain that the modern churches, who keep this feast 248 THE MODE OF in the morning, do not scripturally observe the command of Christ—do not eat the supper in remembrance of him ? When a Baptist who observes the Lord’s supper in the early part of the day says, I cannot baptize unless I im- merse, alleging the signification of the word, may I not reply—First cast the beam out of thine own eye—be con- sistent in the use of a word whose meaning is far more obvious—do not substitute the dporov for the deimvov, and celebrate a breakfast instead of a supper. The heroes of Homer, indeed, partook of their Setrvop in the morning, and their successors seem to have made it their dinner; but long before the apostolic age it had become regularly and constantly the evening meal. If that be not baptism which in the proper sense of the word is not immersion, neither is that the Lord's supper which in the proper sense of the word is no supper at all. The ancient Christians could fabricate a heresy out of almost anything, as the heresy of calling the constellations by heathen names; yet even they, observing the supper most of them in the morning, but some, as in Egypt, in the evening, did not brand one another with the odious name of heretic on account of that difference of usage. Or even if a Baptist reply, I, most carefully eschewing all such unscriptural innovations, regularly observe the supper in the afternoon, and therefore I am not the homo to whom you address your argumentum ad hominem, still I inquire, Do you assert that all churches which communi- cate in the morning, do not rightly commemorate the death of the Lord? If you do not, why is the signification of a word not to be pressed in one instance as you press it in the other, unless it be that in one instance you are free from the sectarian bias with which in the other you are heavily encumbered? Judging impartially, without any undue influence, you say that the sense of a name is not to be pressed in a matter of form or mode of administra- tion, where the death of Christ is commemorated; but CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 249 judging under the influence of preconceived opinion, you press the signification of a name in baptism, as if it were the essential part of the ordinance. You admit that to be the supper of the Lord which is no supper at all, and yet, with strange inconsistency, you will not admit that to be baptism which is no immersion. Nor am I sure that this argument will not touch the Baptist Gf such there be,) who uniformly and from prin- ciple observes the supper in the evening, and excommun- icates, as cordially as if they were unbaptized, all who partake of it a few hours earlier. A supper is a meal, so much food as is sufficient to refresh the body. The small quantity of bread and wine usually taken by each com- municant is quite as much a pretence to a supper, a shadow of a meal, as is sprinkling a pretence to immer- sion, a shadow of a washing. If so small a quantity of bread is yet sufficient for a ritual observance called the supper, why is not so small a quantity of water as we com- monly use sufficient for a ritual observance called bap- tism? Were any church to insist upon the necessity of eating sufficient food to constitute a refreshing meal, our Baptist friends would unite with us in reprehending the disposition to magnify a mere form, and to make it essen- tial to the communion service. ‘They with us would say, the essence of the sacrament is the commemoration of the death of Christ; and the form, provided it be suitable for the commemoration, is not of the smallest importance. They would smile at the learning which cited authorities to prove that the ancients never supped upon one morsel of bread. In so precise an adherence to words, the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life ; “Mutato nomine de te Fabula narratur.” Should it be said that the service was originally instituted after supper, and therefore could not have been intended 250 THE MODE OF to be a full and refreshing meal, I admit the force of the remark; but this very circumstance shows how little dependence is to be placed upon the name of a positive in- stitution. Ifa rite, instituted when he had supped and all had eaten sufficient food, is, nevertheless, called the Lord’s supper; who, with such an illustration before his eyes, would insist upon the meaning of a name, as indispens- able or decisive in determining the nature of a religious ‘observance? Its name, however acquired, does not im- pose upon us, nor ever did impose upon the church, the duty of making it an evening meal.* Should any one say, * This part of the lecture required only the reference to the supposed case of a man of stern temperance principles substituting water for wine. I venture here to add, as my own opinion, in accordance with these principles, although nothing in the argument depends upon it, that if a reclaimed drunkard feels, as I am told some do, a rising propensity to gratify his old desire if ever he taste wine, it is his duty either to communicate only in the bread, or else to substitute for wine his usual beverage. To encounter the risk of undue excitement for the sake of a symbol, would be to pay tithe of mint, and anise, and cummin, to the neglect of the weightier matters of the « law. In the following observations of Professor Stuart, of Andover, I most cordially agree: ‘“‘ The whole symbolic instruction conveyed by the ordinance of the Lord’s supper is this; what food and drink, represented by the more important articles of the same, are to the body for its nourishment and sup- port and comfort, that a crucified Saviour is to the soul for its life and pre- servation and comfort. Could not the inhabitants of a country, then, to whom it might not be possible to procure bread and wine, when it was proper to celebrate the Lord’s supper, employ other aliments which would symbolize the death of Christ, and the benefits of that death to the believer, with the like significancy ? “Look at the ease of Iceland, during that year in which the island re- mained, for the whole summer, enclosed in the floating ice that had been driven there from the Polar Sea, and no access from abroad to the island was possible, nor any egress from it. Might not the inhabitants of the island, reduced to live upon fish and water, have celebrated the Lord’s supper ae- ceptably upon these elements? Would it not have been as monitory and significant to them, as bread and wine, and as acceptable to Him who insti- tuted the feast? The man who doubts this, must believe in the mysterious and miraculous virtue of the sacrament, as an opus operatum. With such an one it is not my present purpose to contend. Christians, as I must think, have reason to bless God that the principles that man cherishes, are fast yanishing away before the spreading light of the Sun of righteousness,”— Biblical Repository, April, 1838, p. 336. The missionaries in Otaheite, I CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 251 ~ he insists upon the precept, and not upon the name, we revert to the precept of the holy kiss; should he appeal to the scriptural name, and not to the precept, we return to the supper; should he compound his argument with both the precept and the name, the supper and the kiss may with equal facility coalesce in the rejoinder. Only let him not misrepresent by making us in the matter of the kiss refer to the name and not to the precept; or in that of the supper, to the precept and not to the name. It may be thought that some of the instances which we have adduced would justify the change of the symbol for another equally significant. The kiss, for instance, is sym- bolic, yet we have changed it; the supper, that is, the evening observance, is not symbolic; and, therefore, the morning observance preserves the symbol in its integrity. In our administration of baptism we contend that we change no symbol, for, as we believe, the use of water is the only symbol; but our variation, if we do vary, is in a part of the service which is not symbolic, but circum- stantial, like the evening hour of the supper. The argu- ment from the kiss of charity is a fortiori. If the symbol may be changed, much more are we not inflexibly bound to the part of the service which is not symbolic and, there- fore, can be of no importance. There is no necessity to enlarge the ground of controversy, for if dipping, and not water, or dipping as well as water, be the authorized sym- bol, I can speak for myself, and I am open to conviction ; I will henceforth invariably practise it. My reasons for thinking that immersion is no part of the symbol must, of course, be hereafter stated. The principle for which I contend ought to be distinctly avowed; and then (let the practices of Baptists or of Peedo- believe, as bread was not commonly eaten, substituted some root; at least, the Catholics of the Dublin Review bring against them the heavy charge of so profaning the sacrament; but is there a Baptist in England who would deny that they virtually and sacramentally, although not literally, “came together to break bread?” Q52 THE MODE OF baptists be what they may,) to rise or fall on the prepon- derance of scriptural evidence. ‘That principle is that symbolic and commemorative institutions derive all their value from the evangelical truths which they symbolize or commemorate. The parts, or adjuncts, which symbolize or commemorate no evangelical truth, are subservient to the symbols, just as words are subservient to doctrines; and they are applied to a superstitious use, if they are not strictly kept in that state of subserviency. They are no more essential to the symbols than are the Greek charac- ters to the doctrine of St. Paul. Baptism is an emblem- atical service,and nothing else. Whatever is not emblem- atical, is only adjunct and circumstance; and if to it any persons ascribe importance, they assert an importance dis- tinct from the emblem, and, therefore, make the service something else than emblematical. ‘This is our principle. It is fairly exposed, I acknowledge, to the assault of those stricter Baptists, who appear in their weekly communion, their washing of feet, their kiss of charity, and all the an- tique garniture of primitive institutions, but not to the attack of those who, if they mingle in this fray, will tear down the standard which they follow harmoniously with ourselves in all things except baptism.* * Since this lecture was written, I have found in Dr. Carson’s work, p. 379, the following statement of Dr. Miller, which, as Dr. Carson calls it popery, and itis a kind of popery with which I am particularly pleased, I cordially adopt. “Even if it could be proved, (which we know it cannot,) that the mode of baptism, adopted in the time of Christ and his apostles, was that of immersion, yet, if that method of administering the ordinance were not sig- nificant of some truth, which the other modes cannot represent,” (the clause in italics I do not adopt: if dipping be significant of any truth, let us practise it,) “we are plainly at liberty to regard it as a non-essential circumstance, from which we may depart when expediency requires, as we are all wont to to do in other cases, even” (I omit that word, for the principle has no other application) “with respect to positive institutions.” To deny this appears to me precisely equivalent to the assertion, that it is our duty to perform as religious service what, so far as we can ascertain, has no use, meaning, or benefit whatever; precisely equivalent to the assertion that it being my duty to read the Scriptures publicly in the church of God, I am bound to read CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. ea Such is our principle. Let us hear what Scripture says about it. ‘“ Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days.” Without encumbering the argument with any notice of the meat or the drink, the holy day or the new moon, let us attempt to ascertain the law of the sabbath, as it is found in the New Testament; for if it be correctly ascertained, it will assist us in interpreting other positive institutions. As a Jewish ordinance, the enact- ment of the sabbath was peculiarly strict and severe, so far as labour was concerned. ‘Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work, but the seventh is the sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt do no manner of work.” I need not detain my readers with the inquiry, whether this commandment is or is not to be regarded as imposing upon Christians the duty of observing the sabbath, because the construction for which I contend was authorized by our Lord before the abrogation of the Jewish economy. Rest being secured for servants and domestics by the relaxation of ordinary labour, and sufficient opportunity being afforded for the services of religion, the great design of the sabbath being safe, the literal construction of the positive precept was not imposed upon the Jews; as we learn from our Lord’s reasoning in opposition to the traditions and com- mands of the scribes and Pharisees. Pharisaism adhered to the strict letter of the sabbatical enactment: Jesus taught publicly the tenth chapter of Nehemiah. Dr. Cox objects to infant baptism, that it confers no benefit, prevents no evil, and contains no moral obligation. If that truly respectable minister will show what benefit immersion confers upon him whichI do not possess; what evil it prevents for him which I feel ; or what obligation it imposes upon him to which I am not bound; he may enrol me among his converts. As to the popery of this scheme, the popery of private judgment, the popery of receiving no rite, nor part of a rite, which is not emblematical, it has at least one advantage, that if every man would thus become his own pope, the reign of the tiara would cease from the earth. Whenever our brother papists, the Baptists, resign the dispensing power in the matter of the holy and apostolic kiss, they may dispute with us on the popery of sprinkling. Q254 . THE MODE OF that a devout regard to the spirit was sufficient. Indeed, the literal observance of positive precepts, the tithe of mint, and anise, and cummin, was the point of frequent debate between our Lord and the Pharisees, who, in strict observance of the letter, lost the genuine spirit of the cere- monial law. ‘At that time, Jesus went on the sabbath- day through the corn-fields: and his disciples were a hun- gred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath-day.” The Pharisees charged the disciples with violating the sanctity of the sabbath-day by a species of labour; it was doing some manner of work, and undoubt- edly infringing the letter of the Mosaic law. What said the great Teacher? Did he reprove or justify his dis- ciples? If they were observing the letter of the law, would not our Lord have vindicated them upon their proper ground? Would he not have said, Here is no breach of the law whatever; rubbing out the corn from the ears is not a manner of work prohibited by the enactment? He did not so defend them. Rubbing out corn was as much forbidden by the letter of the law, as any other kind of work whatever; for if they had so spent the whole of the sabbath, they would have been undoubtedly guilty of profaning it. The spirit of the law imposing rest would have been sacrificed. But our blessed Lord defended his disciples, by citing on their behalf the conduct of David, in quite as manifest a breach of the letter of another posi- tive law. ‘‘ Have ye not read what David did, when he was a hungred, and they that were with him; how he did enter into the house of God, and eat the shew-bread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?” It is evident that our Lord justified the conduct of David, and by the cita- tion justified also the conduct of his disciples. On what principle? The law of the sabbath and the law of the CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 255 shew-bread were alike peremptory. To bear the incon- venience of fasting is better than to disannul the com- mand of God. Hunger is no justification of sin. The Gospel gives no permission to the hungry man to steal the bread of his neighbour. A deviation from the law of the shew-bread was conceded under circumstances which would not have justified the least deviation from the laws of morality. Unless hunger justifies theft, we have, in these words of our Lord, a clear distinction in the con- struction of positive and of moral enactments. The law of the shew-bread was as express as words could be, for it conceded nothing to the importunate hunger of a laic; as was the enactment of the sabbath, for it made no more exception in favour of hunger, or humanity, or necessity, than did the moral law. What becomes of the doctrine so often asserted by the Baptists, that positive precepts are to be construed more strictly than moral laws, or even as strictly as they are? How far is the distinction to be allowed? We have a clue,—how far may we trace it ? No one, I imagine, will construe the narrative as if the disciples were actually perishing with hunger. Had they been utterly destitute of food, Mark and Luke, who say nothing of their hunger, would scarcely have omitted all reference to so important a particular, as its notice would have given to their narrative a very different aspect. Teel- ing the ordinary sensation of hunger as they passed through the fields, they rubbed corn from the ears; and our Lord defended their act as a justifiable breach of the positive law of the sabbath. But what is the principle of his de- fence? Unquestionably that, provided the benevolent and religious objects of the sabbath were secured, the letter of the enactment was not worth the inconvenience of a brief cessation from food. ‘The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.” Can any other interpreta- tion be imposed upon these words, than that the law of the sabbath is obligatory in the generosity of its spirit, 256 THE MODE OF rather than in the severity of its letter? The construction of the law of the sabbath, confirmed by appeal to the law of the shew-bread, we have aright to infer, (for it is im- plied in the argument of our Lord,) is the true construc- tion of every positive institution. The principle elicited, rather than the inconvenience supposed, is the point to which I solicit attention. When we say that works of charity or of necessity may be done on the sabbath, notwithstanding the strict and peremptory enactment, on what principle do we repose? When our Lord teaches that the ox or the ass may be pulled out of the pit on the sabbath-day, doth he take care of oxen, or saith he not such things for our instruction ? It may be said these were only rare exceptions, justified by the urgency of peculiar circumstances. If they were, they are sufficient to justify similar exceptions in reference to the law of baptism, as for instance, the clinical baptism of the sick penitent when immersion might be perilous, or baptism by sprinkling where multitudes were candidates, and the well of the city was deep, and the water very scarce. But in a country where the climate is unpro- pitious, and bathing cannot always be performed without danger, and many persons are not accustomed to such an ablution, and from the feelings of delicacy which happily distinguish a high state of civilization, and must on no account be violated, the inconvenience of bathing dresses, and of various decorous and troublesome arrangements, must be admitted: these exceptions, we think, accumulate over the letter of the law; and in Britain we claim the right of not immersing, because baptism was made for man, and not man for baptism. I will not, however, be content with this bill of excep- tions. The Christian law of the sabbath (as our Baptist friends concur with ourselves in interpreting it, and as I honestly believe they rightly interpret it,) will carry us a ereat deal further than we are required to go, in order to CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 297 justify our mode of administering the rite of baptism. Between the law of the sabbath as the Christian church almost universally construes it, and the law of the sabbath in the letter of its enactment, the difference is far greater than that which exists between the immersion and the sprinkling of proselytes. ‘The sabbath is essentially a rest, a day of cessation from ordinary labour, enjoined, not of Moses, but of the Fathers, instituted at the creation of the world, hallowed by the blessing of the Creator on the placid survey of all his works, the only precious relic of the religious institutions of paradise, the only day ex- empted from the dreadful curse of exhausting toil. Con- secrated to rest, it is the memorial of the complacency with which God looked upon the world as complete on the seventh day. The spirit of the law is accredited, in the devout observance of one day in the week, but than the seventh day there is no other sabbath of positive enact- ment. We commemorate the resurrection of our Lord by the hallowing of the first day of the week, instead of com- memorating the repose of creation on the seventh; but to commemorate the resurrection of Christ by the religious observance of any day, we have no express command in all the Scriptures. There is no such positive law in the ehurch. ‘The primitive Christians met to break bread on the first day of the week at Corinth, at Troas, and I doubt not in other places; but that they observed the day as a sabbath we are not told; nor, if they did, that by it they commemorated the resurrection of Christ. Our Baptist friends may have no doubt of the fact,—neither have we; but in the New Testament, our only code, there is no enactment, there is not even distinct information. To commemorate the resurrection of Christ by the festival of the Sunday, is no more a positive enactment of Scripture than to commemorate his death by the fast of the Friday. What then is the law of the sabbath? By its letter I am commanded to observe the seventh day in commemoration x. S 258 THE MODE OF of the creation of the world; but as in its spirit 1 observe another day in commemoration of another event, in doing so I can appeal in justification to no positive law respect- ing the change, for of such a law there is not a shadow in the New Testament. It is true this reasoning will not apply to the Seventh-day Baptists, but with the exception, as I am told, of five women and one man, all the Baptists now repudiate Sabbatarianism. If it be said the sabbath is not a Christian institution, I reply, It is, or why do Christians religiously observe one day in seven? ‘The sabbath was not like the passover, Mosaic; not like cir- cumcision, restricted to the family of Abraham; but the law of Adam, the law of his posterity, the law of all the world, founded upon a positive command more express, as well as far more extensive, than any which enjoined bap- tism, or the Lord’s supper. Sprinkling is surely as much baptism, as observing the first day of the week is hallow- ing the seventh. The principles of the Baptists led num- bers of people into the religious observance of Saturday. Such I think is their proper tendency; and in abandoning Sabbatarianism our Baptist friends appear to me to sur- render in practice the whole argument which they pain- fully elaborate by their philology. Their right to substi- tute the first day for the seventh, in order to commemorate the resurrection of Christ, without a particle of scriptural law, is an authority for substituting sprinkling for immer- sion, even if they can prove we make the substitution with which we are charged. To proceed at greater length with the illustration of the principle for which I Soman! would be wearisome and unnecessary, or we might refer to numerous deflections from the literal enactments of ceremonial law sanctioned by the prophets in the Old Testament, and by Christ and his apostles in the New. The law of the passover required it to be observed standing. Jesus, in accordance with the custom of the time, sat down to eat the passover. We CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. . 259 have the principle asserted, in opposition to the inflexible literalist, in the words, “‘He that observeth the day, ob- serveth it to the Lord; and he that observeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not observe it.” But the Baptists say that immersion itself—the act of _ putting into the water—is the symbol in the service, or rather, (for they seem to allow that water is also symbolic of cleansing,) is one of the symbols authorized in this ordinance. If this be true, our case is gone. I do not ’ mean our case is gone, if there be found in the apostolic writings a figurative allusion to immersion, as a common mode of baptism, for that would in no way affect our rea- soning; but if it be proved that the act of immersion, and not the use of water, is the authorized symbol, the very sign or sacrament, [ see not what we can do better than surrender the entire argument. We, therefore, somewhat anxiously inquire, Of what Christian truth is putting into the water a symbol? And we are told, Of the burying of the believer with Christ. This reply greatly relieves us, for the burying of a believer with Christ is no more a Christian truth than the going in at the strait gate, or the putting on the helmet of salvation, or the anointing the eyes with eye-salve, or the mounting on the wings of eagles, but like them a figurative expression of Scripture. As the sacraments of Christ are symbols of truth and not of figures, belonging to theology and not to rhetoric, we might without delay fairly dismiss this assertion, were it not that our Baptist friends, or at least some of them, make it so important a part of their reasoning, that it may be thought disrespectful to take no further notice of it. We have then to consider baptism as a scenic repre- sentation of the burial of the baptized with Christ. As Christ was buried, so the disciple is immersed to repre- sent his participation of the burial of Christ. ‘The autho- rities adduced in favour of this doctrine are: ‘“‘ Know ye 960 THE MODE OF not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death.”* .... “ Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him.”+ That these are figurative allusions, no one will deny. The design of baptism, if this be its design, is nowhere osten- sibly taught, but only obliquely noticed in figurative lan- guage In order to illustrate another subject. If the inter- pretation of the figure can be found in the inspired writings, we readily acquiesce; but we are not disposed to allow a fallible interpreter of figures to give law to the Christian church, especially when his unauthorized interpretation appears to us incongruous and inconsistent. If I am asked for the meaning of the apostle’s language, I reply, (accord- ing to my construction of the metaphor, which of course has no more authority than that of my opponents, and disputes upon the meaning of figures are endless,) Do we not satisfy all the legitimate requirements of the figure, in maintaining that all who have the spiritual blessings pro- posed in the emblem of baptism, have obtained them through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus? Those who have been baptized not only in the letter, but also in the spirit, are virtually and legally considered as having become united to Christ in the fellowship of his sufferings, and the power of his resurrection; they have figuratively died unto sin, and become alive unto righteous- ness. But if the expressions are figurative, and represent spiritual things, no man who has not the reality of the baptismal emblem, has been baptized into the death of Christ, or has been buried with him in baptism; while every man who has that reality has been spiritually bap- tized into the death of Christ, and been buried with him in the baptism of the Spirit. If I am dead with Christ, I have been buried with him in my baptism, not into water, but by his Spirit into his death. Is not this the sense, * Rom. vi. 8, 4. + Col. ii. 12. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 261 and all the sense, of the figurative language of the apostle? We object to the symbol of the Baptists in the first place, because it is unauthorized, except by figurative language, which will admit of another and, as we think, better in- terpretation. That baptism is the funeral solemnity of a believer, or his interment in the tomb of Christ, is a doc- trine which has no sure warranty of Holy Scripture.* In the next place the symbol appears to us incongruous and inappropriate. It may be said, we have no right to pronounce upon the propriety of an authorized symbol; but in this instance the supposed resemblance betwee! immersion and burial is the foundation of the whole argu- ment. It is said by the Baptists, sprinkling does not represent a burial; and our reply is, neither does im- mersion. The momentary and hasty dipping is so little like the solemn act of committing the body to the earth ; the water is so little like a tomb; the service so little like a funeral solemnity; the words, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, so inappropriate to the burial of the dead, (and our friends, notwithstanding the use of this formulary, do not profess to bury alive,) that sprinkling itself appears to me as good and veritable a symbol of a believer's burial, as such an immersion. Besides, the burial is with Christ in his tomb, and there- fore the burial of Christ is the model of the service. But was Christ let down into the earth? Was there in his burial any circumstance which can be fitly represented by immersing in water? To lay a person in a tomb cut in a rock, and to complete the sepulture by rolling a stone to the opening, bear no resemblance to any mode of baptism whatever. Our Baptist friends, we think, gain some adven- titious aid in representing immersion as the sign of a burial, because the baptistery as usually made in their * See a complete and admirable exposition of the passage in the h mans, in Stuart’s Commentary. 262 THE MODE OF chapels, in size and form, most fortunately for their argu- ment, (I do not say they take undue or designed advan- tage of it,) resembles an English grave much more than it does a Jewish sepulchre. Were the image of the sepulchre in the garden to be exhibited in front of the baptistery, the charm of the representation, and with it the force of the argument, would be speedily dissolved. Or is the scene to be changed? Instead of the tomb of Jesus, are we to think of the usual sepulture of that age? As the burial is with Christ, we have no right to be allured from the garden of Joseph. But seek where we may for a burial, we shall find no resemblance to immersion—not even the poor analogy of an English funeral. Deposited in a Jewish tomb, embalmed in the spicery of the dead, and wrapped in clean linen, our Lord was interred as “ the manner of the Jews is to bury.” From his tomb, although “bound hand and foot in grave-clothes,” Lazarus could come forth. To a Jewish burial I see no resemblance in immersion. We are speaking of tombs in which demoniacs found shelter, and robbers a refuge. But addressed to the Romans, does the representation accord with the funeral solemnities of the imperial city ? The Jews buried their dead, according to the manner of their own nation ; and the Romans of that age placed the corpse upon a pyre, and deposited its ashes in an urn.* We have in baptism no sign of cremation. Immersion in Rome would remind no one of a burial. The shadow of the watery tomb would become invisible near the blaze of the funereal pile. If water to the Romans or to the Jews suggested any recollections of the dead, they would more probably be associated with the universal custom of wash- ing the corpse. Tarquinii corpus bona foemina lavit et unxit. * The Christians, at a very early period, renounced the custom of burning their dead, and deposited them in sepulchres and catacombs; but such a distinction could not have become prevalent so soon after the formation of their church. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 263 A burial in water must have appeared to the ancients the most incongruous of symbols, estranged from all their asso-= ciations and sympathies. The shade of Archytas would have been content, if for the burial of his body only a few grains of sand had been sprinkled over it, (injecto ter pulvere,) while it must have remained unburied, had all the waters of the ocean rolled over it. The Fathers, it is true, early adopted this opinion of a burial by immersion ; but if their authority be adduced, it is in favour of the trine immersion, as signifying the three days of Christ’s burial. Besides, ' what conceivable thing, which by any remote analogy—any faint or fanciful resemblance—any ingenious metaphor, could be associated with baptism, did not the Fathers in- clude in this great sacrament of most varied and inscrutable mystery ? Again, the representation of a burial is inconsistent with the symbol of the sanctification of the Spirit, which all par- ties acknowledge to be represented in baptism. The ritual use of water is everywhere in Scripture noticed as the sym- bol of sanctification, the washing away of sin. All the ablu- tions of the Mosaic law spake to the Jew of an internal sanc- tity, represented by the external cleansing. Wash you, make you clean, was the language of their prophets; and their exposition was, Put away the evil of your doings. In the synagogues of the ancient church was read the prophetic description of the purification of the coming age; and the well-known symbol of water was employed, ‘‘ I will sprinkle clean water upon them, and they shall be clean.” In the New Testament the church is cleansed by the washing of water, and its members are to draw nigh to God, having their bodies washed with pure water. This, I may say, is the natural and universal language in which the symbol speaks to all mankind. Water, among all nations who have used it in their religious rites, (and what nation having a ritual has not used it?) has ever been regarded as the pro> per emblem of purification. What else was the meaning 264 THE MODE OF of the diurnal and nocturnal ablutions of the Egyptian priests,* the baptisms of the Persians, the Indians, and other barbaric tribes,} the bathings and sprinklings of the Greeks in all their mysteries, the lustrations of the Romans, whose olive branch, as the instrument of sprinkling, cor- responded with the hyssop of the Hebrews? Vile pagan oracles, all of them! some may exclaim. They are just as pagan as that awful voice heard at their sanguinary altars, which declares that the blood of the victim is a deprecation of the punishment of sin. In both instances, those oracles utter their response in harmony with Holy Scripture. But I need not pursue these remarks any further, for our Baptist friends, although they assert that baptism is the representation of a burial, also acknowledge that it is the emblem of the washing away of sin. We maintain that the two emblems are inconsistent, and cannot be associated without confusion—cannot be blended in one service without destroying each other. To attempt the symbolizing of both by the same act is, on account of the contrariety between them, to symbolize neither. If at the baptistery I am told the water represents the grave of Christ, and also the purification of a Christian, I am un- able in one sign to realize both significations. If the shadow of the tomb of my Saviour, or that of the bath of my regeneration, fall upon the water, I can discern the outline; but if both fall upon it together, the lines are confused, and the image of neither can be distinctly traced. Or if we attempt to unite them, we have before us the ludicrous image of a man washing in a grave, or dying in a bath. I would not depreciate the powers of my Baptist friends, least of all at this moment would I ascribe to them any poverty of imagination; but I do not believe they so far transcend us in this particular as to be able to combine the two emblems without confusion, and to make the same service, with sobriety and edifica- * Herodotus, ii. 37. + Witsius, Aigypt. 1. ii. c. 16. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 265 tion, represent a cleansing and a burial. The laws of figurative language are the laws of emblematical repre- sentation. Because Christ is in Scripture represented as a vine, and a door, who would plead Scripture in justifi- cation of saying in one sentence, Christ is a grape-bearing door, or denounce the rhetorician as a profane scoffer who should expose the absurdity of such a figure? Although such a denunciation has been uttered against those who venture to smile at the washing in a graye, yet with the utmost respect for the religious feelings of my brethren, which ought to impose seriousness upon: a spectator, I eannot believe thatso incongruous a representation is made in the act of Christian baptism.* * Our Baptist friends have recently exhibited something like a disposition to emulate the ancients in proposing a great variety of truths as set forth in the symbol of baptism. Dr. Carson cultivated his imagination in this depart- ment of theology, until it became as prolific as that of Chrysostom or the Gregories. I doubt whether the most eloquent and fervent preacher on the virtues of the great mystic solemnity ever wrote such a passage as the follow- ing: “To be born of water most evidently implies that water is the womb out of which the person who is born proceeds. That this is the reference of the figure, whatever may be supposed to be its meaning, cannot for a moment be doubted by any reflecting mind.” (There is therefore the end of sprinkling to every mind capable of a moment’s reflection.) Dr. Carson continues: “Here the figure must signify the washing of the believer in the blood of Christ, which is figuratively represented by the water in baptism.” (Baptism not Purification, p. 61.) And yet Dr. Carson most zealously contends, that bap- tism figuratively represents the burial of the believer with Christ. But does the water of baptism symbolize all these things at once? Is the one act of baptism the representation of so many different objects as the birth of a believer issuing from the water, and his washing in the water, and his burial into the water, and withal his burial before his birth, as 1 suppose he is put into the water before he comes out of it? All this must follow, if from every figurative allusion to baptism, we are to seek the evangelical truth which it is designed to represent. We admire the noble candour of Dr. Carson, although it be accompanied with the most contemptuous vituperation of all who venture to differ from him. His criticism on the birth of water ought to be adopted by all who agree with him in the exposition of a burial with Christ in baptism. The two refer to the same principles. How Dr. Carson proves that the water of baptism represents the blood of Christ, I must show in his own words, lest I be charged with misrepresentation in expounding matters which I do not understand. He says, “In Rey. i. 5, Christ is said to wash us 266 THE MODE OF But, to adduce the objection to which I have already adverted, the burial of a believer with Christ, being only a figurative expression, cannot be represented in baptism. The Christian sacraments are signs of evangelical truth, and not of tropes and metaphors — shadows of realities, and not the shadows of a shade. There is in reality no more a burial with Christ, than there is a crucifixion with him. Had a believer been actually enclosed in the tomb of Christ, would it have been to him of the slightest ad- vantage ? If the body of Judas Iscariot had been interred in the garden of Joseph, instead of lying exposed in the field of blood, would he, like the man cast into the sep- ulchre of Elisha, have felt the vivifying influence of con- | tact with the body of a prophet? If it be said, that not the burial of the believer, but the truth implied in the figure, is represented ; the inquiry properly arises, What resemblance does that implied truth bear to immersion ? How is the simple truth itself, divested of the embroidery of figure, symbolized by the act of immersion? Be it that by the figure the expiation of sin is intended, or be it the sanctification of the sinner, or be it any other spirit- ual blessing, (for I concéde any latitude here, provided we have a blessing ‘and not a trope,) and that spiritual blessing has no more resemblance to immersion than it has to sprinkling. On the analysis of the figure, the shadow of the tomb over the baptistery vanishes like the mirage on the water when the object itself comes into direct view. If the spiritual blessing intended bears no resemblance to immersion, the attempt to represent the figure which clothes it, is to degrade the ordinance of bap- from our sins in his own blood. Christ washes us by his Spirit in his own blood. But his blood is the cleansing element in which we are washed. This shows that to be born of water is to be washed in the blood of Christ!” We learn one thing from Dr. Carson, who has written a book on the elucidation of the properties of figurative language, that if we admit several modes of perform- ing the Christian rite, our Baptist friends contend for several things repre- sented by it. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 267 tism from its proper position in theology, to the subordi- nate office of being ancillary to the imaginative paintings of rhetoric. Baptism is not a sacrament dedicated to the service of rhetoric, but a symbol of the Divine immortal truth which, in passing before our feeble sight, invests itself for the moment with the fading figures and fugitive colours of terrestrial imagery. On account of all these reasons I maintain, that in baptism there is no representa- tion of the burial of a believer with Christ. To find a reality for the shadow, some Baptists declare that immersion is the sign of the death and burial of Christ himself. I am unwilling to ascribe this representa- ,tion to any who do not themselves assert their faith in it, as I believe many of our Baptist brethren would disavow this opinion, if it were ascribed to them, or if their atten- tion were seriously directed to its implications. As, how- ever, some influential writers do deliberately assert that they represent by immersion the burial and resurrection of Christ, they are, I suppose, prepared to defend this assertion against all opponents. But if the immersion of a person in water represent the burial of Christ, the person so immersed is proposed as the representative or emblem of the blessed Redeemer. Unless the man or woman immersed, so far as that service is concerned, re- present Christ, there can be no emblematic representation of the burial of Christ. But is the baptized person to be considered as representing Christ to the spectators ? or is he to consider himself in the service as an emblem of Christ? If he be, this controversy on immersion assumes an awful importance. A man of like passions with our- selves, being put into the water, is proposed as a repre- sentation of Christ being laidinhistomb! I willrecognize no man in that character. I will not so profane the im- maculate person of the Saviour. No Christian, without doing violence to his best feelings, can look upon his fallen brother as performing a mystic representation of Christ 68 THE MODE OF PS) dying for the sins of men. I do not stay to inquire how it can be said to a man, who in the service is an emblem of Christ, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; because, instead of reasoning upon this supposition, I will protest for the honour of Christ against any one who pretends to act the part of the blessed Redeemer in the most solemn engage- ment of his death, burial, and resurrection. Elevate a crucifix before the baptistery—carve the figure of the dead Redeemer in wood or in stone, rather than propose a sinful man as the representation of Him who for the re- demption of the world was dead, and buried, and is risen again. I restrict this language to those who assert that baptism is the representation of the death and resurrec- tion of Christ, because I cannot persuade myself that our Baptist friends universally hold this opinion. Happy shall I be if any of our brethren, still retaining their senti- ments, would be induced to desist from this objectionable language ; but let them speak as they will, we must main- tain that baptism is nothing else than the use of water (use it how you please) as the sign of the sanctification of the soul, because we believe that to represent it in any other view leads to lamentable perversion or gross carica- ture of evangelical truth. We leave this part of the subject with a summary, which, we trust, will be sufficient to prevent misapprehension. We have maintained that in a symbolical service only the symbol is imposed upon the church, and the mode of ex- hibiting itis of no importance; and further, that in the bap- tismal service only the use of water, and not the immersion, is symbolical of Christian truth. It is, however, obvious that, whatever may be the importance of these principles in other controversies, they do not come into operation in this controversy, unless our Baptist brethren establish their averment by sound philology, as they have made it without hesitation or reserve, that Bamrif{o, properly, invari- CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 269 ably, and exclusively, means to dip, in all Greek,—Classie, Hellenistic, and Eeclesiastical. As the whole argument does not depend upon philology, ‘we may now, I hope, with more calmness, and less asperity than is sometimes shown in handling the words baptize and baptism, discuss their meaning and use as they occur in the New Testament. On entering this interminable controversy, a novice feels some difficulty in reconnoitring the proper position of the combatants. They seem to misunderstand each other. One might suppose that some principles of interpretation were agreed upon on both sides; or if they were not, that the parties had better retire upon truce to study in quiet the laws of philology. But I find the sprinklers charging the immersionists with attempting to bind the ethereal movements of language with iron and inflexible laws; and, on the contrary, the immersionists charging the sprinklers with abusing the rational liberty of language until it becomes the wildest licentiousness. That a living language is ever varying, both parties ought surely to admit; that no variation ought to be assumed or pleaded without evidence, appears as incontrovertible a proposi- tion. The amount of evidence which ought to suffice de- signates, I fear, the boundary of everlasting skirmish. That the verb Barrifo should have preserved one only and invariable signification, which can be exactly expressed by an English verb, from the ballad-singers of the Homeric poems (if so early it existed) down to the prosing chroni- clers of the Byzantine history (for so late it flourished)— in poetry and prose, oratory and philosophy—would, if proved, be, I imagine, the most extraordinary phenomenon in all the languages of our many-tongued race. If Banrifo -be, as we are told, to dip, and nothing else, I do not be- lieve a second pair of verbs, so exactly corresponding, so nicely balanced, running for so many ages in parallel grooves, is to be found in the wide extent of the two 270 THE MODE OF languages. Greek and English verbs do not usually file off in double columns quite so evenly, and keep step quite so regularly, in all their countless evolutions. Believing, as we do, that this word was not exempt from the accidents of time and ordinary fluctuations of speech, we cannot imagine by what inflexible destiny it can have preserved its one only sense unaffected through many ages of cul- ture and of corruption—the solitary evergreen in the vast forest of deciduous vocables—deciduous in their significa- tion, as Horace beautifully represents them in their use, the only exception to the maxim, Nedum sermonum stet honos et gratia vivax. In English our great lexicographer has endeavoured to confine in its channel the flowing stream of speech, but already the words have broken through the embankments of Johnson, and are silently, but surely, subverting his massive piles of learned labour. That the fluctuations of language, as of fashion, are beyond the control of sages, may be seen in the aspect of two words which we perpetually encounter in this controversy—to dip and to immerse. ‘They seem to have deflected from each other much more widely than they had done in the days of Johnson, as will appear on comparing the more modern attempts of Webster, and others, at English lexicography, We think, therefore, if we are required to repose with unlimited confidence upon the meaning of a Greek word in the New ‘Testament, we have a right to require some confirmation of that meaning from the New Testament itself. On the other hand, we are charged by our Baptist friends with making unfair use of the vagaries of language, and assuming at our pleasure changes of signification without evidence; so that we leave room for evasion, and propose no certain exposition of our words. ‘There may be some reason for this complaint, and I feel, without for a moment CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. PATA intimating that my brethren would not do the same, bound by the laws of honourable controversy to say what I think is the proper meaning of the verb Ganri{o; and if I sup- pose it has suffered any change of signification which affects this question, to state in what that change consists. The Baptists have good right and sound reason in de- manding that every controvertist say without evasion what Banrifo is, and what it is not, lest they be left to fight with a shade; and if their opponent, thus exposed in open field, be defeated, in exposing his true colours, they ought not to exult over him, but to acknowledge that he fell fairly and honourably fighting. I feel also bound to admit that some writers on our side of the question have asserted too much, when they have said that no fair inference can be deduced from the citations of the classics, on account of the discordant idioms and fashions of classical and Jewish Greek. I cannot con- ceive how the Greek Testament is to be translated, if its words are not to be understood in their classical import, unless there are reasons to believe that a new signification has been adopted. That new senses abound, I readily admit. When a Jew speaks Greek, although I do not expect to hear the mellifiuous language of Xenophon, or of Plato, yet, unless I have some intimation of barbarism, I must look to Greek authorities for my interpretation. Paul might have been thought a barbarian on Mars’ hill, a setter forth of strange gods to those who listened toa strange dialect; but all who would translate him must first resort to the Greek lexicon, and afterwards go the round of the Hellenistic idioms and the oriental barbarisms. If we assert that the verb in question is found in the New Testament, varying from its classical signification; our Baptist friends may reasonably require us to produce the evidence of our assertion. Whether I fail or succeed, I would rather fail than evade so reasonable a demand. I fear, however, we have an unsettled account respect- Q72 : THE MODE OF ing the primary and classical sense of the word; and until we understand each other upon this point, we can do very little with the secondary signification. Our first inquiry, therefore, before we approach the New Testament, must be, What is the primary and classical meaning of the verb Banrif{e ? By the primary meaning, I do not mean the radical signification, but the meaning which we ought first to assign to it, so far as it can be ascertained from existing documents. The sense of the root, I mean of the com- mon root of the two forms Barra and Banrifo, we are not competent to investigate. We know not the language in its primitive simplicity, before it assumed its present inflec- tions. ‘The meaning of the old bap, (for etymologists tell us it was once in good credit with tup, and grap, and lip, and blap, and all their rustic contemporaries in the valleys of Greece,) we cannot ascertain, as the hoarse Pelasgian has so long been expelled from the melodious refinement of Greece. The servant of rude shepherds and warrior tribes, whether it washed their sheep, or dyed their fleece,* or tempered their metal,} or stained their spears with blood,t or smeared their faces with wine lees at the goat feast,§ we can conjecture only from the uncertain traditions of its polished substitutes. We know not anything with certainty respecting the meaning of the primitive; and even if we did, it would render us very little assistance in determining the precise signification of its derivatives. The first inquiry is, Do the two verbs Barre and Barrio perfectly coincide? Previously to examination, reasoning upon the analogies of language, we should conclude that intimately related they would bear a considerable resem- blance to each other; but that, coexisting in the language for many ages, each would be affected by the mutations of time, and eventually assume its own distinct and * Aristophanes Plut. 530. + Sophocles Ajax, 651. + Aischylus Choéphore, 1011. § Aristophanes Equites, 528. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 273 proper character. Such kindred words are like twin children, usually resembling each other most closely in their early years. To supply the wants of man, whose voluble tongue is ever admirably ministering to the new suggestions of his mind, cognate terms readily adapt themselves to specific parts in the interpretation of thought. We have, therefore, without inquiry, no right to assume that the words are identical in their meaning. As antigo is formed from Banta, some grammarians have made it a frequentative, to baptize often; others a ‘causative, to make some one baptize; others a diminutive, to baptize a little; others an intensitive, to baptize very much. For any of these senses, I have never seen satis- factory evidence adduced. ‘The following particulars I just observe in passing; but I must leave the illustration, so far as it has any bearing upon the subject, to an ap- pendix. In their usage, Bamrifs occurs very seldom in the earlier writers, more frequently in the later, with whom it seems sometimes to occupy the place of the Baar of the older books. In the general sense, Banrw seems more nearly to resem- ble our word to dip, or put into a liquid; Bazrife to make to be in the liquid in any way. We dip our hands (Sdzre) ; but sink a ship (Sanri¢w). Although the later writers occasionally use Banrifo in the former sense, as in the instance cited by Gale from Plutarch, yet, I think, the dis- tinction is generally observed. Bazrw has peculiar second- ary senses, as to dye, to colour, to stain as with blood, to smear, to temper metals, to glaze pottery ; Banrifw is ex- clusively used in the New Testament, in reference to the religious baptisms of both Jews and Christians; althédugh a pagan, when speaking of this religious rite, uses the verb Bdanta.* Indeed, the verb never occurs in the New Testament, except in connexion with a religious rite, or else in a figurative sense. ' * Arrian Epist., lib. xi. ¢. 9. DSP | O74 THE MODE OF The Baptist writers maintain, (or have hitherto main- tained, for since this leeture was delivered, I have learned that their opinion on this subject is changed,) that the two words have invariably and precisely the same meaning, to dip, and nothing else; so that Gale, Booth, Maclean, and all whom I have consulted, reason with perfect confidence from one word to the other. Some curious instances of the difficulties of their theory have been adduced in this controversy for a century and a half, and yet they have steadily maintained it. Thus, when the author of the pseudo-Homeric mock-heroic poem of the Frogs and the Mice, says of Crambophagus, one of his brave little cold- blooded champions of the water, mortally wounded by his whiskered foe, the lake was baptized with his blood, “ Gasping he rolls, a purple stream of blood Distains the surface of the silvery flood,” Dr. Gale did his best, with learning and logic, to prove that the meaning is, the lake was, as it were, dipped in frog’s blood; and his party greatly applauded his ‘skill. I am, however, happy to learn that, although all the ob- jections of the Predobaptists founded upon this passage produced no impression, our Baptist friends following a new leader generally declare, that good old Dr. Gale, with all his Greek, (and he had no small quantity of that article,) had no true taste for figures, or he could not have endured the lake dipped in frog’s blood. The fact, how- ever, is chiefly important as limiting the ground of con- troversy, and enabling us.to disencumber ourselves of an intruder which has no right to be heard in this discussion, unless he can explain the meaning of his cognate. Al- though I think I have observed a disposition on both sides to introduce Bdrre silently and surreptitiously, as if it were the true famrifo in an antiquated dress, I do not propose in this lecture to make any further reference to it, as it 1s not the legitimate subject of our inquiry. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. rus) 73 Leaving Bar and Barro, let us attempt to ascertain the meaning of Bantife, as it is found in the classical writers. ; We believe that Banrifo is to make one thing to be in another by dipping, by immersing, by burying, by covering, by superfusion, or by whatever mode effected, provided it be in immediate contact. A body placed in a tomb, or a man shut in a house, is not strictly baptized, but a body put in the surrounding earth of a grave, or a man covered with the ruins of a house, is baptized. As the action of the verb refers in almost all instances to liquids, although not of necessity, for it may apply to solids of a soft and permeable nature; it may simplify the matter to say that Baptists explain the word as uniformly meaning to put the thing baptized into the liquid: we contend that it means to make the thing baptized be in the liquid, how- ever it be done. ‘To put a thing into water is, as they say, to baptize it; this, as we say, is the truth, but not the whole truth; for to put the water over the thing is also to baptize it. With them nothing is baptized unless it be dipped into the liquid; with us every thing is baptized which is covered with the liquid. With them to baptize designates the mode in which the object is accomplished ; with us it designates no mode at all, but only the accom- plishment of the object. With them to baptize is to dip, and nothing else; with us it is not to dip, nor yet to over- whelm, nor yet to pour, but it has a more general signifi- eation which has no reference to mode; and it may be effected by dipping, or by overwhelming, or by pouring, or by any other mode in which the baptized thing becomes in the baptizing substance. ‘The earth was as truly bap- tized by the flood, as a stone is baptized when thrown into water; with this difference, the earth was baptized by water, the stone is baptized into water. Some of the modern German lexicographers, I refer to those who have devoted their days and nights to making lexicons of parti- 276 THE MODE OF cular authors, and nicely defining the distinctions of words, would say a great deal more so ; for I find, so far as I have opportunity to consult them, they ascribe dipping to Barri{w, only as it occurs in the later Greek authors, when it intruded itself very much into the place of Barro. Ast, for instance, one of the ablest of them all, in his Platonic lexicon distinguishes Barrifo from Bdnrw by rendering the former obruo, opprimo, to cover over, to oppress, and no- thing else, (his instances have been cited in this contro- versy,) and the latter, immergo, tingo, to immerse, to dye. According to his last and best lexicographer, Plato knew nothing of immersion in baptism. Be it observed, this is not my theory. I am prepared to assert, not that Barrife is distinguished from Bamrw by signifying a different mode of effecting its purpose, but that the distinction is in its being used in a more unrestricted sense without reference to the mode. If Baptists produce instances in which Barrifo implies dipping, in an author referred to, in Plato for instance, their controversy is so far not with nie, but with better scholars, who, at least in reference to particular authors, distinguish the two verbs as I have stated. I have no right to extend the authority of the lexicographer beyond his specific author, but I have a right to conclude, that he would not attribute to his author an improper use of the word. Ast, for instance, would make Plato write, not as a barbarian, but as an Athenian. While I do not shield myself with the authority of Germany, I cannot refrain from expressing my surprise, that our Baptist friends should so generally assert, that all Greek scholars agree with them in opinion.* Few Greek scholars, I imagine, will agree with them that Barro and Banrifo de- signate the same mode of doing the same thing: when a boy is said to be baptized with questions, few Greek * I must except Dr. Carson, who, as I find since this was written, candidly acknowledges that, as to secondary sense, the lexicographers and commenta- tors are all against him, CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 277 scholars would say that Barro might have been used in the same connexion. At this point in the crisis of this controversy, I have to answer an inquiry which is sometimes proposed to those who assert that to baptize is to cover with water, as well as to put into it, What do you gain if you prove your as- sertion, for your sprinkling is not covering with water? I care not what we gain, or what we lose, so that we find the truth. So long as we are perpetually cross-question- ing one another, or asking ourselves what each will gain ‘or lose in the several steps of an argument, we shall not be likely to reach the truth in safety. What do we gain ? If we prove our point, we gain the truth, and is that of no importance in the controversy ? Iwish to gain no more, let the truth be what it will; but if our friends will con- cede this point, they will soon see what we shall gain, and what position both parties will henceforth occupy. If they will not concede it, we must trouble them with the evidence of our assertion. That to baptize is to make a thing be in water, (intro- ducing the term water for the sake of convenience, al- though things may be baptized with oil, or earth, or any fluid or friable substance,) to cover with water, as well as to put into it, lam confined by the limits of a lecture to a very brief outline of the evidence. I therefore cite three passages, each of which is a representative of a class which might be adduced. I select one in which the con- nexion defines the sense of the word; a second in which the action of the verb is accomplished by overflowing or coming upon; a third in which the verb simply represents the state of being enclosed, without any reference to the mode in which the enclosing or covering was effected. As these instances are quite independent of each other, if any one is conclusive, our case is proved. That all are conclusive, I conscientiously believe; and will, there- fore, adduce them as our witnesses good and true, unless, of 978 THE MODE OF which I have no fear, they break down in cross-exami- nation. | The first passage I cite, as defining the sense of the svord, is the verse of the Sibyl respecting the city of Athens, as it is given by Plutarch, in his life of Theseus. "haxds Bamtity, Sbvac dé to1 OF OEpus bore. In this line, the contrast between farrifew and ddvar supplies the definition for which we are in search. The true version of the words, we contend, is, As a bladder thou mayest be baptized, but thou canst not dip. Loosely the line has been translated, The bladder may be dipped, but never drowned ; but nobody will seriously contend that diva is to be drowned. Our Baptist friends, I believe, translate the verse, “Thou mayest be dipped, but thou canst not sink.” If they do, (and how else they can translate it consistently with their philology, I know not,) they grievously abuse the promise of the ancient Sibyl, as the following considerations will make manifest. Aive is no more to sink than Bamrife, if by sinking is meant going deeper into the water than just below the surface. The action of the verb dvve is fully and per- fectly accomplished, as soon as the bladder is an inch or a line below the surface of the water. There is, indeed, no necessity of going downward at all to act the part of Siva: in his full costume and perfect propriety. Had the bladder entered a perpendicular wave and risen at the same moment, provided it did not emerge, it would have played the part of diva to perfection. Banrifoya, often used in describing ships as foundering, implies sinking quite as much as dvvo. Avvo, dva, and Siu, in some forms and tenses neuter, in some transitive, is simply to enter. With prepositions, it may be made to sink, or to rise; but the simple verb is to go in, and, as every school-boy knows in his lessons in Homer, to go into clothes, or to go into arms. It is used, like Barra, for the action of a -sword entering the body,—the visceribus ferrum mergere CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 979 of the Latins. In reference to the sun it simply marks its setting, its passing the edge of the horizon. The dvors of the stars is at the moment of their setting, as the dévrov is the inaccessible part of a temple. Applied to passion, éevdvve, it enters the heart. The illustrations are innumerable ; indeed the neuter verb corresponds, with little variation, with the Baptist explanation of Bamrifec@a. Delightful it is to our friends to trace the analogy between baptism and burial, and the dead are said diva yiv, oY dSdvat kata yas. Moreover, there is another form of this verb which they ought especially to respect—dvirmra, their own dip, in sound as well as sense, applied to animals dipping their heads, but not sinking, who are said to be eis ddpupoy vdwp Sinrortes.* But if the bladder cannot dip, how can it be baptized ? its floating image among the waves supplies the solution. Does the bladder enter the wave, or does the wave break upon the bladder? It floats upon the surface and cannot dip, but the curling wave may fall upon it, and so for a noment it is covered. The oracle is interpreted, As a bladder, the wave may pass over thee, but thou canst not go into the water. Thou mayest be baptized, but thou canst not dip. The word is thus defined by its contrast with another which in many respects resembles it; and a more satis- factory definition could not be obtained. Let me not here be misunderstood: I say not that the bladder might be dipped without being baptized, but that it might be baptized without being dipped. To be baptized it is quite enough that it be in the water, whether by immersion or superfusion. We have before our eyes a distinction between to baptize and to dip, unless the Baptists should say that dara eis vdep is not to dip into water; and when they do, it will be quite time enough to charge upon such a phantom. * Apoll. Rhod. Argon. lib. i. 280 THE MODE OF If this opinion needed any further confirmation, the connexion of the Sibylline verse with the history in Plutarch would readily supply it. The bladder originally and properly belonged to Theseus. ‘That perfidious lover of Ariadne was, like many licentious men of old, very piously addicted to the use of oracles, and he received at Delphi a response which assured him that as a bladder he should sail across the sea in its swell— *Ackés yap ey olduare TovTOTOpEta yap fo pevon. His bark was to pass over the sea in the swell. The waves might break over it, but it could not be dipped. This oracle, in which the bladder was the figure of the ship of Theseus, the Sibyl afterwards applied to the city : of the ship, therefore, as well as of the bladder, it must be said, Thou mayest be baptized, but thou canst not dip. The city may be overwhelmed with the passing wave of calamity, but it cannot be immersed in its flood; as the ship of Theseus might have been overwhelmed with the billow, but it could not be immersed in the sea. Many heayy waves rolled over Athens. She was often baptized, but at last she was immersed. Her Sibyl failed her. In the midst of the ravages and devastations of Sylla, her citizens, we are told by Pausanias, received at the shrine of Delphi their ambiguous response. Some- thing was said about the story of the bladder,* but before it was pierced by the sword of Sylla it had floated long enough to assist us in defining baptism, often over- whelmed, but never losing its buoyancy—often baptized by superfusion, but never by immersion. This oracle of the Sibyl will explain a passage of Pindar, which in this controversy is often cited against us. In allusion to the floating cork of the fisherman’s net, the poet says, “Not to be baptized I am as a cork upon * Ta és Tov doko ExovTas CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 28] the ridge of the sea.”* The meaning, as explained by the Sibylline verse, is far more poetic and beautiful than that which our Baptist friends assign to the passage. The cork is never covered by the wave, but always rises on its surface. It not only does not dip, (od dvve,) as the scholiast says, but is not even overwhelmed. If it be asked, How shall the bladder be baptized and the cork be unbaptizable ? we answer, that the bladder was exposed to the fury of the storms, but as men do not fish in great storms, the cork is never covered by the waves.+ So we may explain a class of passages which speak of baptism by waves as that of Libanius, cited by Mr. Ewing, “I am one of those overwhelmed by that great wave.”! Let us now select an instance in which the action of the verb Banrifo is accomplished by bringing the water upon the thing baptized, and not by putting itinto the water. One good, clear, unequivocal, instance will be quite sufficient ; for if the verb mean to put a thing into the water, it can- not mean to put the water upon the thing, although it may include both significations in its generic meaning. That instance we find in Aristotle—‘* They say respecting the Phoenicians, who inhabit the parts called Gadeira, that they sailing without the pillars of Hercules for four days with an easterly wind, came to some desert places, * "ABantiatos eit, PEANOS Ws, ‘Ymép Epxos GXwas.—Pyth. ii. 140. alone, and as entranced, Counting the hours, the fisher in his skiff Lay with his circular and dotted line On the bright waters.—Rogers’ Tialy. The unbaptizable cork of Pindar may be illustrated by the verb peAreverv, noticed by Hesychius, to float as a cork, which rises upon the wave without being covered; and still better by the Phellopedes, cork-footed people, of Lucian, (Ver. Hist. lib. ii.) who, walking on the sea, were not baptized, (not. overwhelmed, as appears by the contrast,) but keeping over or above the waves, ov BartiCopévous GAN brepexdvtas THY KULAaTar. Cat! b) ‘ ~ 4 ie \ ~ , ’ ? , I Autos eipi tév BeBamticuévwy bro TOU eyaAou KUpaTos Ekélvou. Epis. 25. 03 282 THE MODE OF abounding with rushes and sea-weeds, which on the ebb . are not baptized, but in the flood are deluged.’* ‘To the Greeks of the Mediterranean the ebb and flood of the great Atlantic tide must have been a marvellous phenomenon. When Aristotle says that the land at low water was not baptized, what else could he mean than that it was not covered with the water? In this baptism the water must have gone upon the rushes and sea-weeds, for he never could have dreamed of their going into the water. A more perfect and unexceptionable example cannot be de- sired. It does not depend upon the variable customs of that age, or upon historical events, of which inaccurate accounts may have reached us. If we know the customs of the ocean, the immutable laws of the tidal wave, we are as competent to judge of the meaning of Banrife in this instance as were the Athenians themselves. Aristotle, the faithful teacher of nature, had to relate an extraordinary fact; and we may be sure he would have been scrupu- lously exact in the selection of his words, in order to make the description as truthful as possible. To dispel any doubt, if a doubt could exist, we have another word not in contrast, as in the preceding instance, but in conformity with baptize, intended to express the same action in a varied phrase. At the ebb the shore is not baptized, but at the flood it is overwhelmed, or. covered over with water (xaraxddvgerOa). About the meaning of this word there can be no controversy. Nobody ever imagined it meant to dip. But how it spoils the figure which Dr. Gale suggests—the shore at the ebb is not dipped, but at the flood it is covered! On coming to this passage, Dr. Gale, as if affected with an unpleasant consciousness, was disposed to parley about * Aéyouat ae Polvikas TovSs KaTtorKouvtas Ta Taderpa Kadovpeva, fm mr€ovTas ‘Hpakheiov ormav dmnuadry avéeuw hépas térrapas, mapayiveobat eis Twas témovs éprpous, Optov Kai piKous mAnpecs, OVS Stay pev Gurwris 1 py BantiCecbar, Stay 6é mAnuutoa kutakrAvfecbar.—]e Mirabil. Auscult., 136. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 283 conceding the point for which we contend. He says, “ The word Banti{o, perhaps, does not so necessarily express the action of putting under water, as in general a thing being in that condition,” (if he had said coming into that condition, he would have exactly expressed our meaning,) “no matter how it comes so, whether it is put into the water, or the water is put over it; though, indeed, to put it into the water is the most natural way, and the most common, and is therefore usually and pretty constantly, but it may be not necessarily implied.” Very excellent indeed is this remark of Dr. Gale. The mode in which the thing is most commonly done, is most commonly intended in speaking of it; and hence the secret of a majority of instances of baptizing into water, as compared with those of baptizing with water. Dr. Gale adds, ‘‘ How- ever that be, the place makes nothing at all for our adver- saries, and therefore as they'll not insist on it,” (Won't we, Dr. Gale, insist on it?) ‘‘ I will dismiss it when I have desired you, if you believe there is any difficulty remaining, to consider it impartially, and to examine it by the rules I laid down for understanding metaphorical, elliptical, &c., forms of speech.”** But why consider rules for the under- standing of metaphorical, elliptical, and all the inter- minable et cetera forms of speech? Where is the dith- culty to be solved? Aristotle was the last man, and espec- ially on the phenomena of tides, and more especially in this cold, narrative sort of style, to glare and gloss with a great outlandish trope about not putting the shore into the sea, with all its rushes and fucus, a worthy companion to that other trope, about dipping the lake in the blood of the wounded frog. As to the comfortable sort of pro- ceeding in dismissing the passage, because we will not insist upon it, if we allow our pieces, as soon as they come into good play, to be surreptitiously taken off the board, under the pretext that we do not care for them, the Bap- * Reflections on Wall, p. 117. 284 THE MODE OF tists may very easily cry Check-mate most lustily. If the concession in this paragraph had been made more candidly and less covertly, without the ill grace of the allusion to rules of metaphor, I should not have looked further for an instance of candour and superiority to the tactics of a partisan, which it is refreshing to quote. Dr. Cox, in his excellent work on baptism, says, “ A person may indeed be immersed by pouring, but immersion is the being plunged into water, or overwhelmed by tt. Were the water to ascend from the earth, it would still be baptism, were the person wholly covered by it.” I see not what philological ques- tion there is between Dr. Cox and myself, as practically we both make a part do for the whole, he baptizing only the head (for the body is baptized without his aid) and I only a part of the face, and we both call the act baptizing the person. If the dispute be brought to this point, Christians ought to be ashamed to spend a moment of their precious time and expiring energy over such a wretched altercation. Grant that affusion is baptism, (as Dr. Cox does, if only there be enough of it,) and the ques- tion becomes one of degree, which may be speedily settled. It assumes the form, How much of a man needs to be baptized? Is it not his feet only, but also his hands and his head? ‘lo prove that superfusion may be baptism, I cite Aristotle with Dr. Gale assenting reluctantly, and Dr. Cox cheerfully. As to the question of degree, the only true orthodox dipper, the only Baptist who baptizes the whole man, I have ever seen, was among the shades of ancient ecclesiastical history,—an anathematized heretic lowering his disciples into the water head downwards, by the convenient machinery of a stage and ropes. To this class of instances belong the figurative expres- sions, baptized with taxes, baptized with cares, baptized with debts, baptized with calamity, not into taxes, cares, debts, or calamity; and many similar phrases. An admi- rable illustration has been cited by Mr. Ewing, from Liba- CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 285 nius: ‘“‘ He who with difficulty bears the burden he has, would be baptized by a small addition” *—would be over- whelmed by it. I have seen Bamrifoua in these phrases rendered, to sink; but the verb is not to sink, according to any translation. If it be, what becomes of the dis- tinction between Baznrifoua and dive, as maintained by the Baptists? and, further, into what does the person sink under the small addition? Will any living man maintain, that such an immersion is intended when a man is baptized by a small addition to his burden ? We now want an instance of the thing baptized becom- ing enclosed in something else, without reference to the mode in which it became so enclosed—the simple baptism in, without the into or the with—the immersion or the superfusion. ‘'l'o define this abstract sense of the word may be attended with some difficulty, as it is always easier to say with precision what a writer expresses, than to say what he does not express. When a word occurs as infre- quently as Bamrife (and the unlearned reader should know it is not of very frequent occurrence, as it is not found in several of the more important of the Greek clas- sics), it may be difficult to find the pure naked verb, with- out some extraneous encumbrance of mode and fashion, seeing it cannot come forth naked,—is not presentable in society without some modal dress. It cannot act without some mode, as a man cannot paint without some colour; yet to baptize, may have no more reference to a specific mode, than to*paint has to a specific colour. Let us seek our illustration in the abstractions of the Platonic! schools. Their teachers speak of the soul as baptized in the body, or as baptized in matter, or as bap- tized in the?dregs of creation. Baptized during life, some- times as in a sepulchre, when death is their regeneration ; sometimes in a prison, when death is their liberation. * '0 34 nddis & viv hépec Hépwv ird paxpas av BartisOein epocOnKns. Ep. 310. 286 THE MODE OF The soul is surely not dipped into the body. In the loose sense in which Dr. Cox uses the word immersion, without reference to mode, we may say the spirit is immersed in the body, but the Platonists evidently mean by their bap- tism the becoming enclosed in the body, whether, as they sometimes speak, the soul enter the body, or, as at other times, the matter concrete around the soul. The soul, .howeyer it came there, by direct infusion, or by the con- glomeration of matter around it, was baptized through life, until it emerged by philosophy, to adopt their mystic phraseology, or else by death, ‘‘a psychical principle, not consubstantial with body, to converse with immaterial forms.” The idea was a favourite one with Plato himself, although he does not use the term baptize, as it was with the disciples of Pythagoras generally. Our Baptist friends are fond of pursuing the parallel between a baptism and a burial. Plato, or his master Socrates, in whose name the disciple speaks, in that curious dialogue Cratylus, taught that essences being evolved from names, the body, capa, is truly ojpa, the sepulchre of the soul. ‘The ancient Theologues and Mantists,’ says Clement of Alexandria, alluding to the doctrine of the Pythagoreans,* “ testify that the soul is buried in the body as in a tomb.” The material is represented as adhering tenaciously to the spiritual, and as enclosing it in darkness. When the soul is said by the later Platonists, in allusion to this doctrine, as old as Pythagoras, and it would seem, as Orpheus him- self, to be baptized in body, ought not the word to be con- sidered as simply asserting the enclosure without reference ° to the mode? The ojpa was a mound of earth thrown over the dead, and such according to the Platonic theology is the body to the baptized spirit. According to the com- mentary of Olympiodorus on the Pheedo, for whose perfect orthodoxy in these profound abstractions, Thomas Taylor, the great modern Platonist, most fully and expressly vouches, * Stromat. lib. ili. \ CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 287 the bodies of men were condensed from the vayour and smoke of the blasted Titans, encircling their souls as a prison in which baptized, until they were purified from Titanic pollution. I select a passage in which the soul baptized in its body, is said to sink in matter, distinguish- ing the baptism from the sinking, which takes place when the soul lies engrossed in matter. This may probably place the simple idea more distinctly before the m.nd, than when only the baptism in the body is mentioned. Take the passage of Plotinus, in Ennead, i. lib. 8, as cited in ‘Taylor’s Dissertation on the Eleusinian and Bacchie Mys- teries.* . ‘*’AmoOvncket ody, as uxy av Odvow Kal 6 Gdvaros abrf, ere ev T@ Gopats BeBanticuery, ev VAN €or KaTaddvat Kal mAnoOnvae atres, Kal eEedOovans, exet keiaOat, Ews dvadpapun kal dp But does Dr. Carson in his reply betray any lack of confidence? He says, ‘‘ Cyprian calls perfusion the ecclesiastical baptism, as distinguished from baptism, in the proper sense of the term. ‘The persons perfused in their beds on account of sickness were not supposed to be properly baptized; but they received the ecclesiastical baptism ; that is, what the church, in such cases, admitted as a valid substitute for baptism. This fact is conclusive, and will afford an answer to all the passages referred to by President Beecher, to prove a secondary meaning in the use of the word among the Fathers.” (p. 489.) What language can betray less hesitation? Has the man who can say, without faltering, ‘‘ Cyprian calls perfusion the ecclesiastical baptism, as distinguished from baptism in the proper sense of the term,”’ the right to rebuke Dr. Beecher, or any one else, for too much confidence? ‘This fact is conclusive,” and it is pro- posed as ‘‘the answer to all the passages referred to by President Beecher.’”’ What Cyprian means by the “ecclesiastical baptism,” is a question beyond the reach of dispute. No one would think of arguing it with the person who could write—‘‘ Cyprian calls per- fusion ‘the ecclesiastical baptism,’ as distinguished from baptism in the proper sense of the term,’’—*‘ the ecclesiastical baptism ad- mitted as a valid substitute for baptism.’’ Every reader of Cyprian knows the meaning of ‘the ecclesiastical baptism.’”? Let Dr. Carson turn over the pages of Cyprian as he will; the “ecclesiastical baptism ’’ will obtrude upon him as ‘the legitimate and true and only baptism of the church.’’ ‘Will he deny that immersion as well as perfusion is called ‘the ecclesiastical baptism?’’ Has he never read in Cyprian the account of the Council of Carthage? Has he never observed, that in the proceedings respecting the baptizing of heretics, the true baptism of the church and the ecclesiastical baptism (ecclesiasticus baptismus) are used indiscriminately? Has he not seen the ecclesiastical baptism opposed to the heretical? When Natalis of Oéa gaye his opinion in the council that heretics could APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. 349 not be admitted into communion, unless they received the “ ecclesi- astical baptism,’’ did he mean unless they were perfused? Dr, Carson has more to say on behalf of sprinkling than any of us. In saying that perfusion was called “ ecclesiastical: baptism,” he vir- tually represents Christian antiquity as sprinkling. ‘* Cyprian calls perfusion the ecclesiastical baptism as distinguished from baptism in the proper sense of the term!’’ I wish Dr. Carson would prove his assertion, for so he would prove that, in the opinion of Cyprian, Philip baptized the Samaritans by perfusion. That Father says, ‘‘ because they had obtained the ecclesiastical baptism* they had no further need of baptism from Peter and John, but only required the Holy Ghost by imposition of hands.’”’ Did Cyprian believe that the Samaritan men and women and Simon Magus were all clinics, aspersed with ‘‘the ecclesiastical baptism?’’ I do not reserve this passage for reasoning, as my readers would think me trifling, were I to reason upon so marvellous an assertion. I adduce it to show that it does not become Dr. Carson, who reasons upon terms which he has never considered, to reprove the confidence of others. This strange notion vitiates his reasoning on the Fathers, for he avowedly makes it the exposition of other passages, which are adduced from ecclesiastical antiquity in opposition to his opinions. Dr. Carson is said to be better acquainted with profane than with ecclesiastical writers ; yet even in his own favourite land how often may he be caught stumbling! To show how little he attends to the connexion of his own citations, and, therefore, unless he have intuitive perception of their meaning, how little is their value, the reader may find a curious and amusing illustration in his reference to Porphyry. I gently touch him on one of many sore places with his own knife, that those who confide in his skill may see with how ill a grace he uses it upon the quick of sensitive Pedobaptists. He says, (p. 58,) ‘The sinner is represented by Porphyry (p. 282,) as baptized up to his head in Styx, a celebrated river in hell.” In the list of his authorities for translating Barri¢w, to dip, this curious passage seemed to teach something so wonderful in mythology, that it immediately caught my attention. Although Dr. Carson charges honest people with forgery, I did not believe that he fabricated the passage. That Styx was a celebrated river in hell, was certainly not the perplexing statement; but that a poor sinner should be re- presented as immersed up to his head in it, and that the represent- * Ecclesiasticum baptismum consecuti fuerant. De Hereticis Baplizandis, p. 325. Ed. Basil. 1521. 850 APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. ation should be found in an admirer of Pythagoras, seemed very extraordinary information, Could I only have found the passage, I knew not to what mysteries it might prove the clue. How did the wicked ghost get into the river? Did Charon turn him out of the boat? Could he beguile the time, and alleviate his sorrow, with the music of that melodious parachoregema of poetical frogs, who sang their brekekekex, koax, koax, in the days of Aristophanes? Having no Porphyry except the beautifully printed Latin version of De Abstinentia, Mpxtvi1., Cum summi Pontificis et Senati Veneti privilegio in annos x., I read it with the vain hope of discovering the baptized sinner in Styx. Disappointed, I had to procure a Greek copy, and going through the ‘ Life of Pythagoras,’’ and that curious work, the ‘‘ Cave of the Nymphs,” in which may be found some good illustrations of the use of Bdmrrw; in that magic cave, the mystic manufactory of mortal men, I could discern no shadow of the sinner baptized in Styx. So reluctantly abandoning the search, I proceeded with Dr. Carson. Getting through the instances of Bamrri(w taken from Dr. Gale, I found some instances repeated with a change of translation, and among them, to my surprise, the sinner of Porphyry again baptized in Styx. ‘‘ Porphyry applies the word to the heathen opinion of the baptism of the wicked in Styx, the famous lake in hell: ‘when the accused person enters the lake, if he is innocent, he passes boldly through, having the water up to his knees ; but if guilty, having advanced a little, he is plunged or baptized up to his head.’ (De Styge, p. 282.) The baptism of Styx, then, is an immersion up to the head.”? This a heathen opinion! Where have we been studying mythology? De Styge, p. 282! Has the doctor recovered the treatise De Styge? Has he deciphered a palimpsest, and does he cite from the dim characters of the restored text of Porphyry? Has this recovered piece of Homeric criticism two hundred and eighty-two pages? On referring to a fragment of De Styge, preserved by Stobeeus, containing about one page of moderate octavo, I fortunately found the words cited by Dr. Carson. The heathen opinion belongs to the Brahmins! The dipping of ghosts turns out to be no more in the Styx than in the Thames, as it is a dipping of bodies in a lake in India. In the whole fragment, there is not a word about the celebrated river in hell. Had the keen anatomist of the sprinklers but read either the preceding or the succeeding sentence, he would have found that he was not baptizing in the Stygian pool. What he means by page 282, I cannot divine. But, it may be asked, what has this ludicrous affair to do with the controversy? It does no more than afford the opportunity to say, APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. 351 that when Dr. Carson catches a poor Peedobaptist thus immersed in the wrong place, he exposes the blunder before the world coolly, and on principle, as proof of incompetence and evidence against his opponents’ cause. Let him, as a fallible man, learn from his own failings to respect the feelings of others; and so far from attempting to depreciate his talents or his learning, we shall cheerfully express, as we feel, the highest admiration of them both. Dr. Carson has, I say it with unfeigned respect, the two worst vices which can adhere to controversy ; he does not elearly cite his authorities, and he shifts his words. He does not clearly cite his authorities. It is true he refers to his former edition for the Greek, but we cannot obtain that edition; and if we could, what right have we to be taxed with the price of another book to read his argument with fairness and satisfaction? But we desire not so much the few words of Greek, as the distinct references to the original in a form which we can use.— What sort of references are such as these: Plutarch says, Diodorus Siculus says, and so on, with only the English translation appended? Py the laws of honest controversy, an opponent has a right to exclude all these passages from consideration. ‘They may be held to amount to no more than the bare assertion of the appellant. I know where to find many of them, but there are some of importance which I cannot find. His frequent citation of the page of an author is also objectionable ; for the reader may have, as I find to my cost, other editions of the same work ; as in Hippocrates, where he cites from the Basil edition, and I, unfortunately, have the Frankfort. In the citations from Hippo- crates of Baérrw, he assists us by referring to the particular treatises in which they occur, but in those of Barti(w, where the references are far more important, he withholds the name of the treatise from which he cites. To find one remarkable instance in which Hippo- erates seems to use Bamwti(w in the sense in which he everywhere else employs Bdmrrw, I have turned over my copy in all directions, and even looked over the splendid Paris edition of Hippocrates and Galen, in thirteen volumes folio, without success. ‘To find the citation, I know no means less laborious than to read through twelve hundred folio pages of Greek, or to make a journey to London or Tubbermore to consult the Basil edition. I make this statement, not in complaint of Dr. Carson, but in apology for myself in not noticing this particular citation. I do, however, complain of many other passages in which no reference at all is given. With such inexcusable suppressions, it is impossible to carry on controversy. My next complaint is, Dr. Carson shifts his words. I will give the 852 APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. instances respecting a part of the subject, in which, as I perfectly agree with him, I may judge the more impartially. As there are some persons who think that Bdrrw does not in its primary and proper signification mean to dip, Dr. Carson undertakes to refute them; and as he would not willingly fight with a shadow, he must think this part of the controversy of some importance. He notices especially Dr. Owen, who asserts that not Bdrrw, but éuBdrre, is the proper word, to express dipping. Here then is the case of a class of Padobaptists (I hope very small) represented by the great Dr. Owen; and not one of them, I will venture to say, nor any other man in the world, would maintain that ¢ufdmrw is not to dip. What are the tactics of Dr. Carson? He adduces his proofs that Bdarrw is to dip; cites them in overwhelming numbers; pours in his forces, to the dismay of all Dr. Owen’s living admirers; arms even his physicians; and puts old Hippocrates in the front of the fight. Citations follow citations in unbroken column, in which the Greeks are unfairly brought up in English uniform. ‘‘ Dip,” is inscribed upon every man; but upon consulting Hippocrates we find that the embapto is surreptitiously introduced with the dapto; and no man who has not Hippocrates to consult, or who has not the Basil edition, can tell how many citations are true and how many are false. If I had the right edition, I would give the proportions, but the proportions are of little consequence. JI do not insinuate any- thing like intentional misrepresentation, of which I firmly believe Dr. Carson is utterly incapable; but if any one, from whatever cause, will shift his words, and introduce éuBdmrrw in the name of Bdérrw, 1 must see his authorities in their own books before I can trust them. Let me also adduce an instance of the shifting of English words ; and here I am a party concerned. Dr. Carson says that Barrie is ‘dip, and nothing but dip,” (p. 61.) With respect to the instance of the bladder baptized, but not dipped, Dr. Carson says, ‘‘ a bladder if sufficiently filled will dip, but will not sink.’”’ He clearly dis- tinguishes the dipping from the sinking. To baptize, then, according to his doctrine, is not to sink. I perfectly agree with him. Dr. Carson might sink, without being baptized, from the lofty elevation of talent and character which I cheerfully acknowledge he occupies, (and no one more cordially prays that he may occupy it with addi- tional lustre for the good of the church until his death than I do,) to the low level on which most unjustly he places his Pedobaptist opponents. As therefore to baptize is not to sink, which the Bap- tists are ready enough to assert in certain circumstances, (and none APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. 303 more ready than Dr. Carson, with the bladder of Theseus before him,) we must not allow the word dp to shift into sink, when the former will not do in the place of baptize. It may be said,—Does Dr. Carson, who says the bladder may dip but will not sink, ever shift the words, and make sink to manceuvre into the place of dip? Let us return to his book, p. 89. If the reader will consult my lecture, he will see that a passage has been introduced into this controversy from Libanius—‘‘ He who bears with difficulty the burden he already has, would be baptized (overwhelmed) with a small addition.’’ We asserted that to be baptized is, according to this passage, to be overwhelmed and not to be dipped. Ifthe passage be translated, ‘‘is dipped by a small addi- tion,’’ every body would inquire, Is dipped into what? and if the answer should be, Into cold water, the reply would be, Where is the water of the passage? Such sentences try the honesty of contro- vertists. Dr. Carson shifts from dip to sink,—he says the burden causes the man to sizk. But what have we to do with sinking? The man may sink under his burden to the ground, but unless he be pressed down into the ground he is not dipped. So Mr. Ewing cites a passage from Plutarch, ‘‘ Baptized by a debt of five thousand myriads,” not surely dipped by it; and Dr. Carson replies, ‘‘it re- presents the debt when on him as causing him to sink.” But again, I ask, what have we to do with sinking? ‘To baptize,’’ says Dr. Carson elsewhere, ‘‘is to dip, and nothing else.” If it be so, why shift the word sink, which is not to baptize, into the place of dip? This is the kind of shifting which I find continually in Dr. Carson, who says he ‘never resorts to a shift.”’ I do not think he does: but the shifts continually resort to him ; they creep over him insensibly in the eagerness of contention, and insinuate themselves craftily into his print, imparting a false colour- ing to his authorities. If to baptize be nothing else than to dip, as Dr. Carson says positively and frequently, why does he not invariably translate it to dip? I desire no other refutation of his book, as I think there can be no better, than an edition with no alteration whatever, except the word “dip,’’ inserted in every instance for Bamrri¢w, to the exclusion of sink, and submerge, and bury, and overwhelm, and every term interchanged for it. Josephus says ‘ the robbers baptized the city,’’ (De Bello, iv. 3,)—‘‘oppressed the city,” says Mr. Ewing,—‘ sunk the city,’’ says Dr. Carson (p. 84). Dipped the city, he ought to have said, if baptize is invariably to dip; and dipped he would have said, if it would have made sense. — If ‘‘dipped’’ will not make sense, it is not the meaning of Barri(w. ake AA 354 APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. His own distinction between Barri and dtvw—baptize and sink, in his version of the Sibylline verse, peremptorily forbids him to inter- change the words. But to examine the principles of Dr. Carson is a more important object than to estimate his merits. So far as Bdrrw is concerned, I have no controversy with him. He has expended a great deal of superfluous labour, as it appears to me, in reading through Hippocrates in quest of proofs of a usage which ought to be re- garded as undeniable. For more than six hundred years the de- finition of Eustathius has been before the world, without having been eyer seriously controverted, Bdrrw, Td euBiBd w mot Td eviewevoy.* To the secondary sense, to dye, which Dr. Carson assigns to Barra, we can have no reason to object; as Pedobaptists have long con- tended for it, in opposition to Baptists, who have maintained that in dyeing only by dipping, it never lost its primary signification. Al- though Dr. Carson has said enough to satisfy his brethren, he has not, I think, produced the most decisive evidence which the idiom of the language supplies. The best proof of a complete change of the meaning, is a corresponding change of the syntax accommod- ating itself to the deflection of sense. When we read of the use of the word in dyeing wool, or colouring the hair, or staining the hand, the instances, as adduced by Dr. Carson, are quite satisfactory. But the syntax is not affected. 'The wool, the hair, or the hand, which would be dipped, if the dyeing were accomplished by dipping, is still the object of the verb. In the phrases, to dip the wool, and to stain the wool, the syntax is the same. But if the syntax is so varied as to make not the thing coloured, but the colour itself, the object of the verb,—as when we say to dye a purple—the secondary sense has then renounced all dependence upon the primary, and established itself by a new law of syntax, enacted by usage to secure its undisturbed possession. Dr. Carson might have produced a proof-passage from Plato, De Repub. lib. iv. 429, as of that passage respecting the work of dyers, he has given us the inexcusably in- accurate translation of Gale, of which, however, I adduce only the clause relating to our purpose—‘‘no matter what dye they are dipped in.’’ Would any one think that this was the translation made by Dr. Gale, and cited by Dr. Carson, of the words, édy ré Tis HAAa Xpouara Barry, edv Te Ka) TadTa, Whether any one dye other colours or these also? Whether the xpéua was the dye into which the wool was dipped, according to the version cited, or the colour * Comment. ad Odyss. Rhap. N. 398—401. APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. 355 imparted to it, is not the question. Be it which it may, it is the object of Barn; it has gained in the syntax the place of the material subjected to the process; and therefore pleads a law of language, that Barrw in the passage does not, and cannot, mean to dip, as the colour cannot be dipped, whatever may be done with the wool. An- other instance may be found in Plato, (Leges iv. 847,) where the verbal Barrds is in construction, not with the material coloured, as in Aristophanes and elsewhere frequently, but with the dye or colour, ‘‘ purple, and whatever colours for dyeing’”’ (Barra xpépata) “the country does not produce.’”’ We have another instance in Lucian (Cynic. p. 1106. Op. Ed. Amstel.), of rv ropptpay Barrovres, ‘those dyeing the purple. Dr. Carson has produced sufficient evid- ence in the use of words, but this syntax which he has overlooked I hold to be demonstrative. Dr. Carson ought to have extended the secondary signification of Rdérrw to several processes of manufacture which, like dyeing, were originally and usually performed by dipping. The tempering of metal, for instance, appears to have as good a right to the second. ary sense of the word, as the dyeing of cloth. Metal, although usually tempered by dipping, would, I imagine, temper just as well if plenty of water were poured upon it. “ABamros, applied to metal, according to Suidas and Hesychius is untempered, or haying no edge. Bdiis oidhpov, in Pollux, is the tempering of iron.* In the Agamemnon (595), Adschylus by the xaAxov Baal, represented as unknown to women, must mean the tempering or edge of brass ; for, I suppose, of the version of Schutz, ‘‘ wounds inflicted by brass,” Dr. Carson would say with Blomfield, ‘‘ew: minime assentior,”’ Similar instances may be produced, but it may be asked, according to my own principles, has this usage assumed a syntax of its own? Sophocles in the Ajax (660) introduces his hero saying, ‘‘ I endured horrible things, as iron with the tempering,’’ (Sap7). Iron is dipped in water, but tempered with water. The scholiast on this passage says, “‘Iron is tempered in two ways. If they wish it to be soft, they temper it with oil (éAaip Bdwrovow); “but if to be hard, with water” (88a7:). As Dr. Carson elsewhere renders this dative in water, I must content myself with protesting against his render- ing, while I look for a different construction. Another scholiast says the softened iron is BeBappévos bmd éAatov, tempered by oil; for this phrase, whatever Dr. Carson may say, nobody else in all the world would translate dipped into oil. But as the controversy is not, or ought not to be, about Bdrrw, let * Ayripey d¢ cipnke Batev xadkov Kai c1dypov.—J. Poll. Onom. lib. vii. § 169. 556 APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. us proceed to its cognate Barti(w. I have in the lecture stated my reasons for thinking the latter term is more generic, or has a more extensive signification than the former. Dr. Carson admits no such distinction ; but his own versions confirm my views, and show that Pdrrw is more nearly than fBarri(w related to the English verb, to dip. If the reader will go through his versions of the two words, it will be found that while he generally renders the former, to dip, he as generally renders the latter by some other word, On examin- ing the second, third, fourth, and fifth sections of his second chapter, in which he collects instances of the primary signification of Barre, I find, if I count correctly, of the one hundred and four instances which he adduces, he renders it to dip, in one hundred and one, and in only three instances by other words, twice to immerse, and once to plunge. In the tenth section, in which he adduces thirty-seven citations of Bamri(w, he renders it to dip only in seven instances ; and by other words, as to baptize, to sink, to immerse, to drown, &c., in the other thirty. Such a difference could have been accidental, no more than the sun could have been lighted by accident. If it be asked, Why should Bamrti(w be rendered immerse and not dip; and Barrw, dip, and’ not immerse, in several instances? I reply, Be- cause immerse does not in common parlance so distinctly mark the mode, and is therefore more appropriate to the generic than to the modal verb; while dip belongs to the modal (Barrw), rather than to the generic (Barri(w). Dr. Carson illustrates this distinction of the words immerse and dip. ‘If, on the top of a mountain, I am sud- denly involved in mist, shall any one misunderstand me, when I say, that I was suddenly immersed in a cloud ?’’ p, 380. Elsewhere he inquires, if we should not say that an army between two moun- tains was not immersed in the valley. But if, in either of these instances, the word dip were used, it would appear as strange as does his use of the auxiliary verb shall. In common conversation, immerse is so losing its etymological signification, as often to express only the position, as in the valley or the mist ; but dp immediately suggests the idea of the mode of the action. Dip, continuing the modal verb, belongs more properly to Bdrrw than to Bamri~w, as Dr. Carson’s citations show very clearly and distinctly. But for this distinction I depend not alone upon Dr. Carson. To any list of citations, made without reference to this point, I carry the appeal. In my own veracity I have no right to challenge con- fidence, when I say, that in the course of my reading some years since, with no thought of such a distinction, I hastily translated the several sentences in which I found the words; and in forty-eight APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. 307 instances of Bdrrw, I rendered forty to dip, and six to dye; but of eighteen instances of Bamwri(w, only one to dip. The coincidence with Dr. Carson’s lists may prevent my Baptist friends from charging me with telling an impudent falsehood. But let us turn to the essay of Professor Stuart in the Biblical Repository, April, 1833. The citations correspond very much with those of Dr. Carson; but as the professor says he did not see Dr. Carson’s book until the close of his labours, his versions were not copied. Of Bdrrw there are thirty- four instances, of which twenty-two are rendered to dip, and twelve by other words, chiefly equivalent as to plunge; but of forty-six instances of Bamri¢w, only one is rendered to dip, and forty-five by other words, frequently to overwhelm.* I cite these instances to confirm the opinion expressed in the lecture, that Bamri(w differs from. Bamrrw in not so nearly representing our modal yerb to dip. I know no better evidence than translations made without reference to the: question. It becomes my duty to notice the explanations which Dr. Car-- son gives of the passages which I adduced in the lecture, to prove: that Bamri¢w is a generic verb, to cover with water, or immerse im it in any mode, and not, as he calls it, the modal verb, to dip, and nothing else. As to the Athenian oracle, I cannot do better than cite Dr. Carson’s own words. His version is, ‘* Thou mayest be dipped, O bladder, but thou art not fated tosink.’’ But ddveiw, we still contend, is not to sink, but only to dip; if by sinking is meant descending an inch or a line below the surface. Will Dr. Carson deny that the action of this verb is completed by the heavenly bodies, at the mo- ment they pass the edge of the horizon? Will he dispute with the lexicographers on their versions, intro, influo, ingredior, and similar words denoting entrance, it may be into a house, or into clothes, or into the sea, or into anything else? Karadvvew is more like sink- ing ; but even that descending preposition xar& will not always carry ddvey downwards. I will give him the verb doubly-headed with prepositions, penetrating and descending, sufficient to carry it to the centre of the earth, if it had the sinking tendency which he ascribes to it, and it shall still move horizontally. If he will turn to the ‘‘ Lite of Pythagoras,’” in his own favourite Porphyry, he will find that the philosopher is said to enter the temple, advrois éyraradver@at, which is only another form of the same verb. I need not refer him to Homer’s karadiva: Susdoy, or karadimevar wdxny, in which even xar& * T have omitted the citations from the Septuagint and New Testament, as they may be suspected of betraying a theological bias. 358 APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. fails to make ddvaz sink. On referring to his own instances of the sinking of ships, in which both verbs are found, ddva sinks the vessel by the aid of kara: but Bamri{w with no such weight appended is sufficient, as he knows very well, to sink the largest ship in her Majesty’s navy. How then can he, in construing the oracle, make ddvac mean to sink, as distinguished from Bamri(ey? Both words combine in the confutation of his rendering. And is it not surprising, if anything could surprise us in the im- petuous movements of theological controversy, that Dr. Carson, in so many other places, should render Bamri{w, to sink, or at least sur- reptitiously introduce that word as its representative, but here should make this selfsame sink, his most obsequious servant, come out the antagonist of baptize, and in opposition to the characteristic meaning of the word? Observe the tactics of the great defender of the Baptists. What is to baptize? Something contrasted with sinking, for so he expounds the oracle, and yet something identified with sinking, for that word he often employs as its representative, as baptized in debt is according to him sunk in debt (p. 85). What is the difference between Bamri{w and dvvw? The former is only to dip, but the latter to sink, according to him, p. 61. What is the greater difference between Bamrri(w and karadivw, to sink down ac- cording to the force of the preposition? ‘‘ Baptizomai is coupled with kataduno as a word of similar import, though not exactly synonymous,” according to him, p. 65. To sink serves both for the synonyme and for the opposite of baptize, as it may be needed, and therefore we say expurgate the book from that treacherous word, with which it is so easy to play fast and loose throughout the controversy. But let us hear the Doctor in explanation ; he says—‘‘ The obvious and characteristic distinction between the words is that dunein is a neuter verb signifying to sink.’’—p. 61. This is only assertion, which I meet by counter-assertion. It is not to sink, but to enter. “ But a thing that sinks of itself will doubtless sink to the bottom if not prevented.’’ Doubtless it will! ‘It is therefore characteristically applied to things that sink to the bottom.’ This is the very thing. Let Dr. Carson produce the proof passage of this characteristic, and I will concede the argument. Let him show me divvw without the aid of xara going to the bottom of Styx, or any other water, and I immediately surrender the passage, He adds, “* Baptizein signifies merely to dip, without respect to depth or consequence,”’ [it has as much respect to depth and consequence as dunein,] ‘and is as proper to the immersion of an insect on the surface of the deepest part of APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. 359 the ocean, as to the sinking of a ship or a whale in the deepest part of the same.’’ Andso, as he knows very well, is dunein. Or where, as to size and depth, between the insect and thé whale, the surface and the bottom, does baptizein end and dunein begin? ‘* Both words might, in many cases, be applied to the same thing indifferently, but in their characteristic meaning, as in the above verse, they are opposed. The expression in this verse is allegorical, literally refer- ring to a bladder or leathern bottle, which, when empty, swims on the surface ; if sufficiently filled will dip, but will not sink.’ A nice process to produce the equipoise in the bladder between the inflation and the collapse so that it shall dip and not sink! “In this view it asserts that the Athenian state, though it might be occasionally overwhelmed with calamities, yet would never perish.’” How beau- tifully truth will unexpectedly develope itself! Overwhelmed with calamities is our baptism ; the bladder overwhelmed with the waves, and emerging from them by its own buoyancy, is the very thing for which we contend. “There is another sense which the expression might have, and which is very suitable to the ambiguity of an oracle. You may yourself destroy the state, otherwise it is imperishable. A leathern bottle might be so filled as to force it to the bottom, though it would never sink of itself.’ Here baptizein, and not dunein, is made to send the bladder to the bottom; either word, as the Doctor pleases, may answer that purpose. All will concur with the worthy author that this sense ‘‘is very suitable to the ambiguity of an oracle.” Dr. Carson concludes his remarks—‘ Nothing can more decisively determine the exact characteristic import of baptizein than this verse. It is dip, and nothing but dip.” If, as is here intimated, there be no better proof, I appeal to the reader, if his case is not clean gone, and like the bladder, sunk of itself. With regard to the next passage in the lecture, that from Aristotle, in which it is said, ‘‘ the coast with rushes and sea-weeds is not bap- tized’’- (covered with water) ‘at the ebb,’ Dr. Carson says, “The peculiar beauty of the expression consists in figuring the object which is successively bare and buried under water,’’ (The Doctor uses the word dury in several instances as a substitute for baptize, and evidently, in this instance, without regard to mode, not putting into but covering over.) ‘Or, being dipped when it is covered, and as emerging when it is bare.” There is no disputing about taste, and therefore I can only say no passage appears to me to have less of the appearance of figure than this relation of a natural phenomenon. Unless a figurative sense be obvious, no one has any right to assume it, Again, the figure, if it be allowed, is in the member of the 860 APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. sentence in which it is least to be expected; not where the idea of the swelling flood might suggest it, but in the bare negation, the uncovered shore. * Dr. Carson is a better rhetorician than was Aristotle, and shows a great deal more taste than he ascribes to the author of the Poetics. ‘‘ Dipped when it is covered, and emerging when it is bare,’’ is the consistent language which he selects to pre- serve the metaphor from injury. But he makes Aristotle strangely to mingle the figurative and the literal, and to say instead of ‘ dip- ping ”’ and ‘“ emerging,”’ ‘‘dipped”’ and “‘ overflowed.’ The beauty of the imagery, whatever it be, is created by the genius of Dr. Carson, not by the skill of Aristotle, who commencing with his figure, sinks into dull prose; inspired by the muse at the beginning, is suddenly forsaken in the midst of his brief discussion, and so he dips not the coast into the sea, at ebb; (the beautiful figure !) and covers it with water, at the flood (the unadorned prose). The corresponding verb, xataxAv(ecOu, destroys the figure. But if it do not, I ask the reader to consider whether any passage has less of the appearance of figure than this citation, or whether any figure can be produced, more unsightly in its form, more awkward in its moye- ment, or more incongruous in its connexion, than this not dipping of the coast with all its rushes and fucus into the sea at low water? Dr. Carson adds, ‘‘ In the same style we might say that at the flood, God immersed the mountains in the waters, though the waters came over them.”’ This is exactly in the same style. He might say that God dipped the world into the flood, but I am quite sure he has too much good sense to preach after such a fashion, even to an Irish audience, passionately fond of all kinds of figures. The passage from Libanius, of the man baptized by a small addi- tion to a heavy burden, I have already noticed. Dr. Carson’s ex- planation is, ‘‘The burden causes the man to sink.” But Bamri¢w is, according to the ablest defender of the Baptists, to dip, not to sink. I ask again, Does it cause him to dip into the earth, or to dip into what substance? We are not surely to be amused with an image of a man swimming with a burden upon his head, to which certainly a yery small addition, as a very small burden, would cause him to sink. By the aid of figurative license, and by substituting sinking or other unauthorized words for dipping, Dr. Carson can easily carry his point. His axiom is, ‘‘ One mode of wetting is figured as an- other mode of wetting, by the liveliness of the imagination.’”? Grant me the use of this axiom with a lively imagination, and I will easily prove the word in dispute to mean any kind of wetting whatever. APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. 361 Let it be to wet by covering with water, I take my passage from Aristotle on the baptism of the shore by the overflowing tide. To all opposing passages I apply the axiom, and what beautiful figures rise before me! with what lively imaginations these Greeks must have been endowed! One mode of wetting is figured by another mode, and all modes are figured by the overflowing tide of Aristotle, On leaving the class of passages which represent baptism as over- flowing or covering with water, I propose two inquiries. If Barri¢w, as to the mode, be the same as Bdr7Tw, how is it that in the hundred and fifty instances of the latter verb, in its primary signification, there is no occasion to substitute the word sink or bury, or anything else, for a good, honest dipping? and, secondly, what is there in Barri(w which so captivates the poet or orator, as to induce him when he rises to the elevation of ‘‘ figuring one mode of wetting by another mode,”’ to select it to the utter rejection of its cognate? Bdarw was indeed a poetic speaker in the lively imagination of Dr. Gale, and the older Baptists; but Dr. Carson has reduced him to the proprieties of prosaic discourse. If the idea of overwhelming, as in Aristotle and elsewhere, be not in the proper usage of the word, but in the play of the imagination, why in all the instances should Bamri{w, and not BarrTw, suggest it- self to the lively imagination of the Greek? Why should the former arrogate all the poetry? I propose notachallenge, for I do not write in that spirit, but as an anxious inquirer after truth. I ask our Baptist friends either to produce instances in the use of Bdrrw, ‘of one mode of wetting figuring another,”’ or to explain the ground of the difference. If they will do this out of pity to an erring brother, they will do much to make me a convert, and probably many others whose conversion would be of far more importance. Dr. Carson intimates that the greatness of things baptized has some- thing to do with the difference between the verbs, but this surely cannot affect their figurative use. -Besides, in the first instance we meet with a form of Barri(w in the range of Greek literature, it is in connexion with a fisherman’s cork, little enough for any purpose of dipping. Wearehere, I am sure, open to conviction, as it appears to me the hinge upon which much depends, after haying spent in vain many wearisome hours in seeking for instances of this poetic use of Bdrrw corresponding with Bamriqw. If it exists, pray let us know it. . But I must say, we are not to be referred to Nebuchadnezzar dipped in dew in the book of Daniel. As it is expected that every- body who embarks in this controversy should notice this passage, 362 APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. and as I may not find a more convenient opportunity, I will just advert to it. The phrase, as every one familiar with this dispute knows, is amd ris Spdcov Tod odpavod Td cdua adtod eBag¢n. Dan. iv. 30. I am not ashamed to acknowledge I do not understand these words. If they be Greek, I am not scholar enough to translate them. It appears to me that the translator has closely followed the Chaldee idiom, in selecting both the preposition &md, and the verb Bdmr7w, as corresponding in some respects to the Chaldee viv, which seems, ac- cording to the analogy of the Hebrew and Syriac, sometimes to mean to colour. The Chaldee is plain enough—‘*‘ he was made wet from the dew.’ If é8aon be a correct translation, it of course must mean the same thing ; but I feel bound to acknowledge its inaccuracy so far as I can understand it. Theodotion’s version of Daniel is said to have been substituted for that of the Septuagint, on account of the inaccuracies of the latter; but Theodotion himself was not infallible in Chaldee. Dr. Cox builds some argument upon the peculiarity of the second aorist tense of the verb, which I cannot refute, as I do not understand it; but he will find, if he consult Montfaucon’s edition of the fragments of the Hexapla, that in the twenty-second verse other Greek versions employed the future tense Baphoerat, which was also the reading of Chrysostom, (in Comm.) Dr. Carson appeals to the original Chaldee, and says, ‘“‘ How can mode be ex- cluded, if it is both in the original and in the translation?’ But is it in the original? Gesenius gives the meaning of the word to wet, to moisten, in both states. Although he says, ‘otherwise to immerse, to colour,” yet to wet is his version. If, therefore, Dr. Carson will maintain that the Chaldee verb is one of mode, he must carry on the controversy with Gesenius and the orientalists. He thinks the expression is intelligible and beautiful in our own lan- guage, and offers three poetic illustrations ; one which he says we hear every day—‘‘The man who has been exposed to a summer- plump, will say that he has got a complete dipping ;’’ of which phraseology I can only say, although I have lived some years in the world, I never heard it in my life before: another from Virgil in the beautiful lines— Postquam collapsi cineres et flamma quievit Reliquias vino et bibulam lavere favillam. The third is the phrase of Milton, ‘‘ colours dipped in heaven.”’ This translation of Daniel must be a curious passage. I have before me a Baptist writer, who says it is a proof of the thorough drenching of baptism in the thick eastern dews; and a Pedobaptist, who says it proves baptism may be the gentlest effusion. Dr. Carson APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. 363 thinks the man has no soui who does not feel the inspiration of the figure, as if Theodotion,—whose fancy I am sure in no other word of his version ever reflects a sunbeam of poetry,—turning his poetic eye on the sparkling of the dew-drops, saw the maniac king as the three great poets, cited by Dr. Carson on the passage, would have seen him, with ‘‘ colours dipped in heaven.’”’ To me, on the other hand, the translator of Daniel appears creeping on the literalities of his original, and afraid of indulging his fancy even in the accommodation of his preposition to Greek usage. And withal, the word has nothing to do with baptism ; for it may mean a thousand things which do not belong to its cognate Bamtiqw. I have only to add, when we ask the Baptists for the figurative use of Barrw corresponding with the fig- urative use, as they call it, of Barri(w, or the reason why at the sight of one word the writer should so often soar to the top of Helicon, while the other never raises him from the low ground of prosaic life, let them not exhibit Theodotion bewildered with a pre- position, as a poet with ‘ colours dipped in heaven.”’ As the third class of instances to which I referred are not noticed, I proceed to the distinction which has been suggested between the two words under consideration. As Dr. Carson is too well acquainted with the tendencies of language to suppose that two words, however they may be related, would run through a course of ages in parallel lines, he does not proceed without adverting to the distinction be- tween BdérrTw and Barri(w. He thinks that the former means to dip, and the latter has the causative sense, and denotes to make to dip. Of this distinction, however, he adduces no proof passage; nor can I perceive the slightest reason for it, unless it be that it exists between the forms of some other verbs of two terminations. But for the same reason famrri(w might be made a frequentative, or a continuative, or many other things, for any list of the verbs in (w is sufficient to support the assertion of Buttmann that they can be brought under no one class. Because demvéw is to sup, and demvi¢w to give a supper, we have no right to infer that the same distinction exists in the verbs before us. Besides, this distinction is without a difference, at least without such a difference as exists in other simple and causative verbs; for as Dr. Carson justly observes, ‘‘if we dip an object in any way, we cause it to dip or sink.”” (This word sink is everlastingly intruding.) According to this distinction we can never do the action of one verb without doing the other,—can never dip without causing to dip; but to sup and to give a supper, to be rich and to make rich, and all other verbs of this kind, so far as I can recollect them, imply a plain and palpable difference ; for many 364 APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. miserly people sup, without inviting to supper,—are rich without making rich. Again, Dr. Carson attempts to sustain his shadow of a distinction by shifting the sense of the word: Barrw is to dip— the transitive verb, to put a thing into the water, and not the neuter verb, to dip, or go into the water. In the causative the sense is shifted from the transitive into the neuter, as when he says the causative ‘is applied to ships which are made to dip.”’ This dip of the ships is not Bdrrw, the transitive, but the neuter into which it has shifted. Lastly, Barri¢w is not causative to Bamrw, for if it were it would mean to induce others to dip; as if a master compelled his servants to dip,—the master would baptize, or cause to dip— while the servant would not baptize, but only dip. But is there in all the Greek language (I ask Dr. Carson, for I am sure he has read a great deal more of it, and to a great deal better purpose, than I have) any appearance of such a distinction? For these reasons I do not believe there is any foundation for the opinion that Barri is causative to Barro. Nor can I see proof of the continuative sense of Barri(w,—although it is applied to ships, which are submerged in the ocean and rise no more, ‘This opinion has been supported by two able writers in this controversy, the correspondent of Mr. Ewing and the author of the Essays in the Congregational Magazine ; but I need not advert to it, as I fully agree in all Dr. Carson has said in its refutation. There remains, so far as I know, no other distinction (I mean in the primary sense) than that which I have suggested and defended in the lecture. With the exception of the compound in Pindar, standing by itself in the relics of Greek literature, we have, I think, the earliest use of the verb Barri(w in Plato and Aristotle; and in their instances it is used as the verb Bdamrw could not have been used, meaning, to overwhelm ; be it, as I say, the proper sense,—or be it, as Dr. Carson says, a figurative use of the word. These two philo- sophers use it as the simpler form is never used, and so the verb, covering, not dipping, its object, is first introduced to our attention. If their index-makers and lexicographers are to be trusted, it is not found in the more common of the Attic historians, tragedians, or orators. It afterwards became more common, is frequently used by Polybius, who, if the lexicon of his words be correct, never uses Bdrrw ; and in the later writers, as in Plutarch, it is found occa- sionally occuping the place of Bdrrw, which substitution, although I find but few instances in the earlier writers, is not opposed to the sense which I have given to the word. Bamri¢w, in my view, has more breadth of meaning than Bdrrw, and therefore, although the APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. 365 earlier writers often employed it, where Bdrrw would not answer their purpose, it might have been used occasionally as a substitute for Bdxrw, under particular circumstances. Dr. Carson has well asserted the principle, (as with him it is an axiom,) that words in certain circumstances may be interchangeable, although they are not synonymous. There isin Dr. Carson one instance, as he gives it, from Hippocrates, of Barri{w being used precisely in the sense of Bax7w, only one among a hundred of its cognates; a fact in itself remarkable, although explicable in accordance with my views ; but as I cannot find the reference in my edition, I must leave it without examination. To explain the use of baptize, Dr. Carson adduces instances of figurative language in English. He cites from an Irish newspaper an account of a bog, which is said to have been submerged by the water, when the water came over it. Were he to translate this into Greek he might use Barri(w, but his familiarity with the language would forbid him to use Bérrw. To submerge is not to put into water, but to put under water, and in any way. Anything may be ut under water by bringing the water upon it, precisely as we say, to lay the meadow under water, by overflowing it. This use of the word occurs both in Latin and in English, and in prose as plain as prose can be. It suggests to me a clear and convenient distinction; Baxrw, I maintain, is immergo, and nothing else as to mode; Barritw is mergo, in all its modes and forms it is immergo, and demergo, and submergo, and every other merge, I believe, of English or Latin. It defines no mode of merging. Let us now glance at the instances which we have cited from the New Testament, and a word or two will be necessary respecting our position, which, I must advertise the reader, is not in this Appendix exactly what it was in the lecture. In the lecture I had to show the difference between the usage of the New Testament and that for which our Baptist brethren contend. To maintain a part of the averment of the lecture, that to baptize in the New Testament is not to dip, is the business of the Appendix: to maintain the other part, that it is not to overwhelm, will be my duty, in addition to the evidence I have already offered, when I see those who concede the dipping and contend for the overwhelming. I see as yet no such adversary in the open field, unless it be Dr. Cox, who thinks that immersion may be effected by water coming up from below about the patient. I know not whether he has ever baptized in that peculiar manner; but if he has, and still refuses to rebaptize, although his brethren say that his mode is no better than sprinkling, he and I 366 APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. might, I am certain, soon bring our difference to an amicable settle- ment. But I have unfortunately to deal not with the amenities of Dr. Cox, but with the arguments of Dr. Carson. On approaching the New Testament, I find that Dr. Carson meets the objections from the Pharisaic baptisms, and from the difficulties of immersing the great numbers, under the circumstances mentioned in the evangelical history, by appealing to what, for his purpose, ought to be absolute demonstration,—the established sense of the word. With much more candour than some of his brethren, who seem to imagine that all is as plain as the baptism of a church mem- ber, with abundance of preparation, in a comfortable chapel, he adverts to these objections. His canon on these difficulties is,— ‘* When a thing is proved by sufficient evidence, no objection from difficulties can be admitted as decisive, except they involve an im- possibility. This is self-evident; for otherwise, ‘nothing could ever be proved.’’ But if the canon be self-evident, why offer a reason for it, and a reason a great deal more doubtful than the canon itself? The meaning of this canon is, I suppose, that if the evidence in favour of a proposition preponderate over that against it, derived from objections, the objections are not decisive. If the positive signs taken together exceed the negative, the result is positive. But on this very account, the negative signs, the objections from difficulties, ought to be carefully compared with the positive signs, the sufficient evidence. In the instances before us, the objections being serious, the evidence to be sufficient ought to fall little short of demonstration. Our Baptist brethren will probably accept this explanation of the canon, and say their evidence is little, if at all, short of demonstration. Of the historical difficulties, I have al- ready acknowledged that, on our side, we have sometimes pressed them too eagerly. Give me demonstration, and I immediately give up difficulty. With regard to the objections which we found on the use of the word in the New Testament, in reference to the baptism in the Red Sea, and to that on the day of Pentecost, Dr. Carson asserts, that the expressions being figurative imply no real baptism. There was, according to his explanation, no baptism in the Red Sea, no baptism on the day of Pentecost, but only a trope in one instance, and a catachresis in the other. We must, therefore, return to the enchanted land of figure and fancy of which Dr. Carson is so fond; for I must do him the justice to say he is not like the unimaginative Pedobaptists, who having no souls cannot see the beauty of the figure which in Daniel dips Nebuchadnezzar into the dew, and in APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. 367 Aristotle puts the Spanish shore into the ocean. MUaving in the lecture adverted to this figurative exposition, I need not expend many words on recurring to it. Dr. Carson’s canon that ‘‘ one mode of wetting is figured by another mode of wetting, by the liveliness of the imagination,”’ although it is capable of doing great marvels, will scarcely carry us across the Red Sea, or over the day of Pentecost, because, as he assures us, there was, on those occasions, no wetting at all. But, he says, ‘‘ the pas- sage of the children of Israel through the Red Sea is figuratively called a baptism,”’ [a passage called a baptism !] “from its external resemblance to that ordinance, and from being appointed to serve a like purpose, as well as to figure the same thing.’’—p. 119. How should the passage of the Israelites through the sea have “an ex- ternal resemblance”’ to dipping, “‘ serve a like purpose,” or “ figure the same thing>’’ The reply is, ‘‘the going down of the Israelites into the sea, their being covered by the cloud, and their issuing out on the other side, resembled the baptism of believers.’’ The reader who has seen the baptism of a believer may judge of its ‘‘ external resemblance” to the passage of a million and a half of people, on dry land, in a wide and open way, between the upright waves, at a great distance from many of them, as we infer from the numbers (probably some miles).. Does Dr. Carson mean that the Israelites went through a sort of corridor, with the sea on each side, and the cloud resting upon the water? What else he can mean when he says there was ‘*a real immersion,’ I cannot imagine. He is somewhat severe upon those who say the Israelites were baptized with the rain or the spray. ' «This is quite arbitrary.’ ‘‘It is not in evidence that any such things existed.’”’-—p.119. ‘*Onthe Israelites there was neither rain, nor spray, nor storm.’’—p, 413. Nor is it in evidence that the Israelites were under a cloud at the time in which they were passing through the sea; but it is in plain contradiction to Scripture, for ‘*the pillar of the cloud went from before their face and stood behind them, and it came between the camp of the Egyptians, and the camp of Israel.’’-—Exod. xiv. 19, 20. The sea was dry to such an extent that the nation whose men of war, above twenty years of age, ex- ceeded six hundred thousand, besides the Levites and their wives and children, their herds and flocks, their tents and furniture, crossed in safety, followed by the armies of Egypt. Dr. Carson says of this open space, wide enough for the population of Ulster or of Scotland to pass in a few hours with their cattle and property, ‘‘ Surely there is no straining to see in this fact, something that may darkly shadow a burial.’ Very darkly, indeed! So darkly that I strain my eyes 868 APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. in vain to catch a glimpse of it! But I accuse myself, for the man ‘¢has no soul,’’ and ‘‘is a Goth,’’ who cannot see this figure. Calling this a dry baptism, Dr. Wardlaw is thus addressed. ‘* Be patient, Dr. Wardlaw; was not the Pentecost baptism a dry bap- tism?> Immersion does not necessarily imply wetting, immersion in water implies this.’’—p. 120. It would be uncivil in me to turn Dr. Carson into a vocative case in print, after the style in which he treats my venerable friend. This defender of the Baptists, accredited without reproof by their reviews, their subscriptions, their com- mendations, is, I believe, the only controvertist of the age who denies his opponents the common courtesy of oblique address. Not- withstanding the authority which thus catechises its vocatives, this dry baptism is a baptism in the sea, a baptism in salt-water. And if the fathers baptized in the sea had only a dry baptism, what is there to wet us in a baptism in Jordan, or even in the ‘ much water’ of Anon ? But figure there is in this baptism according to Dr. Carson, and figure of no ordinary kind, for, it seems, the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians is a lyric poem, written after the manner of Campbell’s Ode on the Battle of Hohenlinden. The citation is curious, and so is the comment: p. 413— “ «Few, few shall part where many meet, The snow shall be their winding-sheet, And every turf beneath their feet Shall be a soldier’s sepulchre.’ ‘* Would any Goth,” asks Dr. Carson, ‘ object that the snow cannot be a winding-sheet, because it does not wind round the whole body of the dying soldier? As the soldier, says the critic, was uncovered above, the snow cannot be his winding-sheet. And is he not a Goth, who says that the Israelites could not be buried or immersed in the sea, because they were not covered with water? But our critic must proceed: ‘ As the soldier lies on the turf, without any covering from it, it cannot be said to be the soldier’s sepulchre.” What sort of criticism is this ?”’ This may be an answer for “ Goths,’”’ but it is not for sober Christians. Was St. Paul writing lyric poetry? What would be thought if Campbell himself, professing to give an account of the battle, were to employ his own figures in prosaic relation, and to write, I would not have you ignorant, my friends, that all the soldiers slain in this field were buried in winding-sheets and in sepulchres ? This style of prose, and not that of his poetry, would be after the APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. 369 manner of St. Paul, as expounded by Dr. Carson: ‘‘ Brethren, we would not have you ignorant that all our fathers were baptized in the sea.’’ The soldiers were not buried at all. Yes, says the critic of Dr. Carson’s new school, they were all buried in winding-sheets and sepulchres, for ‘“‘he is a Goth’’ who does not see that the snow was their winding-sheet, and the turf their sepulchre; as all the fathers were baptized in the sea, and he is a Goth who does not see something, we cannot tell exactly what, that ‘darkly shadows a burial,’” or immersion. We may illustrate this criticism by another reference to the winding-sheet, belonging to a guide in the dangerous passes of the Alps— ‘¢ My sire, my grandsire, died among these wilds. As for myself, he said, (and he held forth His wallet in his hand,) this do I call My winding-sheet, for I shall have no other.” Rogers’ Italy. According to the style of St. Paul, as Dr. Carson represents and admires it, the traveller in the Alps should have written home, I would not have you ignorant, my friends, that amidst the frightful precipices of these mountains, all the guides escort strangers in their winding-sheets. ‘‘ He must be a Goth,” says the pupil of Carson, who would not understand that the winding-sheets were wallets, for they would have no other. Do our Baptist friends expect us to answer such exposition as this, which in effect says, the fathers were not baptized in the sea, for St. Paul was only making poetry? But its ingenious author has another reason for the apostle’s selec- tion of this word. St. Paul must have two or three reasons for doing one thing assigned by those who know nothing about the reasons of his conduct. The passage through the sea “ figures the same thing,”’ as Christian baptism; it ‘figured the burial and resurrection of Christ and Christians !’’—p. 119. Is there in all Christendom a second man who believes that the passage through the Red Sea ‘** figured the burial and resurrection of Christ and Christians ?’’ This, if true, is indeed a great sacrament ; yet it is nowhere noticed in all the Scriptures; no intimation of the wonderful sign is given in the Jewish history; no annunciation of it is made to the church. Were it not for one or two fanciful Fathers who saw sacraments in every thing, this prefigurement might have been applauded as the great discovery of modern theological science. I appeal again to candid Baptists, are we bound to notice such figures recently dis- covered “by the liveliness of the imagination ?”’ With respect to the baptism of the Holy Ghost, Dr. Carson has xX. BB 370 APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. some important and valuable observations. He shows, as I think, in a very conclusive manner, that baptism cannot be emblematical of the pouring out of the Spirit, because that phrase is itself only figurative, and can have no relation to mode. He adds (p. 422), ‘*in like manner I disposed of sprinkling as an emblem of the sprinkling of the blood of Christ. It cannot be an emblem of this, because the blood of Christ is not diterally sprinkled on the believer. With all sober men this point must be settled for ever.’ I dare not speak for all **sobermen.”’ Itissettled withme. I add, ‘‘ in Jike manner’’ we ‘dispose’ of immersion as an emblem of the burial of the believer with Christ, because the believer is not literally buried with Christ. The arguments on both sides for symbolizing modes of spiritual things, must rise or fall together. Without repeating what has been said in the lecture, I am glad to have the authority of Dr. Carson, that this point is settled for ever with ‘all sober men.’’ How he contrives to make himself an exception I do not surmise. He says (p. 107), ‘‘Though the baptism of the Spirit is a figura- tive baptism, to which there cannot be a likeness in literal baptism, yet as it respects the transaction on the day of Pentecost, there was a real baptism in the emblems of the Spirit.’’ We here, I am happy to learn, leave the fairy land of figures and poetry, and approach the sober realities of fact. If we can only see “‘ a real baptism,’ we may with truth and certainty copy the mode of performing it. God bap- tized with the emblems of the Spirit; the controversy comes to the crisis when we ask, how did he baptize? Let us hear Dr. Carson. ‘They were literally covered with the appearance of wind and of fire.’’ Covered with the appearance of wind! What kind of an ap- pearance? Yet this is ‘‘a veal baptism’’—no figure. ‘‘ Now though there was no dipping of them,”’ (yet this was ‘a real baptism,’ says the Doctor, or he did say so a few lines before; but I am afraid he will shift his words,) ‘‘as they were completely surrounded by the wind and fire, by the catachrestic mode of speech which I have before explained, they are said to be immersed.’ The catachrestic mode of speech! Was ever anything so vexatiously disappointing? We were to be favoured with the sight of a veal baptism, but the real baptism, like Ausonia to the Trojans, is ever receding from our view. The catachresis, I know, wiil work wonders, especially if aided by ‘*the liveliness of the imagination,’ but I never before saw it con- vert a reality into a figure. Thus much is certain, for I cordially agree with Dr. Carson in both his assertions, let what will become of the catachresis, ‘*there was a real baptism in the emblems of the Spirit,” “although there was no dipping.’’ Yet in the reality, he APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. 37] is enamoured with figures, and finds them everywhere; he has tasted lotus, and cannot leave the pleasant land in which it grows. He adds, ‘“‘ There is another grand fallacy in this argument. I¢ confounds things that are different. Water is poured into a vessel in order to have things put into it. Water is poured into a bath in order to immerse the feet or the body, but the immersion is not the pouring. Our opponents confound these two things. . ’ : ‘ . j 4 es ial : i ' 4 p ) ios ave } 4 f ys ae *. LGiLAY' i / . emp ‘ ge 5 +: an ee a fs 3 i P F 5 } A y ‘ ' Fi j P wy 1h iw r a ‘ wists ety AW is ¥s 4 wy P i) y ‘ * 5 , ¥ zie i j 4 r j a; { ve : j & fsx D4 ' > er tan ie a Ah 5 ; id Ce A Ga Hk ia # h fees ‘ii Thi ne ) vee ry. aan ‘ ; Me A ; fs rr nics ee i 4 r } : F ey f * ‘a PPL ie Oe Ay Me eh \ ye rr a ry * Mh alanert : dick ery (fo i re ae | q P 4 Dies Was) Peary ay, 4 A eee ce ae Yet 0s a id 4 ® ey aX *, , ay ii . iti Phas, Po a a \ k » yi Lae Ve } ibe ” tf - 7 : } 8 ll Daa Initig: Quona uae mn ‘ ‘ aaa i, ya aug? | { yt iA if av Ly nF tn nM ¥ 1 F ¥ : ee Ue ae) ee oh » ae ey Me bier) Gt Line ik Ce hwy, eee, if , re bie eis, Me wa ) by tai i , 7 o7 nn ies ‘i m 9 ie “4 a4, WA i v; ; ¢ Wig oie Tie . y hi i } er ol | 4 P hj ia F i Cheay and uiform Goition THE CONGREGATIONAL LECTURES. Che First Issue, PUBLISHED IN 1852, COMPRISES :— Volos CHRISTIAN ETHICS; or, Moral Philosophy on the Principles of Divine Revelation. By RatpH Warptaw, D.D. Vol. II. THE CAUSES OF THE CORRUPTION OF CHRIS- TIANITY. By Rospert Vaueuan, D.D. Vol. ITI. THE CHRISTIAN ATONEMENT: Its Basis, Nature, and Bearings; or, the Principle of Substitution Illustrated, as applied in the Redemption of Man. By the Rey. JosepH GILBERT. Vol. IV. DIVINE INSPIRATION ; or, the Supernatural Influ- ence exerted in the Communication of Divine Truth, and its special Bearing on the Composition of the Sacred Scriptures. By EBENEZER Henverson, D.D. The Second Essue, PUBLISHED IN 1853, COMPRISES :— Vol. ¥: HOLY SCRIPTURE VERIFIED; or, the Divine Authority of the Bible Confirmed by an Appeal to Facts of Science, His- tory, and Human Consciousness. By George Reprorp, D.D., LL.D. Vol Vit. THE CONNEXION AND HARMONY OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS; Being an Inquiry into the Relation, Literary and Doctrinal, in which these two parts of the Sacred Volume stand to each other. By Writtiam Linpsay ALEXANDER, D.D. Vol. IX. THE EXISTENCE OF EVIL SPIRITS PROVED; And their Agency, particularly in relation to the Human Race, Explained and Illustrated. By the Rev. Watrer Scort, President and Theological Tutor of Airedale College, Bradford, Yorkshire. Vol. XII. THE REVEALED DOCTRINE OF REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS. By Ricwarp Wixter Hamitrton, D.D., LL.D. The Third Lssur, PUBLISHED IN 1854, COMPRISES :-— Vol. X. THE SACRAMENTS.—An Inquiry into the Nature of the Symbolic Institutions of the Christian Religion, usually called the Sacraments. By Ropertr Hautey, D.D. Part I. Vol; ar: THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN; or, The Native State and Character of Man Unfolded. By the ea: GEORGE Payne, LL.D. Vol. XIII. THE ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT UNFOLDED, and its points of Coincidence or Antago- nism with Prevailing Systems Indicated. By the Rev. S. Davipson; 3 sD: Vol. XIV. THE WORK OF THE SPIRIT. By William Hendry SrowE tL, D.D. Che Fourth issue, COMPLETING THE SERIES OF FIFTEEN VOLUMES, WILL BE PUBLISHED IN 1855, AND WILL COMPRISE :— Violy vas ON THE RELATION BETWEEN THE HOLY SCRIPTURES AND SOME PARTS OF GEOLOGICAL SCIENCE. By Joun Pyx Smiru, D.D.,F.B.S., F.G.S. Vol. VIII. THE THEROLOGY OF THE BARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH, Exhibited in Quotations from the Writers of the First Three Centuries. By James Bennett, D.D. Vol. XV. THE SACRAMENTS.—An Inquiry into the Nature of the Symbolic Institutions of the Christian Religion, usually called the Sacraments. By Roserr Hatitey, D.D. Part II. *,.* The Volumes are sold separately, Price 5s. each. rae ts > esl x ee 7 7 i < - , oe . an 7 oe Princeton Th 1 1012 01 LDViNIh NL ! = hd alt KY = ee ‘eet > » - é sh ae eae eT fo) etn LET eek SY all papal lee ad Re . ote Lee ue he ae , o mal ne ~ 2 . nt . ve ae rsp ¥ e a ee a ee