i>ei LSS D apt 1st Sysletn bc^iiii tie d BAP SUZ DC ^ ?K Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library http://www.archive.org/details/baptistsystemexaOOse ■ gaptist System €nmht)a BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED/^ THE CHURCH VINDICATED, SECTARIANISM REBUKED. A REVIEW OF Taller on Baptism and the Terms of Gommuuion." BY J^IDELJSJ^CRUTATOR. C Rev. J. A. Sei*s, A. M. Baltimore, Aid. 1 " Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convince gain- savers. For there be many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, whose mouths must be stopped." — Paid to Titus. > *«» < BALTIMORE: PUBLISHED AND SOLD BY T. NEWTON KURTZ, NO. 151 WEST PRATT STREET. 1854. Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year One Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty-four, by T. Nbwtok Kurtz, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the District of Marvland. A WOKD PBOEMIAL. These sheets contain, with a few emendations of hasty composition, and a few additions which seemed to he desirable, what has heretofore been published in the columns of the Lutheran Observer. When this Review was commenced, it was by no means expected to make a volume, but like the " Fern Leaves from Fanny's Portfolio," it greic, and is now given in this form in answer to the expressed wishes of those who ought to understand its merits. No apology is offered for undertaking to discuss the subjects here treated. Nothing is asked for the writer but straightforward justice ; and nothing is asked for his Review but a candid examination. As to any thing beyond this there are no mis- givings, and therefore no supplications to be ad- dressed to the reader. It need not be said to what extent other men's labors have been used in this production, especially the works of Beecher, Bickersteth, Taylor, Ed- wards, and Miller on the same subjects. Envious critics, who would condemn an essay because every line, paragraph, or thought in it is not there pre- sented for the first time, will find room to despise this book; whilst those who are willing to see and 6 acknowledge original labor will not be quite dis- appointed in seeking for it in these pages. But the reader may ascribe to us or to others just so much of this Review as he sees fit, and we shall be con- tent. It has not been written for the empty com- pliments of finical literati, but for the exhibition of God's truth against insolent error, and the vin- dication of his Church. The only issue upon which it is put up for trial is, Does it speak the truth ? Is its logic sound ? Is it a satisfactory answer to the doctrines which it calls in question ? If it will not stand upon these points, the writer is willing that it should fall, and the sooner the better. But so long as its main reasonings and conclusions are not refuted and set aside, all secondary and collateral issues must remain as insignificant as the dust upon the balance, and the man who makes them shall merit only contempt for his pains. Baltimore, September, 1854. CONTENTS. CHAPTEE. PAGE. I. Subject of the Review described, and the Baptist system stated .... 9 II. General considerations against it . .20 III. Baptize not a stronger word than Bapto 30 IV. Explanations, a digression . ... 44 V. Immersion not the only meaning of Baplizo 50 VI. Passages relied on by Baptists to prove that Baplizo means total immersion and nothing else 69 VII. Baptizo as used in the Septuagint . . 85 VIII. Argument from Bapto 104 IX. An inquiry into the nature of the divers baptisms under the Mosaic law . . 124 X. Baplizo in the New Testament . . . 145 XI. Proofs that Baptizo, as a religious word, signifies a religions pwijyivg without regard to mode 164 XII. Affusion, an authorized mode of admin- istering Christian Baptism . . . 190 XIII. The places and circumstances of the baptisms recorded in the Scriptures opposed to the immersion theory . 209 VIII CONTENTS. OHAP. PAGE. XIV. The prepositions used in connection with Baptizo, and the allusions to Baptism in the New Testament, no proofs in favor of immersion . . 238 XV. The practice of the Greek and Patristic Church respecting Baptism . . . 255 XVI. Sum of the argument ; agreement of authorities; and general tendencies of Baptist system 271 XVII. Infant BajHism not a sin, but enjoined in the commission ; infant disciple- ship 290 XVIII. Infants included in u all nations ; " the Baptism of families by the Apostles, 308 XIX. Testimony of the Fathers, and outlines of other arguments 333 XX. Terms of Communion, as held by Bap- tists, set forth in their true light . 356 [The reader -will observe that the last three chapters in the book are numbered wrong.] REVIEW OF FULLER ON BAPTIS3I AND THE TERMS OF COMMUNION.* CHAPTER I. Richard Fuller — his assault upon the great body of the church — his system. Richard Fuller, we believe, is a gentle- man of fortune, an ex-lawyer, a doctor of divinity, a minister in a congregation of Baptists in the city of Baltimore, and a man of distinction among the people who delight to honor him as their champion. He professes to write in a catholic and fraternal spirit ; and bating a few of his fundamental posi- * " Baptism, and the Terms of Communion : An Arjjument, by Richard Fuller. Second edition, Charleston: Southern Baptist Publication Society." pp. 251. 2 10 we are glad to see him thus improving upon the temper of the Carsons, Broadduses and others, whose oft exploded ratiocinations on this controversy he has so diligently col- lected and reproduced. He avows himself (i a Bap'ist on principle, and not in sectarian- ism nor bigotry;'' that is, he claims to be an exception to Baptists generally, who, if we are to take the implications of his own avow, al, are both sectarian and bigoted. How far he is emitled to this special exemption, may be fairly ascertained from the zeal with which he insists, that all who are not immer- sed are outside of the church which Christ instituted, unworthy of being admitted to the Lord's Supper, neglecting a positive com- mand of the Son of God, and in alarming danger of eternal death. To which of the twelve tribes of Baptists in our country Mr. Fuller belongs, he does not tell us ; but rath- er insinuates, that he does not exactly coin- cide with either class of this multifarious progeny. This is, at least, one way of excu- sing himself from responsibility for some of the more disagreeable features of the system 11 which he advocates ; and whatever excep- tions we may take to his doctrines or his logic, we readily accord to him the tact and shrewdness of an accomplished dialectician. His "argument," to those unacquainted with the subject, bears an air of plausibility about it very well calculated to make an impres- sion. His dexterous evasions of the real matters in dispute, his subtle management to pass off for granted the very things to be proven, his array of learned authorities upon points which nobody denies, and the whining affectation in which he commends the Bap- tists, or rather himself, to popular sympathy, to say nothing of his misrepresentations and unreliable quotations, give to his book a cer- tain factitious force, to which his cause is by no means entitled, and which, by Divine help, we propose to reduce to its real noth- ingness. We have for Dr. Fuller, personally, none but the kindest feelings. We trust he is con- scientious and sincere. His carrying of the mere lawyer into theology, and his resort to very questionable means to sway the unsus- 12 peeling and uninformed, are doubtless to be mainly attributed to the force of habit and education, and to the mistakes, to say noth- ing worse, of those whom he has chosen as his guides. Neither do we love controversy. It pains us as much to be driven into these contentions about sacred things, as it pains Dr. Fuller and his friends to exclude us from the table of the Lord. To him, however, belongs the distinction of being the aggressor — the prosecutor in this cause. Having ven- tured solemnly and emphatically to charge one hundred and ninety out of every two hundred of the great household of Christ with the downright violation of one of the plainest and most positive commands of the Saviour — with entire alienation from the visible church — and with the occupancy of a posi- tion of risk and jeopardy enough to alarm any serious mind, — there is no alternative left us, but to surrender to him the liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, or to take up one of the swords which he has crossed be- fore us. We have no fault to find with him or his friends for choosing to perform their 13 baptisms by immersion. This is a liberty of which we have no wish to deprive him. But to the arrogant assumptions with which he seeks to unchurch us, and to put us in danger of losing heaven, we will not give place by subjection, no not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel may not be wrested from us. If he is disposed to complain that his teachings should be controverted, let him not forget the daring assault that he has made upon the faith and hope of millions of God's children ; and if he should feel him- self incommoded by the resistance that he shall meet, let him remember that he made the first breach of the peace. To those familiar with the Baptist contro- versy, it is hardly necessary to state the na- ture of the system which Dr. Fuller's " ar- gument" is designed to sustain. It is that maintained by Christ-ians,Campbellites,Tun- kers, Millerites, and all other Baptists. We do not attribute to Dr. Fuller all the vaga- ries and heresies of the parties named ; but simply that the system he supports is that supported in common by all Baptists. But 2* 14 as he disclaims being a Baptist in the depart- ments of "sectarianism and bigotry," and is very solicitous that his reviewers should quote him fairly, it may be as well once for all to show what his position is. 1. Dr. Fuller maintains, that the command of Christ to baptize is a command to immerse, " The question before us then is this, What does baptizo mean 1 I answer, it means im- merse; this I affirm positively." " The as- sertion that baptizo has different meanings " he pronounces " puerility " and " folly ;" p. 14, 15. "Baptizo always denotes a total immersion;" p. 19. "1 have ascertained the meaning of baptizo. It signifies to im- merse, and has no other meaning;''' p. 25. " In commanding his disciples to be baptized, Je- sus knew what act he enjoined, and he could have been at no loss for a word clearly to express his meaning. If Jesus meant im- merse, and nothing else, the word was baptizo. This is the word he has used, and which the Holy Spirit always employs when the rite of baptisrn is mentioned;'' p. 31. "The word baptizo has but one meaning, and always 15 signifies immerse;" p. 45. " 1 propose the fol- lowing questions to my reader's conscience : Is it possible to doubt what Christ intends when he uses the word baptizo? Is sprink- ling, or pouring, baptism? Is it not a fear- ful thing to alter an ordinance instituted by the Lord Jesus?" p. 49. "As to baptism, the very thing, the only act he commands, is immersion;" p. 50. " Jesus commands his disciples to be immersed ;" p. 70. 2. Dr. Fuller maintains, that all such as have not been immersed are unbaptized, and delinquent with respect to a positive com- mand of Christ. He evinces a singular cautiousness and reserve as to the plain and categorical avowal of this inevitable consequence of his first position. But the evidence that this is his doctrine is so clear, as well upon the face as in the very marrow of his ar- gument, that he will not dare to disclaim it. " No one can partake of the Supper," says he, " who is not a member in a visi- ble church." " Baptism is a pre-requisite to admission into a visible church properly 16 organized ;" p. 229. And when he comes to consider why all but Baptists are exclud- ed from his communions in the Supper, the grand difficulty which he assigns is, " we cannot admit to the Supper those whom we regard as ujibaplized, however much, &c. . . To do this" (that is, to permit common Chris- tians to unite in the supper with Baptists,) " would be to declare such persons qualified for membership in our churches; which would be to admit members without baptism; which would be to abolish baptism altogether!" p. 237. 3. Dr. Fuller maintains that to refuse to be immersed is a disobedience to a positive command, involving a degree of criminality making the prospect of final salvation to those who are not immersed exceedingly problematical. This is another position in which he is very unsteady. Now he half affirms it, and then half denies it. Here he recog- nizes us as his dear brethren in Christ, and there he points with horror to our dreadful danger by reason of our disobedience ; at 17 the same time repeating in a solemn under- tone those fearful words, " The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, taking ven- geance upon them that know not God and that obey not the gospel ;" p. 105. Why all this trepidation and hesitation to " face the music?" Why not out boldly and fairly with the whole thing ? We are either Chris- tians entitled to heaven, or we are not. If we are Christians, then all this ado about baptizo and immersion is sheer nonsense; and the unimmersed, if obedient in other re- spects, are as good and as safe as the im- mersed, whether they have gone under once or thrice, backwards or forwards. If Dr. Fuller is willing to admit this, he surren- ders his cause and the controversy is at an end ; if he does not admit it, then he main- tains that the salvation of the unimmersed is exceedingly problematical and can have no good hope of meeting any of them in heaven. Is this his doctrine 1 Hear him : " My dear reader, . . the matter before you is not an abstraction ; it is a 'plain duty, which meets 18 you at the very threshold of the Christian course, and which you may not evade without insult to the Saviour and peril to your soul;" p. 105. "Do not say we lay too much stress on baptism. . Upon this point I adjure you not to upbraid us, but to obey Christ;" p. 101. "I regard baptism just as I do any other command ; and i" dare not trench upon God's prerogative and decide what is to he the consequence in eternity of disobedience to any command;''' p. 104. "Is it not a fearful thing to alter an ordinance instituted by the Lord Jesus V* p. 4P. We do not suppose that Dr. Fuller will pronounce these quotations unfair. If these points do not set forth the essence of his sys- tem, he has none, and his "argument" is a mere beating of the air. We do not there- fore misrepresent him when we say, that according to his teaching, Christ has com- manded men to be immersed, and all those who are not immersed are outside of the pale of the visible church, and in great dan- ger of losing their souls; that not to be im- mersed is disobedience to Christ, involving 19 unfitness for participation in the Holy Sup. per, and laying the foundation of a reasonable apprehension of exclusion from heaven. All this we most emphatically deny. Here then we join issues, and let the world de- cide between us. 20 CHAPTER II. Prima facia considerations against Dr. FuU ler^s System — Gospel Liberty — The testi- mony of the great body of the church for many ages — The true signification of Bap. tism. Before proceeding to analyze Dr. Fuller's argument, we desire to advert to a few a pri« ori and prima facia considerations, which weigh so strongly against his arrogant as- sumptions as to require the most solid and inflexible proof to set them aside. 1. The whole gospel system is a system of liberty. It was so predicted: Is. 42 : 7; 61 : 1. It was so proclaimed by its first preach- ers: Rom. 7 : 6 ; 8 : 2 ; Gal. 5 : 1. It is spe- cially presented as a system of freedom from the bondage of burdensome ceremonies: Gal 4: 3-7. Paul says expressly, " If ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances V Col. 2 : 20. " Why is my liberty judged of another man's con- 21 science ?" 1 Cor. 10 : 29. " Stand fast there- fore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." Gal. 5:1. And how dissonant with this "perfect law of lib- erty" — how subversive of the free spirit of the gospel — how like the old bondage to grievous ceremonies — and how unlikely to be a part of the glorious economy of grace — to have all its sublime blessings bound up in, and made dependent on, the miserable little external accident of being far enough in the waters of baptism to have them close for an instant over our heads ! How utterly foreign to the whole strain and spirit of " the better covenant," that even the least of its precious promises should be thus linked with such a mere pnncto of outward ceremony ! Surely the thing is so grossly incongruous with all that relates to the nature of a system pre- eminently spiritual and gracious, that it can- not be entertained for a moment, except upon the clearest and most unexceptionable proofs. 2. The vast body of christian people for many ages, including multitudes whose 3 22 names the church wears upon her heart, — men as conscientious, holy, studious, learn- ed, and gifted hy the Spirit as any that ever sunk beneath the waters— men who fought the battles of the Lord, and won to them- selves renown as wide as Christendom and lasting as the world, — have maintained, that there is no law requiring Christians to be immersed, and were themselves never im- mersed. Are we to believe that they were all unbaptized — all unqualified to commune in the holy Supper — all unfit for membership in our churches — all fundamentally wrong in their views, and that it is doubtful whether any of them have reached heaven? How can we thus asperse their fame, and insult their memories and their graves? How dare we thus sunder the ( ords of sympathy that bind us to our fathers, and extinguish the glowing hope of meeting them in glory. Well does Dr. Fuller speak of this as "a matter which is painful;" and the very pain- fulness of it is a presumption against the truth of his system — a presumption which is not to be set aside except by the resistless 23 power of demonstration itself. To talk of "lodged and incurable prejudices," does not mend the matter, but only adds a deeper tinge of sadness to our contemplations of the honored dead. If our illustrious ancestors were in error — if the world's great lights were so far from the truth as the Baptist theory teaches — let us not be taunted by the mockery of consolation that theirs was a willful blindness. We are sorry to find Dr. Fuller in such " hot haste" to pass from this point the very moment he touches it. It is a great and interesting inquiry — one which, next to that of our own personal salvation, is the most important and absorbing involved in this debate. To declare it ; ' impertinent" is not to prove it so ; and if Dr. Fuller is an exception among Baptists, he hereby shows that he is not so far an exception among men as to grasp a hot iron with a steady firmness. The very thought seems to appal him, and he hastes to bury it out of his own and his reader's sight. We here thrust it upon him again, not as an absolute proof of the error of his system, but as presumptive evidence 24 against him, which must be taken as deci- sive, unless confronted by the most unmis- takable testimony. 3. Another very strong probability against Dr. Fuller's system, arises from the scope and spiritual significance of baptism itself. It is the sacrament of regeneration and re- mission of sins. The command of Peter on the day of Pentecost was, " Be baptized, ev« ery one of you, for the remission of sins;*' Acts 2 : 38. Ananias said to Paul, "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins ;" Acts 22: 16. Jesus says, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God ;" John 3:8; a passage concerning which Wall justly says, " There is not any one Christian wri- ter, of any antiquity, in any language, but who understands it of baptism ; and if it be not so understood, it is difficult to give an account how a person is born of water any more than born of wood." Paul speaks of Christians as "saved by the washing of re- generation and renewing of the Holy Ghost," as having "put off the body of the sins of the 25 flesh ly the circumcision of Christ;" Tit. 3 : 5, 6; Col. 2: 11, 13. Peter says, "Bap- tism doth also now save us;" a sacrament which he describes to be, " not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God ;" 1 Peter 3: 21. Christ gave himself for the church, "that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word ;" Eph. 5: 25, 26. Ireneeus styles baptism "our re- generation unto God ;" Lib. 1, cap. 18. Ter- tullian calls it "the happy sacrament of wa- ter, whereby we are washed from the sins of our former blindness and recovered to eternal life;" Mason's Selections, p. 111. Origen says, "The baptism of the church is given for the remission of sins." Augustine exclaims, "Behold! persons are baptized, then all their sins are forgiven ;" Sermon on Rom. 8 : 30. Upon the question, " What are the benefits of baptism?" Luther an- swers, " It works the forgiveness of sins ;" Small Cat., part 4. Calvin says, " Remis- sion of sins is so dependent on baptism that it cannot by any means be separated from 3* 26 it;" Inst. torn. 4, cap. 15, sec. 4. The Con- fession of Helvetia says, " To be baptized in the name of Christ is to be enrolled, entered and received into covenant and family, and so into the inheritance of the sons of God. . Baptism, according to the institution of the Lord, is the fount of regeneration." The Bohemian Confession calls it "the sacra- ment of the new birth ; that is, of regenera- tion or washing with water in the Word of life." The Confession of France says that in it " we are ingrafted into Christ's body ; that, being washed in his blood, we may also be renewed to holiness of life." Knapp, whom Dr. Fuller quotes with so much ap- probation, says, "Baptism represents purifi- cation from sins, and is designed to promote this end in the one who is baptized," Theol., vol. 2, p. 510. Flaccius says, " Baptism, and to be baptized, means an internal wash- ing, remission of sins and an ever-continuing renewal ;" Clavis Scrip. Sac, Art. Bapt., p. 66. But to multiply authorities upon this point is needless. All sound theologians 27 admit and contend that baptism, in its true acceptation, is not a mere external ordi- nance, but a sacrament of deep spiritual import, in which the soul is absolved from guilt and savingly incorporated with Je- sus Christ. Let us not be misunderstood. We do not maintain the doctrine ordinarily called " Baptismal Regeneration;" i. e., we do not believe that the mere application of water to a human subject, in any mode or quantity, can wash away sins or work any subjective change in the heart. What we affirm, and what we understand to be affirmed in these quotations, is, that bap- tism is a thing for the soul as well as for the body ; that it fails to become true baptism unless attended or followed with spiritual experience, conformity to the baptismal vow, and that purity of heart which the water typifies; that this high spiritual conception of this sacrament is the only true conception of it, and that in this respect, it carries with it the virtue and efficacy which is here as- cribed to it. It is a thintr which looks 23 wholly to the inner man, and to the rela- tions and experiences of the spirit. It is '•'not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God." What, we would then ask, has quantify of water to do with these internal and spiritual things, with giving a man a good conscience or inspiring him with a new life? The whole office of the mere icater of baptism is to represent and typify an inward purifica- tion, a renovation of the soul, without which baptism fails to be baptism, and becomes a mere profitless, dead work. And surely no man in his senses will pretend to deny that a few handfuls of water from the crystal spring can as well symbolize purity as tons of the contents of the filthy pools or stagnant cisterns to which Baptists ordinarily invite their converts. To those who can dispute so plain a proposition we have no reply to make. And the very fact that baptism looks to a purification of the spirit and the wash- ing away of sins, renders it almost impossi- ble to believe for a moment that the validity 29 and force of so spiritual a sacrament should be made to depend upon the depth of the wa- ter used in its outward administration. These considerations, then, weigh so much against Dr. Fuller's system, that they must be conclusive of the case, unless the highest and most inflexible proofs can be produced to the contrary. What sort of proofs Dr. Fuller offers will be our next object of inquiry. 30 CHAPTER III. Baptists rest every thing upon the interpreta- tion of a single word — The force of zo in Greek — Pretended testimony of Dr. Por- son. In proceeding to examine the nature of the proofs upon which Dr. Fuller rests the claims of his prescriptive system, we are at once struck with the extraordinary fact, that his whole argument comprises nothing but a mere philological disquisition upon the mean- ing of one little Greek word. The entire eleven chapters devoted to this part of the subject are occupied with the one single point, what does haptizo mean ? " The mat- ter before us," says he, " is a calm philologi- cal inquiry as to the meaning of a Greek word." "The simple inquiry is, as to the meaning of the Greek word baptizo;" p. 12. His interpretation of this simple word is the alpha and omega — the beginning, middle and end — the body, soul and spirit of all he has to present to prove that ninety-five hun- 31 dredths of Christ's people are in a state of downright disobedience to their Lord, unfit for membership in "our churches," or to approach the Lord's Supper, and without any sure or reliable hope of final salvation. This certainly is very remarkable, that the great law of the gospel, and a point involv- ing the eternal well-being and affecting the hopes of millions of Christian people, should be made to turn upon one little word. Is it not an astounding doctrine, that in a divine revelation, forming a library in itself, a mer- ciful and condescending God should have suspended the issues of his sublime scheme of grace upon the doubtful import of one single Greek word! According to the an- cient prophets the way of salvation is an open " highway," in which " wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err;" Is, 35:8 — so "plain that he may run that readeth it ;" Hab. 2 : 2— and laid down in divers forms, " precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little and there a little;" Isaiah 23 : 10. But it seems, after all, that we must take Dr. Ful. 32 ler's say so, or go to the study of Greek, before we can learn it ; that the whole ques- tion lies in the interpretation of a Greek word ; and that we must go back to the old heathen writers to ascertain whether we are Christians, and consult the pages of Orpheus, Heraclides Ponticus, Polybius, the Greek scholiasts on Euripides and Aratus, Alcibi- ades, Anacreon, iEsop and Diodorus Siculus, to find out whether or not we have a good hope for heaven ! Let the reader but look at it, and consider the real nature of the question and the real character of the testi- mony adduced to decide it, and he will find that Dr. Fuller's argument bears an absurd- ity upon its face of which we would suppose no sane man with a fair mind could possibly be guilty. But as all this contains nothing very favorable to the Baptist theory, it is of course " impertinent,''- and we leave it to take a glance at those philological processes by which Dr. Fuller has "ascertained" that " baptizo signifies to immerse, and has no other meaning." All agree that baptizo is a derivation of 33 bapto; and until Dr. Fuller told us differ- ently, we had always supposed that the true method of reaching the meaning of a sec- ondary word, was to find out the signification of its root. But it appears now, that in " a calm philological inquiry as to the meaning of a Greek word," upon which Dr. Fuller suspends such vast interests, "we have noth ing to do with bapto;" p. 12. Well, to Rich ard Fuller belongs the honor of having dis covered this new canon of interpretation How far it serves to show his claim to relia bility as an expounder of the meaning of baptizo, we leave the reader to determine. We pass it without additional comment, in- asmuch as he himself departs from his own canon in the very next paragraph, and at- tempts to make capital for his cause by as- suring us, that "in the Greek language the addition of zo rather enforces than diminish- es the primitive verb;" thus, "sophos, wise ; sophizo, to make wise ; bapto, to dip ; bap- tizo, to make one dip, that is, to immerse." Hellenic sages, hear; soplios a verb! and sophizo a word enforcing the primitive verb 4 34 by the addition of zo t What an interpreter, to show the meaning of a Greek word which, if we are to believe Dr. Fuller, concerns the Christian character and eternal hopes of al- most all Christendom itself! Of his other examples to prove his theory concerning the force of zo, we shall speak presently. For the reader unacquainted with Greek, it may be proper to state that sophos is an adjective, and that bapto and baptize are both verbs; so that to have a complete analogy of the re- lation between bapto and baptizo, verbs alone can be taken into account. But whether we take radical verbs and their derivatives, or take nouns, adjectives, or any other parts of speech, and the verbs ending in zo derived from them, we shall find no earthly founda- tion for the force which Dr. Fuller is pleased to assign to the affix of zo; concerning which he modestly tells us that great " authors only betray their innocence of the Greek lan- guage." So far as our humble attainments in Greek extend, and according to all the lexicograph- ers we have been able to consult, the addi- 35 tion of zo is a mere variation of the original word without a variation of the meaning, — as pnigo, pnigizo, to strangle or choke ; eu- oreo, euoriazo, to be careless or unconcerned ; biao, biazo, to force or compel, — or else it sig- nifies a process or condition, of approximation to the action or thing signified in the original word. Take the following illustrations from nouns, adjectives and verbs. First, nouns — phos, light; photizo, to enlighten, or put in process of becoming light ; eunouchos, a eu- nuch ; eunoucliho, to make a eunuch, or to put in process of becoming a eunuch ; guna, genitive gunaikos, a woman ; gunaikizo, to render womanish, or put in process of becom- ing like a woman ; doxa, glory ; doxazo, to glorify, or put in process of becoming glori- ous ; paraskeua, a state of preparation ; par- askeuazo, to make preparation, or put in pro- cess of becoming prepared. Second, adjec- tives — katharos, clean ; katharizo, to cleanse, or put in process of becoming clean ; phoin- ios, red as blood ; plioinizo, to redden, or put in process of becoming red. Third, verbs — and here the instances are perfectly analo- 36 gous to baplo, baptizo; plouteo, to be rich ; ploutizo, to enrich, or put in process of be- coming rich ; melaneo, to be black ; melon- izo, to be blackish, or in a condition verging towards black ; phluo, to overflow as boiling water escaping from the kettle; plxluzo, to bubble up so as to tend towards an overflow. From these examples it would then seem, that the addition of zo in Greek corresponds exactly to the English terminations ize and ishf which most likely have taken their ori. gin from it ; e. g., scandal, scandalize ; blue, bluish; italic, italicise; wolf, wolfish, &c. Hence, if bapto means to dye, color or tinge, (as Dr. Fuller agrees,) the meaning of bap- tizo would be about the same, or to put in process of becoming dyed, colored or tinged ; if it means to wash, as Pickering, Grove, Dunbar, Donegan, Schrevelius, and Park- hurst say it does mean, the signification of baptizo would be, to put in process or condi- tion of being washed ; and if it means to dip or submerge, then baptizo would mean to put in process or condition verging towards a dip- ping or submersion — the signification of the 37 word with zo almost universally falling shoi\ of the meaning of the original word. But, says Dr. Fuller, "Oikeo, to dwell; oikizo, to make one dwell ; sophos, wise ; so- phizo, to make wise ; sophroneo, to be of a sound mind ; sophronizo, to make one of a sound mind. And just so, bapto, to dip ; bap- tizo } to make one dip, that is to immerse!'" The reader will doubtless feel a reasonable curiosity to know how the phrase "to make one dip" can be made synonymous with the word "immerse;" but his ingenuity will be still further taxed to find out where Dr. Fuller obtained some of the definitions he has given to the Greek words just named. But as Dr. Fuller seems to have access to books which no other man ever saw, (such, for instance, as the Fifth Book of Calvin's Institutes, quo. ted on page 21 ,) it L not to be thought strange that he should have information on these sub- jects from sources not within the reach of common Christians. One thing is certain, that the definitions which those honored men, who have ever stood as unimpeached inter- preters of the Greek language, have assign- 4* 38 ed to the words upon which Dr. Fuller has rested his theory, do not altogether accord with those which he has given. Of course, in Dr. Fuller's estimation, those venerable lexicographers are to be blamed, just as the translators of our English Bible. But, in a matter involving the Christian character and final salvation of millions of professing Chris- tians, most persons would doubtless prefer to take our ordinary lexicographers, and our good old English Bible, than to rely upon him, with all his unknown books. Let the reader open any standard lexicon, and he will find that oikeo means to inhabit, and oi- Jcizo to render habitable, or to put in process of becoming inhabited. Sophos means skill- ful, and sophizo to render skillful, or to put in process of becoming skillful. Sophroneo means to be of a sound mind, prudent or dis- creet, and sophronizo to render prudent or discreet, or to put in process (as by chastise- ment and discipline) of becoming prudent or discreet. What, then, becomes of " bapto to dip, baptizo to make one dip, that is, to im- merse ?" The very examples which Dr. 39 Fuller has cited confute his theory, and show that the value of the addition of zo, in Greek, does not enforce the primitive verb, "but sig- nifies a condition or process only approxima- tive towards the action or thing signified in the original word. And as his examples fail to bear him out, his theory, of course, falls to the ground. But if we were even to grant the analogies which he has attempted to draw, it must not be overlooked that to dip is not the entire or only meaning of bapto. According to his own showing it means "to tinge as dyers." In that case baptizo would signify to make one tinge as dyers ! Pickering and Dunbar give as a meaning of bapto, " to be lost as a ship;'' baptizo would then mean, to make one lost as a ship! Liddell and Scott and Dun- bar assign as a meaning of bapto, '-to dye the hair;'' baptizo would then mean, to make one dye the hair! Pickering, Dunbar and others say that bapto means, " to fill by draw- ing up;" baptizo would then mean, to make one fill by drawing up ! And Grove, Schreve- lius and Scapula give to sprinkle as a mean- 40 ing of hapto ; baptizo would then mean, to make one sprinkle !! How edifying is the operation of this Fullerian law of analogy ! How admirably it proves that " baptizo sig- nifies to immerse, and has no other mean- ing !" And yet this is the sort of "argu- ment" by which we are to be unchurched and convicted of unfitness to have a place at the Lord's table. The next item in this " calm philological inquiry" is in the shape of an authority from that Corypheus of Greek scholars, Dr. Por- son ; but which Dr. Fuller, as a lawyer, knows, could not be admitted in a court of justice, even in a case involving no more than dollars and cents. The story runs thus: that a certain Mr. Newman accompanied an acquaintance in a friendly call upon Dr. Porson, just a few months previous to his death; that something was said in that interview about some Greek words; that after Dr. Porson's death this Mr. Newman wrote a letter to some unknown par- ty, which letter, in some unknown way, came into the hands of a rabid Baptist controver- 41 sialist, Mr. Carson, and was by him 'pub- lished, and from him quoted by Dr. Fuller; that it is said, in said letter, that Dr. Porson said, "that if there be a difference (between bapto and baptizo,) he should take the latter to be the strongest ;" and that Mr. Carson said, that Mr. Newman said, that Dr. Porson said, "that it (baptizo) signifies a total immer- sion !" This is the whole story. Is it to be received as evidence in " a calm philological inquiry as to the meaning of a Greek word V Are we to decide a question of eternal life or eternal death by testimony which not a judge in the land would permit to go before a jury 1 And even admitting that this testi- mony is to be relied on, that Dr. Fuller has quoted it correctly, that Mr. Carson pub- lished it as it was written, that Mr. Newman was accurate in his recollections and report- ed them faithfully, and that the whole thing is certainly and surely Dr. Porson's opinion, it will be perceived that the opinion is only given hypothetically, " if there be a differ- ence," so and so; leaving us to infer that there was strong doubt in Dr. Porson's mind 42 as to whether baptizo does not mean just the same as baplo, to which he assigned the sig- nification of "tinge." And that he should also assign to it the meaning of " a total im- mersion," is nothing more than what all parties are ready to admit; the question be- ing, not whether baptizo ever means to im- merse, but whether it never means any thing else, and whether this is the sense to be assigned to it where it is used to designate the ordinance of Christian baptism? If it will be any consolation to Dr. Fuller, or of any service to his cause, we here admit, freely and without hesitation, that baptizo often does mean to immerse — to submerge — to put under the water — to put under the water never to come out again — and to over- whelm and cover up in the very bottom of the sea, to remain there till the sounding of the archangel's trumpet. But that this is its meaning when applied to the sacrament of baptism is what remains for Dr. Fuller to prove, is what no man has ever yet proven, and what no man ever can prove. So much then for the second step in Dr. 43 Fuller's "calm philological inquiry." Que- ry : Has the reader found any thing as yet to prove that Christ's command to baptize is a command to immerse and nothing else ? But we must pursue the Doctor's ''argu- ment," for surely, "'Tis the rarest argument of wonder, That hath shot out in our later times' 44 CHAPTER IV. Exjrfanations — " Justice " — Reply to him — A digression. So much of this Review as is contained in the preceding chapters, had already gone to press, and appeared before the public through the " Lutheran Observer," when the sub- joined communication came into our hands. The write* of it, whom we take to be Dr. Fuller himself, wishes to correct a statement which we made, relative to Dr. Fuller's blunder in referring us for one of his quota- tions to a book which has no existence. The following is a copy of the paper. It is directed to the Editor of the Lutheran Ob- server, and was designed for insertion in that periodical. Baltimore, April 5, 1854. Rev. and Dear Sir: — I am following your correspondent's Review of Dr. Fuller on Baptism. He charges that, on p. 21, the Doctor quotes " The Fifth Book of Calvin's 45 Institutes." II have turned to Dr. Fuller's work, p. 21, third edition, and find no such quotation. It is quoted Book 4, ch. 15, p. 19. I am sure you will, in justice, insert this. I hope your correspondent will use the revised edition, as he seeks truth, and not the blunders of the Press, especially when they have been corrected. Justice. The receipt of this paper furnished us tangible evidence, that our review was ex- citing attention, and producing uneasiness. And as we were willing to give "Justice" the benefit of his explanation, and designed to take no unfair advantages of Dr Fuller, we at once wrote to the Editor, for insertion in the Lutheran Observer, the following statement, under the head of Addenda to our Review, Mr. Editor, — I have received the article you did me the favor to forward to me, dated " Baltimore, April 5, 1854,*' and signed "Justice," in which the writer says, that the Third Edition of Fuller's book does not contain the reference to the "Fifth Book of 5 46 Calvin's Institutes," and asks that this may be stated. Certainly, if the statement will be of any avail, let it be made. Let justice be done. When my second article was penned, the Third Edition of Fuller on Bap- tism was as much unknown to me as the " Fifth Book of Calvin's Institutes." The review professes to be a review of the Second and not of the Third edition. And neither Dr. Fuller nor his friend, will dare to say that the reference to Calvin as stated, is not in the edition under review. " Justice" complains that I have not used " the revised edition." That is exactly what I supposed I was doing. A second edition of a book ought to be considered a revised edition surely, and the second edition is the one I had undertakpn to review. After much effort I have now secured the Third — " the revised edilion." By the way, how does it happen, that " Fuller on Baptism and Communion," which has now reached the third edition, is not for sale in the book stores of Baltimore, where the author re- sides? A friend whom I engaged to procure 47 it, tells/ne that he was half a day or more finding a copy. Is it used by Baptists only in a private way to gull the weak and unin- formed ? Fortunately I now have " the re- vised edition" and shall hereafter use it alone. It bears the date, "Charleston, S 3 . C. 1854." My review was commenced about the first of February, 1854; and yet "Jus- tice" conplains that I used the second edition, allowing but one month for the publication of the book and its shipment in mid-winter from a far off city to Baltimore, to say noth- ing of the difficulties in the way of its reach- ing my humble retreat ! The spirit of Egyptian task-masters still survives. Well, true enough, in this edition of 1854, the reference to the Fifth Book of Calvin's Institutes is rescinded. We are glad of it. It was an ugly thing to be paraded around in two entire editions. We now have in its place, " Lib. 4, chap. 15, sec. 19." This looks a little more like the thing ; but it does not much help the matter. The quota- tion for which Dr. Fuller refers to this place, is in these words — " The word baptizo sig- 48 nifies lo immerse, and the rile of immersion was performed by the ancient church." Who is at fault now, in this c< revised edi- tion ?" The words, " the rite" are not in Calvin's version of this passage. Calvin never could have spoken of " the rite" of immersion. But Calvin does say, and in this very place, and in this very paragraph, what Dr. Fuller did not find to his purpose to quote, tha: " whether the person who is baptized be wholly immersed, and whether thrice or once, or whether water be only poured or sprinkled upon him, is of no import- ance; churches ought to be left at liberty in this respect." Institutes of the Christian Religion, by John Calvin; Lib. 4. ch. 15, sec. 19. By inserting this, you will at once do jus- tice to Dr. Fuller, Calvin, and myself. Very thankfully, Fidelis Scrutator. We give this as a little episode, not worth much in itself, but which may serve to ex- plain why we set out to Review the second, and not the third edition of Dr. Fuller's 49 book, and at the same time give him the advantage of the fact, that his reference to Calvin's Institutes in the third edition is to the fourth book, and not to a non-existent fifth book, as in the two previous editions. From this out, however, our Review is to be taken as a Review of the Third Edition of Dr. Fuller's boob — the edition which "Justice," though nobody else, styles " the revised edition." We shall show that it needs still another, and much more thorough revision. So much for our digression. 5* 50 CHAPTER V. A plain matter — Different meanings to the same ivords — Baptizo as used by the hea- then — Has other meanings beside that of a total immersion — Testimony of lexicogra- phers — Instances from the christian Fath- ers. Our friend, " Richard Fuller," having in- sinuated, in'the way that we have exposed, that baptizo means to immerse, now endeav- ors to fix this upon the mind of the reader as its only meaning. The manner in which he does this is hy giving us the bold, unqual- ified and naked assumption, that no one word can have more than one meaning. " The assertion." says he, '-'that baptizo has three different meanings, only proves how strange- ly controversy can blind the mind to the plainest things." " To say that a word means three distinct things is to say that it means neither of them. . And this is true of the most general words." "The puerili- ties of which men are guilty on trUs plain matter are surprising ;" p. 14. 51 A "plain matter" it certainly is ; and how a fair and honest man can thus contradict so "plain a matter" as, that a word may have more than one meaning, we cannot under- stand. Dr. Fuller knows, he must know, that there are multitudes of words, each of which has various shades of signification and very different meanings. He has told us, moreover, that " no one ought to substitute for proof his own assertion." And yet we have here, as an essential link in his "ar- gument," nothing but assertion, unaccom- panied with the merest shadow of proof, and as far from truth as heaven is from earth. It seems like pedantry and puerility to reply to an error so palpable and egregious; but we are sometimes called on to prove that two and two make four. Let the reader look at the following instances of the differ- ent meanings of the same words selected from a dozen languages. The Hebrew word bara means to create, to fatten, and to cut off. The Greek word lego means to speak, to choose, to reckon up, and to lie down to rest; and Shrevelius 52 assigns hallo seventeen meanings. The Chal- dee word barak means to bless, to salute, to bend the knee, to dig, to plow, and to set slips for propagation. The Russian word uberayer means to put in order, to mow or reap, and to dress the hair. The Arabic word faraka means to separate, to withdraw, to lay open, to cast out, and to immerse. The Italian word parare means to prepare, to garnish, to parry, to repair, and to stop a horse. The Dutch word heelen means to heat, to name, and to command. The German word ver- messen means to measure, to measure wrong, to dare, to arrogate, to swear or protest with solemn asseverations, and to profess with high and boasting words. The Spanish word parar means to prepare, to stop, detain, prevent, to end, to treat or use ill, and to stake at cards. The Latin word euro means to take care of, to provide, to refresh one's self with meat, to cook meat, to bring to pass, to command in war, to pay homage to, to cure, and to expiate or atone. The French word titer means to draw, to hee or rid from, to reap, to deduce, to extract, to stretch, and 53 to shoot ; and loner, to hire, to lease, to praise, and to applaud. The English word spring means a leap, a part of a watch, one of the seasons, and a fountain of water. Cleave means to adhere and to divide. And Web- ster assigns to the word turn thirly-two transitive and twenty intransitive significa- tions. But, according to Dr. Fuller, it is "puerility" and "folly" to assert that a word can have more than one meaning ! Is this the man to conduct a " calm philological in- quiry," by which to convict the Christian world of disobedience to a positive command of God ? Is this the sort of proof to show that baptizo has no other meaning but im- merse ? Alas! what "an argument" "in a matter of such moment as obedience to Jesus Christ !" But, as Dr. Fuller persists in the assertion, that " baptizo always denotes a total immer- sion," and "has no other meaning," we pro- ceed to show that he is as far from the truth in this particular instance, as in the general rule The primary meaning of baptizo, as used 54 by the ancient heathen Greeks, is to dip. This is the first signification assigned to it by the great majority of lexicographers. But the word dip does not always and absolutely mean a total immersion. It means also to moisten ; to wet ; to incline downward as the magnetic needle ; to engage partially in a thing, as " He was a little dipt in the rebel- lion of the commons;" to enter slightly, as to dip into a volume of history ; to engage in to a small extent, as to dip into the funds ; to enter or pierce with the extreme point of any thing, as to dip the end of the finger. We shall show, however, that even to dip is not the exclusive and only meaning of bapiizo, much less a total immersion. Our first reference is to standard lexicog- raphers. Pickering defines baptizo, to dip; to im- merse; to sink; to overwhelm ; to wet ; to wash; to make drunk ; to cleanse. Dunbar defines it, to dip ; to immerse ; to sink ; to soak ; to wash. Liddell and Scott, to dip re- peatedly; to dip under; to bathe; to wet ; to pour upon ; to drench ; to overwhelm, as a 55 boy with questions ; to dip a vessel ; to draw water. Grove, to dip ; to immerse ; to icash ; to cleanse; to purify ; to depress; to hum- ble; to overwhelm; to wash one's self; to bathe; to faint ; to be dejected. Donegan, to immerse repeatedly in a liquid ; to satu- rate ; to drench with wine ; to confound total- ly. Montfaucon, in his concordance of the Greek version of the Old Testament, trans* lates it by immergo, to plunge, to flounce, to drench ; tingo, to dye, color, stain, sprinkle, imbrue, wash, paint \; and perturbo, to disturb, trouble, disorder, distract. Schleusner, in his Thesaurus, translates it by immergo, to plunge, flounce, drench; iniingo, to dip, dye, color ; and perturbo, to disturb, trouble, dis- order, distract. Schrevelius renders it mer- go, to dip in, immerse, overwhelm, ruin, de- stroy ; abluo, to wash clean, to wash away, purify, blot out ; and lavo, to wash, rinse, bathe, besprinkle, purge, expiate, throw of. Scapula also translates it with abluo and lavo; whilst Parkhurst gives it six meanings. It is true that a certain Baptist ccntrovertist " blames him" for it ; but he, nevertheless, 56 was a distinguished and learned old divine, a profound linguist, the author of some of our very best lexicons, and, we suppose, entitled to as much respect as his censors, whether in the shape of the bombastic Carson, or the insinuating Puller. Here then we have ten or twelve of our great standard lexicographers, depending for iheir reputation upon the accuracy with which they have translated the Greek Ian- guage, each one giving various and different meanings to the word in question. Some of them lived centuries ago, even before Dr. Fuller or his particular denomination had a being, and all of them are acknowledged to be lights of Greek learning. And yet we - • , ■ ■ % are now to set them all aside as " school- boys," teaching nothing but "puerilities;" and that at or on the mere ipse dixit of Dr. Fuller, that b&pUzo ahoays means to immerse and has no other meaning.— A te pelo ut ali- qidd imperfids iemyoris hide cogitaiioni. But we will not stop with the testimony of the legicographers. Dr. Fuller reiterates that baptizo never means any thing but im- 57 merse, and with an air of triumph chal- lenges the world to produce testimony to the contrary. He shall have it. He has it al- ready. But we will furnish it to him in still more copious profusion, by the produc- tion of passages in which it is impossible to assign to baptize the meaning of immerse. Dr. Fuller will certainly agree with what his predecessors have said, that the native Greeks must understand their own language better than foreigners. He must also admit that the earlier Christian teachers were bet- ter prepared to testify to the true scope of the meaning of baptizo than the modern controversialist, committed to the support of a sectarian system. To the writings of these earlier, and mostly Greek, Christian writers, we therefore make our appeal ; humbly pre- suming that the old poets and philosophers, who lived before the Saviour's time, did not very thoroughly comprehend in what sense words were used by Christ and his apostles. The first passage we adduce is from Cle- mens Alexandrinus, p. 387, Lugduni Batav. 1616. He is speaking on the subject of 6 58 baptism, and refers to some passages in Ho« mer to show that traces of the typical purifi- cations of Moses are to be found even in the heathen world. His language is, "Penel- ope, having washed herself and having on her body clean apparel, goes to prayer ; Odys., 4 : 759.* Telemachus, having wash- ed his hands in the hoary sea, prayed to Minerva ; Odys., 2: 261. f This may be an image of baptism handed down from Moses to the poets; for this was the custom of the Jews, that they also should be often baptized (baptizesthai) upon their couch." The Jews were accustomed to recline on couches during meals. These couches were ordinarily large enough to hold from three to five persons. And Clement here tells us that it was the custom of the Jews to be frequently baptized whilst thus reclining at meals. And are we to be told that four or five men, upon a couch at dinner, were ac- * Pope has it thus— " She bathes, and robed, the sacred dome ascends. And thus the queen invokes Minerva's aid."'— Od. 4: 1001. + "There, as the waters o'er Ms hands he shed. The royal suppliant to Minerva prayed."-— -Pope** Od. 2: 295. 59 customed to be immersed several times whilst partaking of their meal ? Are we to imagine pulleys fixed over the various couches in the dining-room, with ropes attached to the cor- ners and a baptistery under the floor, with trapdoors opening under the suspended guests to let couches, men and all down under the water every now and then as the eating pro- gressed ? And besides the utter violence and absurdity of such a supposition, the sim- ple washing (hiidraino) of Penelope, in which no mode is indicated, and the mere wetting of the hands (nipto) of Telemachus, which Clement here gives as corresponding to the Jewish purifications at meals, completely and inevitably exclude the idea that the baptism of which he is speaking was "a total im- mersion." Our next passage is from Justin Martyr, p. 164, London, 1772. " What is the profit of that baptism which purifies the flesh and the body alone ? Be baptized as to your souls, from anger and from covetousness, from envy and from hatred, and lo! your body is pure." Does baptism here mean a total immersion ? 60 Is immersion for the purpose of purity a thing that can be predicated of the mind or spirit? The mind is sometimes spoken of as im- mersed in cares, troubles, and pollution ; but is it, or can it ever be, spoken of as immersed for mental purity ? Can we speak of being immersed/r07/i (apo) anger, and from covet- ousness, from envy, and from hatred ? Un- questionably, the sense is not immersion, but to cleanse and purify. Origen, in his Seventh Homily on the 6th of Judges, says, " The outpouring of his (Christ's) blood is denominated a baptism" Is the outpouring of the Saviour's blood an immersion ? How can it be? The same father, in his notes on Matt. 20 : 21, 22, says also, that "Martyrdom is rightfully called a baptism." But is mar- tyrdom a fluid ? Can we conceive of an immersion in martyrdom ? We can con- ceive of a purification by martyrdom, but all idea of immersion in it is sheer absurdity. Ambrose (vol. 2, p. 333, Paris, 1690,) has this passage : " He who is baptized, both according to the law and according to the 61 gospel, is made clean." Here the sense of cleanse is explicitly given to baptizo. Does Dr. Fuller wish us to presume that it is a cleansing by immersion ? Let him read a little further. " According to the law, (he that is baptized is made clean,) because Moses, with a branch of hyssop, sprinkled the blood of a lamb" The whole allusion is to the sprinkling of the blood of the pas- chal lamb on the door-posts, by which the Israelites were saved when the destroying angel passed through Egypt. And this sprinkling of blood around the door Ambrose calls a baptism. Will any man presume to say that that sprinkling of blood was a total immersion? Cyril of Alexandria, on Is. 4 : 4, vol. 2 ? Paris, 183S, says : " We have been baptized, not with mere water, nor yet with the ashes of a heifer, but with the Holy Ghost and fire." Here we have a recognition of three bap- tisms, one by water, one by the Spirit and another with the ashes of a heifer. Are we to understand this last as an immersion in the ashes of a heifer ? Let Paul answer : " The 6* 62 ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purification of the flesh." Tertullian, De Baptismo, p. 257, Paris, 1634, has tins passage : " At the sacred rites of Isis, or Mithra, they are initiated by a washing; they carry out their gods with washings ; they expiate villas, houses, tem- ples, and whole cities, by sprinkling with water carried around. Certainly they are purified in the Appolinarian and Eleusinian rites ; and they say that they do this to ob- tain regeneration and to escape the punish- ment of their perjuries. Also, among the ancients, whoever had stained himself with murder, expiated h : m>elf with purifying water. In view of these things, we see the zeal of the devil in rivaling the things of God, inasmuch as he thus aUo practices baptism among his own people." Here we have a description of the various lustrations and expiations performed by the devil's people, not only upon their own bodies, but also upon '-villas, houses, temples and whole cit- ies''* and that " by sprinkling with water car- ried around. 11 And yet Tertullian sums it 63 all up as the devil's il baptism^" (baptismum.) Will any one have the effrontery to say that he meant immersion ? We have before us another passage from Justin Martyr, (where it is to be found in his works we have not had the time to as- certain, but we have no doubt of its genuine- ness,) in which he also speaks of the purifi- cations copied by the heathen from the ordi- nances of Christianity. <; The demons," says he, ' ; hearing of this washing, or purifi- cation, proclaimed by the prophet, caused those entering into their temples to sprinkle themselves." Now, if the demons were thus imitating God's purification, and that divine purification was a washing by immersion, how does it happen that they caused their worshipers " to sprinkle themselves?" How could sprinkling be a copy of immersion? In Ambrose, vol. 1, p. 356, Paris, 1690, we have this question: '-Uncle sit baptisma nisi de cruce Christi, de morte Christi ?" " Whence is baptism, (i. e., forgiveness and purification.) except from the cross of Christ, from the death of Christ." Does baptism 64 mean immersion here ? Is there any such thing as immersion from the cross and death of Christ? In vol. 2, p. 355, the same father, taking a general survey of the Jewish and heathen absolutions, thus sums up the whole matter, "There are many kinds of purifications, (baptismatwn,) but the apostle proclaims one baptism. Why? There are purifications (baptismal) of the nations, but they are not purifications, (baptismata.) Washings they are; purifications (baptismata) they cannot be. The body is washed, but sin is not washed away, nay, in that washing sin is contracted. There were also ablutions (baptismata) of the Jews; some superfluous, others typical." Why were these Jewish and heathen baptisms no baptisms ? Because : 2. He was out upon a journey ; he had encamped by the river-side ; and katebe, he went down to wash himself. This word katebe, he went doicn, is precisely the same, and used here under precisely the same circumstances, as in the cases of Naaman, and Philip and the Eu- nuch, where Dr. Fuller lays so much stress upon it. It is a word in which he finds a world of force and argument, when spoken with reference to an approach towards the water. Naaman katebe, went down, and washed in Jordan. Philip and the Eunuch katebesan, went down, into the water. And this is to prove to us that they were im- mersed. Well, just so this young traveler 12* 134 katebe, went down, to wash in the Tigris. Did he immerse himself? Was the sub- mersion of his body the mode in which his ablution was performed? Upon Dr. Ful- ler's argument we would say, most unques- tionably, yes. But let us not be so hasty and confident in our conclusions. The re- cord says, katebe perikltjsasthai, he went down and washed himself all around; just as a man would stancf in a stream and throw the water up on all sides of his body, and thoroughly rub himself clean. Here then is a case to explain what the Jews understood by those injunctions of the law providing that persons should " wash their flesh," or " bathe themselves in water;" a case where the circumstances were such that if immersion had been contemplated, immersion certainly would have been per- formed ; a case which at once breaks the force of Dr. Fuller's argument on the word katebe and completely annihilates what he has built upon the word bathe. We care not whether the story be true or false, Tobit is not an inspired book, but its historical de- 135 tails may still be true. Whether it be fact or fiction, it is equally in point to illustrate the ideas, the manners and the customs of the age in which it was written, and is of more value for such a purpose than the say- ings of a thousand Rabbies of comparatively modern times. And in order that there may be no room for doubt upon the meaning of perildusasthai, (from perikluzo,) we adduce the following instances : Aristotle applies it to the washing of child- ren — to paidion hudati perikluzein, u to wash the child all around with water." It is used by Euripides to denote the wash- ing of the body with water from the sea, where he applies nipto to the same opera- tion ; nipto, according to Dr. Fuller's own authority on page 21, denoting hand-washing, and not a total immersion. In Lucian, V. H., 1, 31, it is applied to an object wet or sprinkled on all sides icith spray by rapid motion in water. Plutarch uses kluzo to denote the cleans- ing of the system from bile by the use of 136 purgative medicines; and also with the pre- position apo, (from,) to express the washing off of blood from armor that had been used in battle. Pollux gives it as the synonym of plu- nien, kruptein and kathairein, and their com- pounds with dia, apo and ek. All of which. is quite inconsistent with the idea of immer- sion. And Stevens, Scapula, Ernesti, Hedricus, Passow, Donegan, and as far as we know, all the lexicographers give perikluzo as the washing around the person or thing which is the subject, so as to effect the most tho- rough cleansing. This young man then, even when he was at the river side — after (katebe) he ivent dozen as Naaman and the Eunuch (katebe) went down, and that for the express purpose of purifying himself — when every thing that Dr. Fuller relies on to prove an immersion was there — did not immerse himself, but (pe* riklusasthai) went to work with his hands to cleanse himself thoroughly by ivashing him- self all around. 137 So much for those Levitical purifications in which washing and bathing\\e concerned. But besides those there were others, in which the mode is particularly designated. It also belongs to our purpose to say a word or two about these. And foremost, and above all, stands the great catharism* or expiation, of which we have an account in the twelfth chapter of Exodus, and which has been kept as an an- nual observance by the children of Israel for the last three thousand years. Ambrose, as we have seen, calls it a baptism. It was a holy ordinance of expiation, cleansing from sin and exempting from death, as it pointed to the great spiritual purgation effected by the blood-shedding of that Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. It was ordained as a statute for ever among the generations of Israel. It pointed back to their redemption from Egypt and its destruc- tion, and forward to that still more glorious expiation effected by Jesus on the cross. It was among all the Jewish rites by eminence *From Kaiharizo, to purify, to purge, to cleanse from guilt, to expiate. 138 a catharism, a cleansing, a covering up and washing away of sin. A more striking case of absolution is not contained in the ancient Scriptures. How then was it to be per- formed ? Will any one pretend to say that there was any bathing, washing or immer- sion about it ? A spotless lamb was to be slain, and its blood was to be struck or sprinkled upon the lintel and side-posts of the door. God saw those stains of blood and was satisfied, and the hand of destruction and death was restrained as it passed. One of the greatest uncleannesses amoncr the Jews was the dreadful disease of lepro- sy. God also gave them special laws to be observed in purifying themselves from it. This constituted one of their most solemn purifications. And so far as the official and social act of this purification, as performed by an administrator, was concerned, it was done solely by sprinkling upon the subject the blood of a turtle-dove or pigeon. See Lev. 14. Another uncieanness under the Mosaic law was contact with the dead. The mode 139 of its purgation is also clearly given. " They shall take of the ashes of the burnt heifer of purification for sin, and running water shall be put thereto in a vessel ; and a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave ;" Num. 19 : 17, 18. Another of the Levitical purifications was that at the ordination and induction of the Levites to the priests' office. In Numbers 8: 3, 7, the mode of doing it is explicitly given. " Take the Levites and cleanse them. And thus shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them : Sprinkle water of purifying upon them." Cyprian, in his 69th epistle, also adduces this very passage in proof of what is the scriptural mode of baptism. Ox. ford, 1844, p. 228. As to the other and more familiar lustra- tions of the Jews, a correct idea of the mode of their performance may be obtained from what is said in John, 2 : 6, in the account of the miracle at the marriage in Cana. " And there were set there six water pots of stone? 140 AFTER THE MANNER OF THE PURIFYING OF THE Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece." Surely, if "the manner of the purifying of the Jews" was adequately provided for in a few water-jars, the contents of which could be entirely drunk up by way of a supplement to a wedding feast, those purifications were, at any rate, not performed by immersion. An allusion to the mode of these ordinary ablutions is also found in 2 Kings 3: 11, where Elisha is characterized as he " who poured water on the hands of Elijah ;•' i. e., the servant who assisted the prophet in his purifications. We also deem it worthy of remark, that in that orient world where customs never change, we still find some remains of these ceremonial purifications and of the manner in which they were performed. The Mus- sulman, seated on his sofa's edge, has a ves- sel placed before him on a large red cloth. A servant on the right pours out the water for his master's use, and another on the left stands ready with the drying towel. The devotee begins the service by baring his 141 arms to the elbows. He applies the water to his hands, mouth, nostrils and forehead, re- peating his prayers. He then rises up under the belief that he is pure. May not this also throw light upon " the manner of the purify- ing of the Jews" from whom Mahomet and his people borrowed so many of their sacred ceremonies? Such then were the catliarisms and lustra- tions prescribed in the Levitical code and performed by the Jews in the Saviour's time. If there were any others, performed in any way different from those which we have named, we should like to have them pointed out to us, not from Maimonides, who lived but 650 years ago, or from Vatablus, who may still be giving Hebrew lessons to the students of Paris, but from the laws of Moses or from authentic records written by men cotemporaneous with Christ and his apostles. We do not pretend to deny indeed that many of these Levitical ablutions, when every thing else was convenient and favorable, were per- haps performed by immersion. This may have been, and thus we would account for 13 142 the sayings of those men which Dr. Fuller has given in his book. But we do most positively deny that a total immersion of the body was an essential part of any of them, whilst many of them were by express in* junction of God to be performed by sj)r ink- ling alone. We have already detained the reader longer upon this point than we designed ; but the great importance of it in determining the New Testament use of baptizo, and its derivative baptismos, will readily be seen. It is with reference to these rites that these words are used. The nature of these rites must therefore determine the meaning of these words. And what shall be said of Dr. Fuller's theory that " Baptizo denotes a total immersion and has no other meaning," when we make it appear that Paul, by in- spiration of God, sums up all these ancient catharisms and lustrations as so many differ- ent baptisms ? Let the reader turn then to the ninth chap- ter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The sa. creJ writer there sets out to give an account 143 of the rites and ceremonies of the Mosaic law. He is talking of these rites and cere- monies, not as they apply to cups and pots and other inanimate things, but as they ap- plied to the persons of the worshipers and of their efficacy to " make perfect as pertaining to the conscience." He mentions expressly the legal abstinences and offerings, the sprinkling of the blood of expiation by the priest and the sprinkling of the ashes of an heifer upon the unclean. And in verse 10 he takes them all up in one mental grasp and finds them all comprehended, monon epi bromasi, kai pomasi, kai diaphorois bap- tismois, that is to say, " only in meats, and drinks, and divers baptisms." Here we have it, plain, unequivocal, star- ing every man full in the face, that with the exception of distinctions in meats and drinks, the whole round of the Levitical purifications, from the sprinkling of blood by the high priest in the holy of holies to the sprinkling of the ashes of the burnt heifer on the bodies of the unclean, " stood only i/i," and by inspiration of the great God him- 144 self are called baptisms — diaphorois bap- tismois. What can be clearer than this ? What more conclusive? Is it not demonstration itself? 145 CHAPTER X. Baptisms under the law diverse — Baptisms before eating not immersions — Baptism of tables or couches — The proper words for simple immersion never used with reference to baptism. We have now shown that the purifications and expiations enjoined in the Jewish law were not immersions, but either sprinklings or simple washings, ordinarily performed under circumstances where immersion was quite out of the question. We have also seen that the inspired writer in Hebrews sums up all these Levitical purifications in the one word, baptisms. We can conceive of no stronger proof to show that this word does not and cannot always mean im- merse and nothing else The sprinkling of the blood of the paschal lamb on the doors certainly was not an immersion ; neither was the sprinkling of the ashes of the red heifer on the unclean an immersion. The sprink- ling of the blood of a young pigeon upon the 13* 146 recovering leper was not an immersion. The cleansing of the Levites, by sprinkling " water of purifying upon them," was not an immersion. Elisha's pouring of water on the hands of Elijah was not an immersion. "The manner of the purifying of the Jews," as indicated by the " six water-pots of stone," in which the Saviour's first miracle was wrought, was not by immersion. And even those more thorough washings of the flesh and bathings, all of which are denoted by the word rahatz, were not necessarily im- mersions, any more than hand-washings. And yet inspired authority calls them all baptisms. Besides, the very epithet which the apos- tle uses to describe these baptisms shows that he did not mean immersions. He de- nominates them diaphorois — different, diverse, distinguishable the one from the other. An immersion is an immersion ; and one immer- sion for purification is just like all other im- mersions for purification. Such immersions were not diverse or various, either in act, in circumstances or in end. One is a perfect 147 fac simile of the other. There is no diver- sity about them. But the baptisms of which the apostle is speaking he characterizes ex- pressly as diaphorois baptismois, divers bap- tisms. If he meant divers immersions, they that so understand him are bound to show the diversity. They have never done it; and taking the word in that sense, they never can do it. But, taking baptisms here in the wider and more natural sense of kalharizo, to purify and expiate, the diversity spoken of is at once obvious. Some were performed by the use of blood, some by the use of ashes and others by the use of water. In some the performance was by sprinkling, in some by hand-washing, in others by pouring water on the hands, and perchance in a few cases by immersion. This forms the variety. And still they were all baptisms. The sprink- lings with ashes were baptisms, expressly so called by Cyril of Alexandria, who lived within a few hundred years of the apostles; and the sprinklings with blood were baptisms, so more than once declared by Ambrose, who lived still nearer to the apostolic age ; 148 and the various lustrations, including the washing of hands and other water applica- tions, were baptisms, so pronounced by Cle- ment of Alexandria, who lived within one hundred years of the death of St. John; and all of them together were baptisms, so de- clared by authority which could not err, even by the inspired writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Is it not as plain then as lan- guage can make it, that they were baptisms, not because they were immersions, for they were not immersions, but baptisms in the only true religious sense of the word, be- cause they were purifications ? In Mark 7 : 4, we have another instance of the use of baplizo, in which we must as- sign to it this same signification. " And when they come from the market, except they wash (baptisontai) they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing (baptismous) of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and tables." Dr. Fuller's position is, that " an entire immersion belongs to the nature of baptism •" 149 that " baptizo contains the idea of a complete immersion under water;" that it "always denotes a total immersion ;" pp. 19, 23. Of course then, if his position is true, it must hold good in this case ; and when it is said that the Pharisees never eat after returning from the market until they have baptized themselves, it must mean that they totally immersed themselves. Did they then totally immerse themselves ? He quotes fourteen authorities on this point ; quite a formidable array surely. But two of these very author- ities, in the very passages quoted, speak only of washings, without saying one word about the mode in which they were to be done ; and seven more of these same authorities, Campbell, Buxtorf, Wetstein, Rosenmiiller, Kuinol, Spencer and Lightfoot, say most ex- plicitly that these Pharisaic purifications after return from market, were only wash- ings of the hands ! So that seven out of twelve of his own witnesses, and those the most reliable, positively declare that these Pharisaic baptisms were not total immersions, but hand-washings. 150 Nor will it meet the case for Dr. Fuller to say or to prove that these hand-washings were immersions of the hands. The bap- tisms are predicated of " the Pharisees and all the Jews" not of the hands of the Phari- sees and Jews. " And when they come from the market, except they wash (baptisontai) they eat not." The baptism is the baptism of the same thai went to market, that re- turned from market and that ate. The same nominative stands for all these verbs. Cer- tainly it was not the hands alone that went to market, nor the hands alone that returned from market, nor the hands alone that ate. "The Pharisees and all the Jews" constitute the subject of whom these things are alleged ; and Dr. Fuller can no more exempt all but hands from the force of baptisontai than he can exempt all but hands from the eating and returning from market. It was the Phari- sees that ate, and the Pharisees that returned from market, and it was the Pharisees that baptized themselves. And so, if that baptism was performed by a simple washing of the hands, no matter whether they were steeped 151 in water, or whether water was poured, or sprinkled, or rubbed upon them, it was not a total immersion ; and baptizo here must take the sense of purify, and not that of entire immersion under water. But what is to be done with Dr. Fuller's five remaining authorities, in which it is said that the Pharisees totally immersed them- selves before eating, afler having been at the market ? Whether he has quoted them fairly we have not attempted to ascertain. All we have to say on that point is, that a man who can take the liberties with the Book of God — a book in every one's hand — which we have proven upon Dr. Fuller, is not very much to be relied on when he comes to give a line or two here and there from rare books, which the most intelligent men seldom see. But we will suppose these quo- tations all accurate and just. What do they amount to? Two of them, one from Mai- monides and one from Vatablus, say not a word about the market, and may refer to a very different department of Pharisaic lus- trations from that alluded to in the text. Put 152 we pass this also, and permit them all to stand as going directly to the point. And yet we can satisfactorily meet them all with- out traveling out of Dr. Fuller's own book. Seven of his own authorities, and the very best out of the twelve that he has quoted in this place, flatly contradict, confound and completely negative the other five, and in words as positive as can be chosen, declare that these Pharisaic purifications after at- tending market were not total immersions, but hand- iu as kings. Are not seven an adequate offset to Jive ? Are not Buxtorf, Wetstein, Rosenmiiller, Kuinol, Spencer, and Lightfoot names as great and controlling as Vatablus, Grotius, Maimonides and Macknight? Ac- cording to one list the baptism before us was an immersion of the whole body, a total im- mersion ; according to the other list it was a mere washing of the hands ; according to a third list it was a simple washing, without specification of mode ; and all the lists are Dr. Fuller's own quotations! Let him har- monize his authorities if he can, and then perhaps they may be of some weight. If 153 these purifications from the contaminations of the market-place were mere icashings, they may have been immersions, or they may have been sprinklings or rubbings. If they were mere hand-washings, they certain- ly were not total immersions ; and the great weight of his authorities goes to establish that they were mere hand-washings and nothing else. Now we do not intend to maintain that these Pharisaic lustrations from the supposed defilement of attending market were never performed by a general bathing, or even by a total immersion. The probability is, that in the warm season, and when circumstances made it convenient, they did at times per- form this particular purification in one or the other of these ways. No sensible man will deny that such instances may have occurred. And this will sufficiently account for what has been said by Maimonides, Grotius and Macknight. But we do maintain that this was not the only nor the ordinary way of performing this purification. The seven authorities quoted by Dr. Fuller, which de- 14 154 clare that it was done by the mere washing of the hands, is proof enough to our purpose. But we will not stop with what they have said. Our author seems to think that au- thorities are arguments, and therefore we will not withhold them. The Commentator Henry remarks upon the customs of the Jews as related to this passage, *•' They particularly washed before they ate bread. They took special care, when they came from the markets, to wash their hands. The rule of the Rabbins was, that if they washed their hands well in the morning, it would serve for all day, provided they kept alone ; but if they went into com- pany, they must not eat or pray till they had washed their hands." Scott says, " It seems undeniable, that by the words baptize and baptisms a partial ap- plication of water was intended in this as in several other places." Dr. SchafF, in his History of the Apostolic Church, p. 569, says, " In support of this, (that baptizo has the general sense, to wash, to cleanse,) a confident appeal can assuredly 155 be made to several passages, viz : Luke 11 : 3S, with Mark 7 : 2, 4, where baplizien is used of the toashing of hands before eating. Mark has for this, v. 3, niptein, which in the East was performed by pouring." The same author says that in Mark 7 : 4, 8, Heb. 9 : 10, " Baptismoi must be taken to include all sorts of religious purifications among the Jews, including sprinkling." Bloomfield says that baptize here does not denote an immersion. In Morris and Smith's Expositions of the Gospels we have this note upon this passage, " They (the Jews) did not immerse them- selves in water, but used a small quantity, which was applied to the hand and wrist, or, at most, to the arm as far as the elbow. It cannot be proved that the Jeics washed the whole body when they returned from market. There could have been no necessity for it, even in their opinion ; the most they did was to wash those parts which were exposed to contamination." Albert Barnes says, " Baptize in this place does not mean to immerse the whole body. 156 There is no evidence that the Jews immersed their whole bodies every time they came from the market. It is probable they wash- ed as a mere ceremony, and often doubtless with the use of a very small quantity of water." And in the notes to the Cottage Bible it is said that some of the wealthier, who had the leisure and all the necessary conveniences, may have immersed themselves ; but that the generality of the Jews did no more than wash their hands. Dr. Fuller may say these are all modern authorities. Be it so ; we will give him some more ancient. The oldest that he has given carries us back to the close of the twelfth century. Theophylaet lived more than a hundred years earlier, and is pro- nounced by Mosheim and Neander the most distinguished exegetical writer of his age ; and Theophylaet says that these Jewish pu- rifications before eating were performed by mere hand-washings. He designates them by the word niptesthai, a word which, ac- cording to Beza, (as quoted by Dr. Fuller himself,) has respect only to the hands. 157 But we go back six hundred years further still. We point Dr. Fuller to the oldest but one, if not the very oldest existing copy of the Bible itself — to a manuscript of the New Testament, which, for its internal excellence and nearest approach to the older Greek copies, was preferred by Michaelis to all others— to the Codex Vaticanus. We point him also to eight other ancient copies, as also to Euthemius, the Isaurian ; all of which have rantisontai in the place of baptisontai : li When they come from the market, except they purify themselves by sprinkling, they eat not." And surely, if the old Greek transcribers thirteen hundred years ago con- sidered the word baptism in this passage as the proper equivalent of sprinkling, it ought to settle the case. If Dr. Fuller really en- tertains the reverence for authority which he professes, let him bow before it and confess that baptizo does not here mean a total im- mersion and nothing else. But "the Pharisees and all the Jews" not only baptized or purified themselves ; they had also received to hold many like things, 14* 158 such as "the baptizing or purifying (baptis- mous) of cups and pots, brazen vessels and of tables." As to these cups, pots and braz- en vessels, they may have been immersed or not, as circumstances rendered convenient. We suppose they ordinarily were immersed, because this was the most convenient and natural mode of purifying them. Anasta- sius, however, gives us instances in which such vessels were purified simply by pour- ing water into them ; and calls such a puri- fication Baptism. (Biblo. Patrum, vol. 5, p. 958.) But what shall be said of the "ta- lles V 9 Dr. Fuller tells us not to think of "our massive mahogany furniture," and wishes to make his readers believe that nothing more is meant than " a round piece of leather !" p. 60. Unfortunately for him his own favorite authority, quoted in the very next paragraph, completely spoils his beau- tiful fabrication. Maimonides says, " Every vessel of wood, which is made for the use of man, as a table, receives defilement." After all, it seems that a Jewish "table" was made ' ; of wood" and that it was a very different 159 thing from "a round piece of leather, spread upon the floor, upon which is placed a sort of stool, supporting nothing but a platter!" How " massive" Dr. Fuller's "mahogany fur- niture" may be, we know not. He claims to be something out of the ordinary line of Baptists, and advocates a system very dif- ferent from that held by the great majority of Christians; and it may be that his "ma- hogany furniture " is also something out of the common order of things. But we do know, that especially among the wealthier Pharisees — the very parties concerned in the passage before us — the "tables" in use were cumbersome wooden structures, from eight to twenty feet in length, about four feet wide and about three or four feet high. (See Watson's Dictionary, Art. Banquet ; Home's Introduction, vol. 2, part 4, chap. 1, sec. 4; and Comprehensive Commentary on John, 13: 23, 25.) And whether such articles were ordinarily submerged in water after every meal, we ask the reflecting to judge. But the word klinon, here rendered tables, does not properly mean the tables on which 160 food was placed, but the couches, sofas and cushions on which the quests reclined whilst eating. Dr. Fuller becomes very impatient under this fact and says, " J don't care what it means. The Bible says they immersed tlie articles, and this is enough;" p. 61. Take it easy, Doctor ; the Bible says no such thing. That awkward and equivocal Latin word immerse is not in the Bible, and never will be there until Baptists are allowed to carry into effect that cherished wish of their hearts, to wit, the adjustment of the Word of God to their miserable sectarian system. The word klinon means couches or beds, and the Bible says that the Jews baptized them; and we wish the reader to inquire into the character of these articles, in order to make up his mind as to whether that baptism was a total immersion. What were these couches? The learned Home thus refers to them : " The more opulent had (as those in the East still have) fine carpets, couches, or divans, and sofas, on which they sat, lay and slept. In later times their couches were splendid, and the frames inlaid with ivorv, and the 161 coverlids rich and perfumed. On these so- I : (the very period to which th. they univr iking then meals, resting towards the table:" (Int., v - 154.) a thus describes the.- i or couc each . i 2h of th e cUnium. At the ec : r the convenience of n . to it. "esses and supported on frames of wood, often high- ly ornamented ; the - : lording to the quaL T toL Lie. Art. Banquet.) Even Mr. Carson, one of Dr. Fuller's grades, fire rdes that were loted by J53 Upon these : was the custom of the Je~ :o be And can any secern:. suppose that such M splendid subjec with men reclining on them ? J 162 hapllzo here signifies only to purify, and that in some mode less troublesome and less de- structive than that of quite burying them in the water. Another passage in which baptizo occurs is Luke 11: 38. "A certain Pharisee be- sought Jesus to dine with him ; and Jesus went in and sat down to meat. And when the Pharisee saw it he marveled that Jesus had not first washed (ebaptisfhe) before din- ner." Here we have the same sort of puri- fication spoken of in the preceding passage. And if the Jewish lustrations were ordinarily performed by simply washing their hands, even when returning from the market, it certainly is not to be supposed in this case that Christ was expected to immerse himself. Kuinol says that the existence of any such custom as that of regular immersion before all meals cannot be proved. Henry, Burk- itt and Olshausen understand mere hand- washing to be indicated. The translators have not improperly rendered it wash. It denotes no more than a common ceremonial purification, which was sufficiently accom- plished by a simple wetting of the hands. 163 We would also ask Dr. Fuller to tell us why the words kaiapontizo, hatadumi and katalaptizo are never used by the sacred writers in connection with the sacrament of baptism. The direct, certain and unequivo- cal meaning of all these words is " a total immersion and nothing else." They every where and always have the very " univo- cal meaning" which he wishes to fix upon oaptizo. What then is the reason that the inspired penmen have never used one of them with reference to baptism ? Is not the omission significant ? Has not this divine particularity, in using only bapiizo, a lesson for us ? Does it not teach us that there is a peculiarity about the meaning of this word something different from the simple act of immersion ? Let Dr. Fuller explain. In the mean time we ask the reader, in view of the facts and evidences which we have thus far submitted, whether it is possi- ble for a sane, honest man still to say that laptizo always denotes a total immersion and has no other meaning ? 164 CHAPTER XL Our doctrine respecting Baptize- — Has a pe- culiar religious sense — Is used interchange- ably with Katharizo — Explained by Dikaioo. Purifiers called Baptizers — The holy Ghost; John — - Other instances — Testimony from the Fathers — Inference from the nature of things. Ocjr doctrine is, that baptizo, with its de- rivatives, in the vocabulary of the New Testament, is a religious ivord, and always used in the same distinct religious sense. If it meant to immerse and nothing else, it would unquestionably have been some where interchanged with other Greek words which have this specific signification. It is never so interchanged. Dr. Fuller agrees that "the Holy Spirit always, in speaking of the ordinance (of baptism,) uses one single word. That word is baptizo ;" p. 12. This fact is very significant. It shows conclu- sively that this word is not the synonym of Jcatapontizo, katadumi, katabaptizo, or any 165 other word that has the specific signification of sinking under water, but has a sense pe- culiarly and pre-eminently its own ; not a sense up to the time foreign and unknown to this word, but one among its well known significations, now adopted, fixed and ever after adhered to as the specific sense in which the Holy Ghost employs it. Dr. Fuller affects to be filled with holy jealousy at such a doctrine. Though its truth is so distinctly indicated by the acts of the Holy Spirit, he does not condescend to pay it the commonest respect. He will not call it "amusing absurdity" and " ridiculous sophistry;" the subject is "too solemn" for that. It is presented as something with horns and split hoofs ; a black spirit from the under- world, bearing the name of blas- phemy ; " an impiety ichich ought to fill a pious mind icith horror /" p. 32. So calm is his philology, that when arguments fail him, it will even allow him to raise the cry of, Infernal Apparition! to frighten the unsus- pecting from the true import of the Revela- tion of God. But with all Dr. Fuller's "hue 15 166 and cry" about absurdity, sophistry and hor- rible impiety, we maintain that baptizo has a religions sense — a peculiar, settled and spe- cific religious signification. To this fact we have the testimony of those men who made the Latin version of the Bible, and the testi- mony of the English translators of the Bible. And what horrible impieiists these great Christian teachers must have been, all to agree that baplizo in the Saviour's lips was a word so peculiar in its application as not to be capable of an exact translation by any other verb, either in Latin or English. Even Mr. Carson himself admits, that immersion and baptism are not synonymous words, and remarks that they " are any thing rather than synonymous." — p. 383. We have just argued that baptizo was not used by the inspired writers to signify a total immersion and nothing else, because they have never used it interchangeably with other words which have this specific signification. Upon the same principle we argue, that if an instance can be found in which the sacred penmen use it interchangeably with any other 167 word, that word must give its true scriptural, religious sense, its proper, technical, New Testament signification. Have we any such instance ? We have. Let the reader turn to John 3 : 22, and read from that on to John 4:3. The apos- tle here tells us that John the Baptist was baptizing at Enon, and that Jesus was also engaged in baptizing, at least by his disci- ples, in the same vicinity. John had been baptizing great multitudes; but it seems that at this time the public attention was some- what diverted from John's baptism to that of the Saviour. A sort of jealousy was engen. dered in some of John's disciples by this turn in the current of popular favor, and they began to speak of it. A dispute arose about the relative merits of John's baptism and Christ's baptism. And this dispute about baptism the sacred writer terms "a question peri katharismou," — about purifying. Of course it could not have been a question about purification in general ; that is alto- gether foreign to the scope of the passage. It was baptism that gave rise to the dispute ; 168 and baptism was the subject with which the disputants, on the one side at least, went to John to complain; (v. 26.) It necessarily follows, therefore, that the subject of their dispute was baptism. Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, and Cyril of Alexandria, testify expressly, in commenting upon this passage, that the question concerning purification was simply and only a question concerning bap- tism. Theophylact says of John's disciples and the Jews on this occasion, that they " disputed concerning purification, that is baptism" Olshausen says, " The dispute related to baptism." Dr. Beecher says, " The dispute in question was plainly a spe- cific dispute concerning baptism as practiced by Jesus and John." Schleusner, Wahl, Vater, Rosenmiiller, De Wette, Brelschnei- der and Kuinol all say that baptism was the only subject of the question. Grotius, Beza, Whitby, Doederlin, Burkitt, Clarke and Henry take the same view. Rosenmiiller, Vater, Kuinol and Schleusner give baptism as the proper translation of katharismou in this passage. Even Professor Ripley him- 169 self, nay, all that have ventured to comment upon this place, so far as we know, Mr. Carson alone excepted, in some way or other make kaiharismou here mean baptism. By no just laws of interpretation can it be made to mean any thing else. And whether we put baptism in the place of the word purify- ing, or put purify in the place of baptize, the sense remains conspicuously the same. Here then is a divine key to unlock to us the true religious sense of baptizo. By in- spiration of the Holy Ghost it has its equiv- alent and synonym in katharizo, which means to purify. The dispute of which the apostle speaks was not a dispute about " a total im- mersion and nothing else," but a dispute about purifying. That purifying was the religious rite of baptism, as practiced both by Christ and his fore-runner. It follows therefore with inevitable certainty, and that, not from heathen classics or modern Jewish paraphrasts, but from the infallible word of God itself, that the true religious sense of baptizo is religious purification. If this is 15* 170 "horrible impiety," let Dr. Fuller make the most of it. Another word given in the Scriptures as equivalent to baptizo is dikaioo, to clear, jus- tify, to declare innocent, and hence also to purify. In Hebrews 9 : 10, the writer makes diaphorois bapiismois — divers bap- tisms — the exact equivalent of dikaiomasi sarkos, clearings of the flesh. He is speak- ing of the external expiations and lustrations prescribed in the Jewish law. He calls them all baptisms ; and these outward baptisms he calls clearings or purifyings of the flesh. It is true, in the English Bible, the word "and" comes between these two expressions, as if the writer designed to designate two distinct departments in the legal services of which he is speaking. But Griesbach altogether rejects this '-and" (kai) as not a genuine reading. Professor Stuart takes the same view, and renders the passage, " meats and drinks and divers ivashings (baptisms) — ordi- nances pertaining to the Jlesh. ,} The Syriac version, according to Murdock's translation of it, is very clear in this view. After the 171 reference to meats and drinks and baptisms, it has this unequivocal phrase, " which were carnal ordinances?' In a tract before us, from a doctor of divinity in the city of Bal- timore, the passage is rendered, " meats and drinks and divers baptisms, (even) justifi- cations (or purifications) of the flesh." And it is evident to all who will examine, that this must be the true reading, because there are no justifications or purifyings of the flesh prescribed in all the Jewish law, which are not completely included "in meats and drinks and divers baptisms." Baptismois and dikaiomasi are therefore interchangeable terms. At least the Holy Ghost employs the one to explain the other. Dikaioma no where, to our knowledge, means immersion or any thing like it. It means a judicial clearing. In Rom. 2: 26, 5 : 18, 8:4, and Rev. 19: 8, it is rendered righteousness ; in many places, justify; in Rom. 6 : 7, freed. All these are also meanings of katharizo. And if these words explain the meaning of bapti. so, a religious purifying is certainly its sense. There can be no escape from this argument. 172 Again, in 1 Cor. 12: 13, the Holy Ghost himself is presented as a baptizer. "For by one Spirit ice are all baptized (ebaptistha- men. v ) Is the Holy Spirit an immerser or plunger ? No ; the Holy Spirit is a sanctifi- es a purifier ; Ez. 37:28, Rom. 15:16, 1 Peter 1:2. " The baptism of the Holy Ghost," says Brown, " denotes not only the miraculous collation of the influences of the blessed Spirit, whereby the New Testament Church was solemnly consecrated to the service of God ; but chiefly his gracious in- fluences, which, like fire, purify, soften and inflame our heart with love to Jesus, and wash away our sin, and enable us to join ourselves to him and his people." When, therefore, the fulfilment of these offices of the Holy Ghost upon the recovered sinner is called baptism, are we not bound to interpret the word according to the nature of the of- fices and work of the Holy Spirit ? If the work and office of the Holy Ghost is to pu- rify, and God calls that purification baptism, is it not a clear and palpable demonstration, that in God's mouth the terms are converti- 173 ble, and that baptizo in its proper religious sense means purification ? There is also a passage in the first chap- ter of John, (v. 19, 28,) which remains ex- ceedingly obscure until we give to baptizo its proper signification of purify. The au- thorities of the Jewish people sent a deputa- tion to John the Baptist, to ascertain from him his true official character and position. They asked whether he was Elijah, mista- king as they did the true import of the predic- tion in Malachi 4 : 5, 6. John said he was not. They asked him whether he was that prophet foretold by Moses in Deuteronomy, 18 : 15. He answered again he was not. They then asked him, " Why baptizest (baptizeis) thou then, if thou be not the Christ, nor Elijah, neither that prophet ?" What does this mean ? What had been said by the ancient prophets concerning Christ and his fore-runner, that led the Jewish officials to suppose that these predic- tions were verified in John's work of baptiz- ing f Had God's messenger been predicted as an immerserf No. Had Christ been 174 predicted as an immerser? No. In what peculiar character then had they been pre- dicted, to give rise to this singular question? One passage in Malachi (3 : I, 3) will solve the whole difficulty. In that passage the Saviour is foretold as a purifier, likened to "a refiner's fire and fuller's soap," who should " sit as a refiner and purifier of sil- ver," who should "purify the sons of Levi and purge them as gold and silver." See also Is. 1:25, 4:4; Zech. 13:9; Matt. 3: 10, 12; and Lightfoot's large collection of Rabbinical passages on this point. Ac- cording to these prophecies the Jews univer- sally expected both Elijah and Christ in the official character of purifiers. And when they put the question to John, why he bap- tized, if he was neither Christ nor Elijah ? they doubtless used the word in the sense of the prophecies which led them to ask the question, and the nature of the case requires us to put upon it the only intelligible sense of purification. So far then as the peculiar Christian sense of baptizo can be condensed into one Eng- 175 lish expression, it denotes a religions puri' fying- Nor was this meaning unknown to this word and for the first time assigned to it by the writers of the New Testament. Mr. Carson himself admits that all the lexicog- raphers and commentators do assign to it the unlimited sense, to wash or cleanse. Schrevelius, Dunbar, Grove, Parkhurst, Scapula, Stephens, Passow, Ernesti, Schnei- der, et cetera, all sustain the use of it in the sense of purification. And we have seen that the almost exclusive use of it in the version of the seventy, which was made one hundred and fifty years before Christ's time, is as the synonym of louo, in the sense of religious purifying. But even if baptizo had never been used in this sense previous to its introduction into the New Testament, that it is so used by the Holy Ghost is a fixed fact, which no ingenu- ity or eloquence on earth can unsettle. We have seen that it is used by the inspired John as the synonym of katharizo, which means only to cleanse, especially in a religious, le- 176 gal or ceremonial sense. Paul employs it to denote the work of God's Spirit in the sinner's heart, which is a purification and not an immersion. John is asjain and a^ain called the baptizer, and was supposed to be either Elias or the Christ simply because he cleansed Israel by a religious purifying. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews calls all the various sprinklings, expiations and lustrations under the Jewish law, many of which certainly were not immersions, di- vers baptisms, only because they were puri- fications. The Pharisaic washing of hands before eating, the washing of pots and cups and brazen vessels, and the sprinkling of beds and couches, are all called baptisms, upon no other ground but that they were ceremonial purifications. Christ himself is said to have been baptized (with water by John, and with blood and agony in Geth- semane and on the cross) for the expressed purpose, and only in this respect, that he might fulfil all righteousness, (Matt. 3 : 15,) and be perfected through sufferings, (Heb. 2 : 10,) and have effected in himself the 177 great purgation through which those who are in him are justified and purified for ever. The Israelites are said to have been baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea, be- cause, according to Vitringa, Wolf, Bengel, Rosenmiiller, Semler, Schleusner and others, they were thereby initiated into the religion which Moses taught, ransomed from their degradation and bondage in Egypt, absolved from their old task-masters, consecrated as God's peculiar people, purified from their former associations with the heathen, and by a wonderful divine interposition, separated from the vile and blaspheming, as a people henceforth and for ever specially ordained to hear God's messengers and to obey God's law. That baptism was not an immersion, the hosts of Pharaoh alone were immersed ; but it was a mysterious consecration, an ab- solution, an induction into a new and holier state, a purification. Augustine (Serm. de Catach., vol. 9, p. 320, Paris, 1586,) speaks of it as a "salvation by water. " " One ele- ment," says he, " by the command of the Creator, judged both; for it separated the 16 178 righteous from the wicked. The former it washed) the latter it overwhelmed; the for- mer it purified, the latter it destroyed." In the same way in Romans 6: 3, 11, Chris- tians are said to be baptized into Jesus Christ, because in him their old body of sin is destroyed, their guilt absolved, their im- purities purged out and a glorious renovation effected. There can be no immersion in Christ, nor yet in the death of Christ; but there is absolution in Christ, and in his death, and purification ; for his blood cleans- eth from all sin. And there is not a single instance in the New Testament in which baptizo is used, where it does not naturally, if not necessarily, take the sense of reli- gious purification. The testimony from the fathers that bapti- zo has the sense of katharizo, and in Chris- tian language means a religious purifying, is almost without limit, as Dr. Beecher has satisfactorily shown. Take the lexicographers Zonaras and Phavorinus. They were not among the early fathers, but they give us dictionaries 179 founded on the early fathers. Zonaras was one of the four leading Byzantine historians. He wrote annals from the beginning of the world down to A.D. 1118, and various com- mentaries on apostolic canons, decrees of councils, etc. Tittman says of his lexicon, lt I consider it, after that of Hesychius, the most learned of all others that survive, the most copious and most accurate." And yet these great lexicographers say not one word about immersion in connection with baptism. They define " Baptisma — The remission of sins by water and the Spirit — the unspeaka- ble forgiveness of sins — the loosing of the bond (of sin) granted by the love of God to- wards men — the voluntary arrangement of a new life towards God — the releasing or recovery of the soul to that which is better, to holiness." All these are exact definitions of religious purifying. They are all mean- ings of katharizo. And surely those words must be synonymous to which the same de- flations are given. •But these are not the mere opinions of Zonaras and Phavorinus. They are taken 180 almost literally from the fathers. Basil on Jsaiah 4 : 4, sets himself to give a formal and comprehensive definition of the whole import of baptisma. In this definition he gives three significations or applications of the word, in each of which the idea of puri- fication is the uppermost. He says that baptism means purification from filth, spirit- ual purification, (pneumatos anagennesis,) and purgation or trial by the fire of the judg- ment. Clement calls the washing of Penel- ope and the wetting of the hands of Telem- achus with sea-water, in Homer, and the lustrations of the Jews whilst reclining on (epi) their couches, baptisms, certainly not because they were immersions, they were not immersions, but because they were reli- gious purifyings. Justin Martyr calls de- liverance from evil passions a baptism. Origen calls martyrdom a baptism. Am- brose calls the sprinkling of the blood of the paschal lamb on the doors in Egypt a bap- tism. Cyril calls the sprinkling of the ashes of the burnt heifer on the unclean a baptism. Tertullian calls the heathen cer- 181 emonies of sprinkling themselves, their tem- ples, &c, baptisms. Athanasius calls the placing of John's hand upon the Saviour's head a baptism. Gregory Nazianzen, in his 39ih discourse, calls martyrdom, pen- ance and purgation in another life, baptisms. Some of these same fathers call the washing of the disciples' feet by Christ a baptism. How can all this be explained, unless we take the word baptism in the sense of reli- gious purification ? Anastasius says he would not hesitate to call mourning a bap- tism. He says that "affliction, with humil- ity and silence, is a baptism." And the reason he assigns is, that "it purifies a man." Tertullian calls the water and blood that issued from the side of Christ two baptisms, of course not immersions, but pu- rifications or purifiers. Maximus, (vol. 2, p. 459, Paris, 1675,) says that " sons of thunder " means sons of baptism. The ex- planation he gives is, that thunder is com- posed of water and air, an initiation into the mystery of purification. His philosophy is faulty and his language involved ; but the 16* 182 passage is sufficient to show that he consid- ered purification the proper sense of the word baptism. Chrysostom uses it inter- changeably with remission and reconcilia- tion^ and Cyprian with the words washing and cleansing ; all of which requires the sense of purification. Josephus also, though not a Christian, speaks of John's baptism as a purification ; (Ant. lib. 18, cap. 5, sec. 2.) Chrysostom, in his 33d Homily, says that Christ " calls his cross and death a cup and baptism, — a cup, because he readily drank it ; baptism, because by it he purified the world." Theophylact' on Matt. 20 : 22, 23, says that Jesus " calls his death a baptism, as making a purification or expiation (kath- artikon) for all of us." So also on Mark 10 : 38, 39, he says that Jesus " calls his cross baptism, as about to make a puiifica- tion (katharismon) for sin." Gregory Na- zianzen speaks of Christ's baptism in the Jordan as his purification (kathairomenon) in the Jordan. Several fathers call the tears of penitence or prayer baptism ; certainly not because suppliants were totally im- 183 mersed in them, but because, as Nilus, the disciple of Chrysostom, says, they are "good wash-basins for the soul ;" or, as Gregory of Nyssa says, " fountains, by means of which you can wash off the spots and pollu- tions of your soul." In the passage from Origen (by accident ascribed to Cyprian on page 65) relative to the baptism of the wood, altar and hewn bullock in Eli- jah's sacrifice, the sense of purify is ex- pressly assigned to baptizo. The passage is this : " How came you (the Jews) to think that Elias, when he should come, would baptize? who did not himself baptize the wood upon the altar in the clays of Ahab, although it needed to be purified, but com- manded the priests to do it." Baptism and purification are here used interchangeably with each other, and the author only means to affirm that the baptizing or purifying of the wood on the altar was not performed by Elijah himself, but by the priests. But this is slill not all. The command in Isaiah 1 : 16, is a command to wash, make clean and put away evil. Justin Martyr, 184 Cyril and Hippolytus call it a prophetic in- junction of baptism. The promise in Eze- kiel 26 : 25, is a promise to sprinkle with clean water and to cleanse from fllthiness and idols. Cyprian, Jerome and others pro- nounce it a prediction concerning baptism. The prophecy in Isaiah 4 : 4, relates to pu- rification by washing, judgment and the spirit of burning. Basil, Origen, Eusebius and Theodoret call it baptism, which is partly accomplished in the present life and partly in the life to come. The declaration in Psalm 66 : 10, speaks only of the process by which metals are freed from dross. One writing in the name of Chrysostom calls it a baptism ; " for," says he, " as gold or silver is purified in the furnace by consuming the dross, so a man, placed in the furnace of af- fliction, is purified. " Malachi 3 : 3, speaks only of purifying and purging. Theodoret and Cyril of Alexandria speak of it as a prophecy of baptism, and comment upon it as explaining why the Jews demanded of John why he baptized, if he was neither Elias nor the Christ. And Athanasius says 185 explicitly, " The expression, he shall bap- tize you with the Holy Ghost, means this, that he shall purify you (kathariei hu- mas.) Indeed Cyprian has this broad de- claration, that " as often as water alone is mentioned in the sacred Scriptures, baptism is alluded to ;" because, says Isidore Hispa- lensis, " water is a purifier, and is the only element that purifies all things. Augustine also has this passage, " When we say that Christ baptizes, we do not say that he holds and washes in water the body of the believ- er, but that he invisibly purifies him, and not only him, but the whole Church." From all this is not the conclusion inevit- able, that baptizo, as a religious term, does not mean " a total immersion and nothing else," nor yet to sprinkle or pour, but to purify, without limitation as to mode? Even Maimonides, upon whom Dr. Fuller relies so much, applies the word baptism to a general religious purification. " There are three things," says he, " by which the Israelites entered into covenant with God, circumcis- ion, baptism, and sacrifice. Baptism was 186 practiced in the desert before the giving of the law ; for God said to Moses, sanctify them." (Issure Biah, Perek 13.) Did Mo- ses immerse the people ? Certainly not. He only commanded them to purify themselves by taking care that no defilement was on them, by abstaining from all fleshly indul- gences, and by washing their clothes, re- penting of their sins, and lifting their hearts to God. And this general purification is cited as an instance and an evidence of Mosaic baptism. Indeed, so thoroughly were some of the translators of the Bible convinced that to baptize is to purify, that the Saxon Testa- ment has John le FuIIubtere, literally, the Fuller; and the Icelandic translates baptism skim, literally, scouring. And indeed, to use the words of Dr. Beecher, the idea of purification, in the nature of things, is better adapted to be the name of this rite than immersion. It has a fitness and versimilitude in all its extensive variety of usage, which cause the mind to feel the self- evidencing power of truth, as producing harmony and agreement in the 187 most minute, as well as in the most im- portant relations of the various parts of this' subject to each other. First, the idea of purification is the fundamental idea in the whole subject. Second, it is an idea com- plete and definite in itself in every sense, and needs no adjunct to make it more so. Third, it is the soul and centre of a whole circle of delightful ideas and words. It throws out before the mind a flood of rich and glorious thoughts, and is adapted to op- erate upon the feelings like a perfect charm. To a sinner desiring salvation, what two ideas so delightful as forgiveness and puri- ty ? Both are condensed in this one word. It involves in itself a deliverance from the guilt of sin and from its pollution. It is a purification from sin in every sense. It is purification by the atonement and purifica- tion by the truth, — by water and by blood. And around these ideas cluster others like- wise, of holiness, salvation, eternal joy, eter- nal life. No other word can produce such delight on the heart and send such a flood of light into all the relations of divine truth ; 188 for purity, in the broad scripture sense, is the joy and salvation of man and the crowning glory of God. Of immersion none of these things are true. It is not a fundamental idea in any subject or system. By itself it does not con- vey any one fixed idea, but depends on its adjuncts and varies with them. Immersion J In what ? clean water or filthy 1 in a dye- fluid or in wine ? Until these questions are answered the word is of no use. And with the spiritual sense the case is still worse ; for common usage limits it in English, Lat- in, Greek, and so far as we know, in all languages, by its adjuncts, of a kind deno- ting calamity or degradation, and never puri- ty. It has intimate and firmly-established associations with such words as luxury, ease, indolence, sloth, cares, anxieties, troubles, distresses, sins, pollution, death. We famil- iarly speak of immersion and sinking in all these ; but with their opposites the idea of immersion refuses alliance. Sinking and downward motion are naturally allied with ideas which, in a moral sense, are depressed 189 and debased, and not with such as are ele- vated and pure. And for what reason should the God of order, purity, harmony and taste select an idea for the name of his own be- loved rite so alien from it, and reject one in every respect so desirable and so fit ? Who does not feel that the name of so delightful an idea as purification must be the name of the rite ? And who does not rejoice that there is proof so unanswerable that such is the signification of the word which the Holy Ghost every where uses to denote this holy Christian sacrament ? 17 190 CHAPTER XII. Transitions in the meaning of Words — Baptist Sophistry — Scriptural hints respecting mode in Baptism — Baptism by the Holy Ghost — Bloody Baptism of Christ — Typical Bab- tisms under the Law. After what has now been said, it is impos- sible for any man, open to receive the truth, not to be convinced that the New Testament and Christian use of baptizo is to signify a religious purifying, without regard to mode. That the sacred and Christian writers have used it in this sense, and that with reference to purifyings performed in every variety of mode, is settled — may we not say, demon- strated? It is not a matter of analogy or inference, but a matter of fact, which ten thousand proofs that baptizo among the old heathen Greeks originally meant to immerse, dip, sink and drown cannot at all affect or set aside ; — a matter of fact so fully proven and so firmly established that a man might as well attempt to turn the course of the 191 Mississippi across the rocky mountains, or to overthrow the eternal hills, as to undertake to strike it from among the fixed verities of things. Nor should it be thought strange or re- markable that a word which once so fre- quently meant to dip and plunge has thus passed over to signify a religious purifi- cation, without regard to the manner of its performance. Dr. Beecher has justly re- marked that " no principle is more univer- sally admitted by all sound philologists, than that to establish the original and primitive meaning of a word is not at all decisive as regards its subsequent usages ;" that "it is too plain to be denied, that words do often so far depart from their primitive meaning as entirely to leave out the original idea;" and that "such transitions are particularly com- mon in words of the class of baptizo, deno- ting action by or with reference to a fluid." We will condense a few of his examples. Tingo certainly once meant only to immerse and dip; then to dye or color, as ordinarily performed by immersing the articles to be 192 colored ; then to color or stain, without refer- ence to mode; and lastly, it gave rise- to the English words tinge and tint, in which there is not the least thought of immersion. The original idea of wash was simply to cleanse by a purifying fluid ; afterward it came to signify the application of a superficial color- ing, as to white-wash, yellow-wash, or to wash with silver or gold ; and finally, it has come into a use where the original idea of purity is entirely lost, as when we speak of the washes of a cow-yard or from the streets. Let once meant only to hinder ; now it means only to permit. And similar transi- tions may he traced in the words conversa- tion, charily, prevent, &c. Indeed this doc- trine of transition in the meaning of words is so clear and undeniable that the most learned Baptists have not hesitated to admit it. Mr. Carson says that " nothing in the history of words is more common than to enlarge or diminish their signification. Ideas not originally included are *often affixed, while others drop ideas originally asserted. In this way bapto, (the very word from which 193 baptizo comes,) from signifying mere mode, came to be applied to a certain operation usually performed in that mode; from signi- fying to dip it came to signify to dye by dipping, because this was the way in which things were usually dyed ; and afterwards, from dyeing by dipping, it came to denote dyeing in any manner. A like process may be shown in the history of a thousand other words." See Carson on Baptism, p. 44, Philadelphia edition, 1850. Well then, if this is a process so clear, and furnishing so many illustrations, and if lap- to, " from signifying mere mode" passed to the signification only of an effect produced "in any manner" why could not its deriva- tive baptizo pass through a similar transition, from signifying immersion to the sense of cleansing by immersion, and from cleansing by immersion to the sense of cleansing " in any manner ," to denote only the idea of pu- rification ? Reasoning from analogy, or from the nature of the subject, there is no- thing to prevent such a transition. On the other hand, Dr. Beecher has shown that cir- 17* 194 cumstances existed prior to the time of Christ rendering such a transition exceedingly prob- able. And that baptizo did pass through some such transition, or from the beginning had associated with it a meaning, so as to be employed by the inspired and the early Christian writers to denote simply a purifi- cation, without limitation as to mode, is abundantly proven by the conclusive argu- ments presented in the preceding number. This one fact then effectually and for ever disposes of all Dr. Fuller's quotations from the old heathen Greeks to prove that baptizo in the New Testament " signifies a total immersion and nothing else." If it did originally mean to dip, it had acquired the additional sense of wash and cleanse long before the Saviour's time. Of this all the lexicographers are witnesses. The Septua- gint, which, according to Dr. Fuller's ac- count, was written more than two hundred and fifty years before Christ, uses it in- terchangeably with louo, which means to wash, without reference to mode. And so it is employed in the New Testament, in this 195 one fixed and uniform sense of purification, without limitation as to manner, We chal- lenge all the Baptist learning in the world to produce from the New Testament one single instance in which its signification is necessarily limited to immersion. In all their multiplied books, tracts and arguments on this subject they have never produced such an instance. They cannot produce such an instance. There is none such in existence. With characteristic regard for fairness, it is the constant habit of Baptist writers to treat us and our position as if we held that baplizo means to sprinkle or pour. Dr. Ful- ler ascribes this to us as our doctrine again and again. We deny it, and hurl back his statements on this point as unmanly sophis- try. W T e maintain no such thing. This would be limiting the word to mode, just like himself. We do not say that it never means to sprinkle ; Schrevelius and Scapula trans- late it by lavo, which often has the sense of sprinkling; but our doctrine is, that baptizo in its New Testament and Christian sense 196 means to purify, without limitation as to mode. We do not read, In those days came John the sprinkler, or John the pourer, or John the dipper, but John the purifier ; — not I indeed pour you with water unto repentance, nor I indeed dip you with water unto repentance, but I indeed purify you with water ; — not There standeth one among you who shall sprinkle you with the Holy Ghost, or dip you with the Holy Ghost and with fire, but one who shall purify you with the Holy Ghost and with fire ; — not Fie that belie veth and is sprinkled or dipped shall be saved, but he that believ- eth and is purified shall be saved ; — not Ye are sprinkled in Christ's death, or dipped in Christ's death, but purified in Christ's death ; — not that The fathers were poured unto Moses in the cloud, or sprinkled unto Moses in the cloud, much less dipped unto Moses in the cloud, but purified unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea ; — not Go ye and make disciples of all nations, pouring them, or plunging them, but purifying them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Only let our position be 197 fairly stated, and the Baptist theory will re- fute itself. Dr. Fuller sees this, and hence his equivocation and sophistry. We proceed now to inquire how far Dr. Fuller's theory, that the plunging of the subject into the element, is requisite to valid baptism, is sustained by those incidental ex- pressions given by the Bible in connection with this point. We do not expect to prove that the Scriptures any where lay down any one specific mode for the performance of this baptismal purification, any more than to find inspired direction as to any. one specific mode of receiving or administering the Lord's Supper. The Scriptures no where prescribe specific modes for the observance of either of these two great Christian sacraments. And we call upon Dr. Fuller and all his teachers to produce the passage which will confute this statement. But still there are some in- cidental expressions bearing upon the subject of mode to which we desire to direct atten- tion. Let us look for a moment at what is said about the baptism by the Holy Ghost, and 198 of the mode of action by which this baptism is effected. John's testimony concerning Jesus was, " He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." Jesus himself promised his disciples, " I send the promise of my Father upon you ; tarry ye in the city until ye be endued with poicerfrom on high." 6t Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence ;" Luke 24 : 49, Acts 1 : 5. w And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, suddenly there came a sound from heaven ; . and there appeared unto them cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them, and they were filled with the Holy Ghost;" Acts 2 : 1, 2. Peter says of Cornelius and his friends, " The Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning ;" Acts 10:44. "God . . gave them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us. ,} John says, " I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him ;" John 1 : 32. Peter says of the baptism of Pentecost, " This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel, . . I will pour out my Spirit." "Jesus, having received of the 199 Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear:" Acts 2 : 16, 17, 33. "Peter and John prayed for the people of Samaria, that they might receive the Holy Ghost ; for as yet he had fallen upon none of them ;" Acts 8 : 15, 16. " God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost;" Acts 10 : 3S. '•' While Peter yet spake, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision were astonished, . . because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost ;" Acts 10 : 44, 45. Paul speaks of "the Holy Ghost which he shed on us;" Tit. 3 : 6. Peter speaks of the first minis- ters as having " preached the gospel, with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven ;" 1 Peter 1 : 12. And in Ephesians 1:13, we have the phrase, " sealed with the Holy Spirit." Now all this language concerning the falling, descending, pouring out, shedding forth, falling upon, anointing, sitting on, and sealing, describes mode as to the baptisms of 200 the Holy Ghost. And what is very remark- able, every one of these terms is wholly at war with the idea of immersion. They all describe the baptismal element as descending, as being applied to the subject. How, in the nature of things, could this be, if bap- tism is a plunging of the subject, a total im- mersion and nothing else ? If baptizo in- cludes mode, and that mode is immersion, then the idea of immersion must fit and harmon- ize with all these scriptural allusions to mode in connection with the subject of bap- tism. That it does not thus fit, the following experimentum cruris will show : " This is that which was spoken, . I will immerse out my Spirit upon all flesh." " I saw the Spirit immersing from heaven like a dove." " Je- sus hath immersed forth this which ye now see and hear." "As yet the Holy Ghost had immersed upon none of them." " On the Gentiles also was immersed out the gift of the Holy Ghost." " The Holy Ghost, which he immersed on us." "The Holy Ghost immersed down from heaven !" How ridiculous and shocking would be such read- 201 ings! And the whole ground of the diffi- culty thus exhibited lies in this, that the Scriptures contemplate the application of the baptismal element to the subject, and frame their lansmacre accordingly ; but Dr. Fuller's theory contemplates the application of the subject to the element. And the lan- guage which describes the one operation cannot possibly be made to construe with that which describes the other. So far then as concerns the baptism of the Spirit, the doctrine that the subject must be plunged into the baptismal element in order to be baptized is not only without scriptural foundation, but in absolute contradiction to every word which the Spirit of God itself has employed to describe the mode of one of its own operations. The \yhole description implies and relates to affusion. There is not one single expression that will tolerate the idea of immersion. And if the idea of affusion is thus divinely appropriated as descriptive of the baptism by the Holy Ghost, what is more natural than to infer that the same mode holds good 18 202 and is agreeable to the divine mind with regard to the baptism by water? There is necessarily a close resemblance between them. In many passages the same expres- sions are applied to both. Indeed one is the type of the other. And in the absence of direct proof to the contrary, are we not bound to believe that the mode in one is correspondent with the mode in the other ? When Peter saw the Holy Ghost falling on Cornelius and his friends, his mind instantly recurred to the baptism of John. "Then remembered I, . . John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." What laws of mental association could thus carry him back from the contem- plation of the affusion of the Spirit to a water baptism, unless that water baptism was per- formed by a similar affusion? We look next at the baptism of Christ spoken of in Luke 12 : 50, Mark 10 : 38, Matt. 20 : 22, 23. This is uniformly un- derstood by Origen, Gregory Nazianzen, Augustine, and all the fathers, as a baptism of blood. But the Saviour never was totally 203 immersed in blood. In the garden he was only bedewed with drops oozing from his pores. On the cross he was merely stained with what trickled from his pierced hands, feet and temples, and flowed from his wound- ed side. If we understand it of the wrath of God which he endured for sinners, that wrath is always spoken of as poured out ; Ps. 69 : 24, 79 : 6 ; Jer. 10 : 25 ; Ez. 7 : 8, 21 : 31 ; 2 Chron. 12 : 7 ; Is. 42 : 25; Jer. 7 : 20 : Lam. 2:4; Ez. 20 : 33. If we understand it of the stripes and iniquities which he bore for the world's salvation, these things are every where spoken of as laid on him ; Is. 53 : 4, 6, 8 ; 1 Pet. 2 : 24. And it would be doing violence to the ordi- nary construction of language to read the Saviour's words as if he had said : u Are ye able to be immersed with the immersion I am immesred with V " I have an immersion to be immersed with." "Can ye be im- mersed with the immersion I am immersed with?" How much more natural and con- sistent to understand the question, " Can you endure to have laid or poured upon you what 204 I have laid upon me ?" So that in regard to this baptism, as in regard to the baptism by the Spirit, the entire phraseology of the Bible contemplates the application of the element to the subject in a way answering to affusion, and to affusion alone. We look next at the relation of the ordi- nance of Christian baptism to the old econo- my, to see what light can be gathered as to the mode of its administration. Whatever Dr. Fuller may say to the contrary, the New Tes- tament is the development of the Old Testa- ment — the flower of which that was the stem — the harvest of which that was the seed-time — the full-grown man of which that was the swaddling infant. All great and sound theo- logians, from Paul to the present moment, have uniformly so regarded it. Jesus, the great theme and substance of the New Tes- tament, is the same of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write. And there is not one marked particular in all the gos- pel that had not its dim beginning in the Old Testament. If we take Faith, Abraham was the very father of the faithful, and its most 205 illustrious examples are found in the olden time ; Rom. 4 : 11, 10 ; Heb. 11 : — If we take the Atonement, the Lamb of God, which taketh away sin, was in the old sacrifices "slain from the foundation of the world;" Rev. 13:8; Luke 24 : 25, 27. If we take the Lord's Supper, it was but an extrication of the ancient Passover from its typical connections with the old covenant, and its continuance under forms adapted to the transition which has long since been effected from prophecy to history ; 1 Cor. 5 : 7, And so we are driven to infer that baptism is also in some way developed from germs which were planted in the ancient dispensa- tion. And what we are thus led to infer a priori is very clearly taught in the New Testa- ment. As there was a Mosaic atonement and a Mosaic supper, so there were also Mosaic baptisms. Paul, in summing up the various services of the Levitical economy, says that they consisted of " meats, and drinks, and divers baptisms ;" Heb. 9 : 10. What these various baptisms were and how 18* 206 they were performed we have already shown. But Paul speaks particularly of some of them and gives the mode of their administration. He tells us of baptisms by " the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean," which "sancti- fied to the purifying of the flesh;" Heb. 9: 13. He tells us also of baptisms by "the Hood of calves and of goats, water and scar- let wool, and hyssop sprinkled upon both the book and all the people;" Heb. 9 : 19. He also designates these things as "signs" " patterns," " figures for the times then pres- ent ;" Heb. 9 : 9, 23, 24. In these typical baptisms the mode is specifically given. That mode is the sprinkling of the baptismal element upon the subject. If the patterns therefore were true, (and when we consider that God himself made them, we are bound to conclude that they were true,) it follows that, in the administration of that higher and holier baptism, which these ancient services prefigured, sprinkling is an appropriate mode, bearing upon it the express sanction of God himself. Indeed, when the ancient 207 prophet came to speak of the greater simpli- city and power of the ordinances which Messiah should appoint, these Mosaic bap- tisms at once rose before his mind. The relation which they bore to what was to follow he distinctly foresaw. He notes the change which was to be made in the ele- ment, from blood and water mingled with ashes, to something more directly symbolic of spiritual purity; but no alteration in the manner or mode of its use. And in the name of Him who was to come he announced to the children of promise, "Then will I SPRINKLE CLEAN WATER UPON YOU, and ye shall be dean ;" Ez. 36 : 25. We have al- ready remarked that the fathers interpreted this as well as Ps. 51 : 7, Is. 4 : 4, Mai. 3 : 3, as predictions concerning the ordinance of Christian baptism. And in addition to all this the very signi- fication of the word laptism, and of the sacrament of which it is the name, lays the foundation for an inference that plunging is not a becoming mode for the administration of this rite. We have seen that it is uni- 208 formly employed by the Scriptures to denote purification. The whole meaning of the or- dinance itself points to an inward cleansing wrought by the Holy Spirit of God. Im- mersion is not a symbol of purity. Its lead- ing import is destruction. The sinking of a man always signifies degradation. The He- brew word for immerse is expressly used in Job 9 : 31, to denote the very opposite of purity. But the application of clean water to the subject is one of the liveliest images of purification that can be presented to the human mind. With all these facts before us, how can it be possible for any unprejudiced man to doubt whether affusion is a proper and di- vinely authorized mode of administering the holy sacrament of Christian baptism ? Who can look at them and in his heart believe that where there is no immersion there is no baptism, and that the great company of Christ's disciples are apostate from their Lord because they have not submitted to sectarian dictation as to the necessity of be- ing plunged under the water? 209 CHAPTER XIII. Dr. Fuller's efforts to set aside these facts — Places where Baptism icas performed — Pools — Kedron — Enon — John's Baptisms. What has now been elicited from the Scriptures respecting the mode of baptism must of itself be conclusive in favor of affu- sion, unless the most positive and command- ing reasons to the contrary are produced. Let us see then what Baptists have said upon this point. Dr. Fuller says, " My first argument is founded upon the force of the verb baptizo" But this is a mere begging of the question. The force of the word baptizo is the object of inquiry and the subject of dispute. And for Dr. Fuller to argue that the New Testa- ment baptisms were immersions, because the word means immerse, and then to conclude that the word means immerse because the baptisms respecting which it is used were immersions, is about as ridiculous a specimen of reasoning in a circle as could well be 210 found. It speaks badly for a grave doctor of divinity, and still worse for the merits of his cause. We certainly have proven be- yond confutation that the word baplizo, in Christian language, denotes a religious pu- rifying, without limitation as to mode ; that it is applied to religious cleansings, effected in every variety of manner ; and that there are instances abundant in which it can by no possibility mean immersion. We have also proven that the intimations as to mode in the baptism by the Holy Ghost, in the bloody baptism of Christ and in the typical baptisms of the law of Moses, all favor affusion, and for the most part exclude immersion alto- gether. And for Dr. Fuller to argue that the New Testament baptisms were immer- sions because the word means immerse, when the meaning of the word is the point of inquiry, is ridiculous and absurd. 11 My second argument," says he, " is drawn from the places chosen for baptism." That is to say, the places at which the bap- tisms of the New Testament were performed prove that they were immersions! Well, let us see how this is. 211 One of the most remarkable baptisms re- corded in the Bible was the baptism of the three thousand on the day of Pentecost. This was performed in the city of Jerusalem, Would Dr. Fuller have us believe that the city of Jerusalem was a lake, a river, "a great conflux of water," a general bathing, place for the nations of the earth ! Jerusa- lem was a mountain city, with no living stream or natural sheet of standing water sufficient to immerse a man within fifteen miles of its location. We even have Bap. tist authority for this. And yet the places at which the New Testament baptisms were performed are to prove to us that they were immersions! But Dr. Fuller talks learnedly of cisterns, pools and reservoirs, and gravely tells us that there were several such in the neigh- borhood of Jerusalem ! He mentions Beth- esda. But Wilde describes this as "an immense, deep, oblong excavation." Rob- inson says it is 75 feet deep ! How could 3,000 be immersed in such a place in one dav ? Mr. Ewinsr thinks it doubtful whether 212 it was possible for more than one or two persons to descend into this pool at a time ; and Mr. Carson himself concedes, " If my cause obliged me to prove that it admitted tico, I grant that I could not prove it." What is said of this pool in John 5 : 1, 4, can give us but little that is reliable, inas- much as all critics consider that passage as exceedingly obscured and doubtful by spuri- ous and questionable readings. Bethesda certainly was a receptacle for filth, surround- ed by porches where sheep were washed, and receiving all the drainage of blood and offal from the temple. Hammond, Michaelis, Kuinol and others attribute its medicinal properties to the warm blood and animal deposits which came into it in various ways from the sacrifices. And when we consider that the persons baptized were Jews, purified to attend the Pentecostal festival and subject to a penalty of seven days' defilement and exclusion if they should but touch any life- less animal matter, it is simply preposterous to suppose for one moment that the three thousand, or any portion of them, were 213 plunged in such a pit of filth in order to be purified into Jesus Christ. Besides Bethesda, there was but one other open pool, so far as we know, within the walls qf Jerusalem, the fish-pool by the fish-market. This evidently was also a sort of drain for the water and filth which would constantly be accumulating where fish for the entire city were handled and sold. There is not one word of testimony that it ever was a bathing-place. Outside of the city, and supplied with a fee- ble, irregular stream from under the wall, was the pool of Siloam, described by Lynch as "a deep, oblong pit." Its depth was at least 19 feet. It was a place about as much adapted to immerse in as our ordinary cis- terns and wells. As to the upper and lower pools of Gihon and the pool of Hezekiah, all of which were some distance from the city, it is the uniform testimony of travelers that they are ever dry, except in seasons of rain. The celebrated pools of Solomon, which supplied water to the citizens of Jerusalem, were about twelve miles from the city. And what is very unfortunate for the Baptist the- 19 214 ory, the account of the baptism of the 3,000 says not a word about cisterns, pools, reser- voirs, baptisteries, or any thing of the sort; no, nor one word from which to infer that the awakened multitudes ever removed from the spot on which they received their convic- tions until after their baptism had been per- formed. Plenty of pools and reservoirs at Jerusalem ! and yet Dr. Fuller makes John take all its inhabitants out to Enon to find water enough to immerse them ! Seeing, however, that his cause is so hope- less in connection with the pools, our author directs attention to the little brook Kedron, as furnishing " abundant water." But un- fortunately again, nine months in the year Kedron is dry ! So says Voltaire. So says Kitto in his Natural History of Palestine. When Spencer visited it it was dry. So when Wilde saw it. So also when Stevens saw it. Indeed Mr. Samson, himself a Bap- tist, whose wonderful personal observations about Jerusalem are greatly relied on by the editor of " The True Union" remarks that " The brook Kedron, as the original term 215 indicates, is nothing but the bed through which the rains of winter drain off between the eastern wall of the city and Mount Olivet; and its channel is therefore dry in early spring, several weeks before the period in the month of June when the feast of Pen- tecost occurred ;" Baptismal Tracts for the Times, p. 16. So that the resort to Kedron is even more desperate than resort to the pools. Dr. Fuller sees that it will not answer for him to leave matters in such an un- favorable posture. He must needs give them a better gloss, though he should have to resort to his old expedient of altering the sense of the record itself. On page 77 he solemnly declares that li it is no where said (of the 3,000) that they were baptized in one day!" Let the reader then take his Bible and examine the second chapter of Acts. A solemn scene is there spread before us. Peter, just filled with the Holy Ghost, stands forth as the preacher of Jesus to listening thousands. His hearers melt under his burning words and call out to know what 216 they must do. " Peter said unto them, re- pent and be baptized, every one of you." " Then " — not in the course of a few days as they could find places to immerse in — but " then " — men oun — in the course of the transaction then present — in immediate con- tinuance of what went before — " Then they that gladly received his word were baptized ; and the same day there were added to them about three thousand souls." Of course none were added to the disciples but those who gladly received Peter's word, and baptism was the divinely appointed method by means of which men were to be added to the list of Christ's acknowledged disciples. And yet they that gladly received his word were " then " baptized, " and the same dav there were added to them about 3,000 souls." If this does not mean that they were all bap- tized in one day, it is useless to rely upon language as a medium of communication. So far then from proving that the baptism of the 3,000 vvas performed by immersion, the place and circumstances lead us inevi- tably to conclude that it was done in some 217 much more convenient and summary man- ner. The whole occurrence was sudden, unexpected and without previous forethought or preparation for the exigencies which must have arisen upon the supposition that the subjects were all to be immersed. There was no water in or about Jerusalem for the immediate immersion of such multitudes. There were but eleven or twelve present who had received the ministerial commission to baptize and that were competent adminis- trators of this sacrament. It must have been late in the day when the baptizing com- menced. Peter began his discourse about nine o'clock, (Acts 2 : 15,) it was of long con- tinuance, consisting of " many other words " more than are on record, (2 : 40 ;) and the confusion incident upon conducting such a multitude to a place fit for immersion must have consumed much time and greatly hin- dered the speedy execution of the work. So that, though Dr. Fuller may make himself merry over Dr. Kurtz's arithmetical process, he must remember that " figures do not lie," and that it is mathematically demonstrable 19* 218 that no twelve men under heaven could have immersed 3,000 in the limited time and amid the embarrassing circumstances in which that baptism certainly was performed. And if the thing was so plain and easy as he pretends, if he is not himself overcome by the numerous impossibilities which hamper and cripple the immersion theory, we ask him why he is so anxious to make it appear, even at the expense of perverting the record, that the 3,000 were not baptized in one day ? Why take to a resort so extreme, unless conscious that his cause is lost without it? Look next at the case of the jailor and his family; Acts 16: — They were baptized in a prison at Philippi. Dr Fuller tells us that Philippi was a place of springs. Per- haps he may yet discover that it was a place of reservoirs and pools ! But the question is, were these " confluxes of water" in the jail, where the baptism occurred ? and was the jail such a place as to beget the belief that said baptism was performed by immer- sion ? He gives it as his opinion, notwith- standing the springs, that Paul took the jailor 219 and his family out at midnight to some river! He seems to forget Paul's exhaustion from stripes, chains, fasting, vigils and prayers ; and that Paul peremptorily refused to leave the prison until he was publicly taken out by the authorities that thrust him in. (v. 37 ;) and that the account says the baptism took place during the exciting scenes of the night parachrema — on the spot. " Indeed," says Dr. Clarke, "all the circumstances of the case, the dead of the night, the general agi- tation, the necessity of dispatch, and the words of the text, all disprove that there was any immersion.'''' Look at the baptism of Saul of Tarsus. This was performed in the sick-chamber; at least so the Evangelist leaves us to infer. For three days this smitten persecutor lay, a blind, exhausted and helpless invalid, upon his bed. By direction of God Ananias came to him, and stated to him his mission, and touched him, and he arose from his couch and was baptized, and meat was given him, and he was strengthened ; Acts 19:1, 19. What room is here to infer immersion ? 220 Look at the case of the Eunuch. He was baptized in his journey through the desert. Is a desert a place of " confluxes of water V Does the place here argue immersion ? The water at which it was done is described by Eusebius, Jerome, Reland, and even Mr. Samson, as a fountain boiling up at the foot of a hill and absorbed again by the same soil from which it springs. How absurd to talk of immersion as argued from such a locality ! Mr. Samson, from personal obser- vation of the place, finds it impossible to get through with the immersion theory without supposing some artificial reservoir or other fixture. — (Baptismal Tracts, p. 160.) What a mania for cistern-digging must have pos- sessed these Jews, that they should fill even the desert with pools ! Cornelius and his friends were most likely baptized in his own house. The language of Peter, " Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized ?" indicates with a good degree of certainty that no more water was used than what could be conve- niently conveyed to him. How can this argue immersion ? 221 But John's baptism f Aye, Joint's bap- tism / But John's baptism was not Christian baptism. All theologians agree to this. Baptists themselves have been forced to concede it. Robert Hall was a Baptist, a scholar and a full-hearted man of God. He gives us a long and unanswerable argument, showing that John's baptism was a wholly different thing from the ordinance instituted by Jesus Christ. See his Works, vol. 1, p. 294. Mr. Carson says the two were " es- sentially different." Nevertheless, Dr. Fuller argues that John baptized in (at) Jordan ; that he must therefore have immersed the people in the water; and that therefore all other baptisms were immersions and nothing else ! As well might he argue, that as " John baptized in the wilderness," he immersed the people in the sand ; and that therefore all baptisms are immersions in the sand ! John also baptized " in Beth- abara, beyond Jordan," This is the name of a town. Where it was located is not precisely known, Lightfoot says " it was situated in the Scythopolitan country, where 222 the Jews dwelt among the Syropheni- cians." It certainly was neither a lake, nor a pool, nor a river; and how can it prove that John immersed? John also bap- tized u in or at Enon, near to Salim" Enon means the fountain of On. And if deep water, convenient for immersion, was the object of the baptizer in selecting this spot for his operations, why did he leave the river for a mere spring? Dr. Fuller thinks it very ridiculous to suppose that mills driven by water are built upon firm streams merely to supply drink for the people who may visit them with their horses and mules! But when we see these same establishments per- forming their offices with equal facility where there are no firm streams, is it not equally ridiculous to insist that they are water-mills at all ? But we are told, " John was baptizing in or at Enon, because there were hudata polla, many waters there." It is indeed not a little amusing to see how Baptist writers comment upon this phrase. Dr. Fuller wishes to make it appear that hudata polla means " a 223 great conflux of water." He quotes a num- ber of passages, such as " His voice was as the sound of many waters ;" '• I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters;" "The Lord is mightier than the noise of many waters, yea, than the waves of the sea;" "The noise of their wings was as the noise of many waters, as the voice of the Almighty." Dr. Ryland says that the phrase indicates a body of water the sound of which resembles mighty thunderings, the sound of a cataract or the roaring of the sea, and that it is a Hebraism corresponding with mini rabim, which signifies many waters, such as the waves of the sea. What an array! If we were to listen to these Baptist commentators, Niagara itself is but " a tinkling rill " com- pared with this fountain of On, between Salim and the Jordan ! Well may we ex- claim, "Happy Enonf ennobled by such mighty associations, by such magnificent alliances!" But, after all, the question nar- rows itself down to one of simple geography. Was there ever issuing from one spring a body of water forming many parts in any 224 district of the land of Judea, in any locality accessible to John the Baptist, by which these allusions to mighty thunders, cataracts and seas can in the remotest degree be justi- fied ? Such a spring would have been the wonder of Judea and of the world. The memory of it could not have perished. The traces of it would still be seen, and some faint echoes of its thunders would certainly have reached our times. And yet Dr. Ful- ler says, " J grieve to find several writers venturing to assert that the location of Enon is known!" p. 65. Alas! that such a won- der in nature should have thus perished, without leaving a trace behind it ! European and American travelers have explored the Jordan from Tiberiae to the Dead Sea, but none of them have ever seen any thing of this wonderful discharge of waters. In a whole day's journey down the Jordan, from the region of Scythopolis, (eight miles south of which Enon is said to have been located,) Lieut. Lynch found no streams emptying into the Jordan, except such as scarcely rose in consequence above mere trickling rivu- 225 lets. In the time of Napoleon the French had a corps of horse at Scythopolis, and roamed the country down the Jordan, par ticularly exploring it on the West, but noth- ing did they find answering to the Baptist Enon. All that history has preserved re= specting this wonderful fountain is what Jerome repeats from Eusebius, that it was eight miles from Scythopolis, south, between Salim and the Jordan. Calmet knows noth- ing about it. And" from the time orisrael's exodus to the present hour such a thunder, inof fountain as Drs. Fuller and Ryland speak of has remained unknown to our ablest geographers, to our most adventurous and observant travelers, and to our most inquis- itive men. It is enough to say, there never was such an Enon. And until "Dr. Fuller produces some accurate geographical de- scription of this fountain of On, to persist in comparing it with the Euphrates, the Tigris, Niagara and mighty thunderings, is indeed