5*«r ^Mlt*'^'- . '^v?. >^u- '^>i t t ^ PRINCETON, N. J. '^* Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. Agnezv Coll. on Baptism, No. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library http://www.archive.org/details/christianbaptismOOripl i! CHRISTIAN BAPTISM AN EXAMINATION PROFESSOR STUART'S ESSAY N THE BIBLICAL REPOSITORY, APRIL, 1833 THE MODE OF BAPTISM/ BY HENRY J. RIPLEY, Professor of Biblical Literature in the Newton Theological Institution. BOSTON: LINCOLN, EDMANDS & CO. 1833. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1833, By Lincoln, Edmands & Co. in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts. BOSTON: Bamuel N. Dickinson, Printer, 5?, Washington Street. PREFACE The performance, which is examined in the following pages, is an article which was publish- ed in the Biblical Repository at Andover. It may very naturally be asked, why the Examina- tion was not given to the public through the same medium, so that the same class of readers might have each performance. In reply to such an inquiry, I have to say, that I sought for a place in the Repository, but my application was unsuccessful. The following note and the reply to it, will furnish a full view of this matter. Newton, July 24, 1833. To the Editor of the Biblical Repositoinj : Dear Sir, There is an article by rne in a state of fonvardness, intend- ed to occupy a ])lace in the number of the Bibhcal Repositorj- for October, 1833. It is an Examination of Professor Stuart's article on the Mode of Christian Baptism, which appeared in the April number of the work. It would probably require be- tween forty and sixty pages, perhaps more. As intended for the Repository, its spnit and language will not, I trust, be un- itvorthy of your publication. IV PREFACE. As the original article was admitted into the Repositor}> without any qualifying appendage, may I not cherish a strong confidence that justice and candor will lead to the admission of the proposed article ; and that it will appear in your work un- incumbered, and left to make its o^^^l impression ? Please favor me with an early reply, informing me whether you will thus admit the aiticle into the October number, and at what time it must be placed in your hands. With sincere respect and with earnest desires that you may be sustained and blessed in your valuable labors, I am yours, H. J. Ripley. Theol Sem. Jlndover, July 27, 1833. Rev. and Dear Sir, In reply to your note of the 24th inst. I would mform you that the manuscript for the October number of the Biblical Repository is already prepared. The prmting was commenced a week since, and is expected to be completed by the beginning of September, excepting, perhaps, the indexes. An allusion to these facts you will see in a note subjoined to the table of con- tents in the July number just issued. As to the general pouit of admitting anicles, you would hardly, in any case, expect from me a decisive answer, either affirmatively or negatively, before the manuscript should have been submitted to my examination. In the present instance, I cannot doubt that the spirit and language of the essay would be such, as to render it a valuable acquisition to the Repository'. Permit me, however, to observe, that the plan of the Reposi- tory does not include controversy. If it be asked. Why then was an article like that of Prof Stuart admitted ? the answer is easy. The Theological Seminary in this place, as well as that at Newton, with which you are connected, was established expressly to support certain principles, and to counteract cer- tain others; and these are known to the world. The Riblical Repository, as published here by individuals connected with the Seminar)' — although itself m no sense the organ of that 1 PREFACE. V Institution — would yet naturally be expected to maintain the same principles ; indeed, there would be an incongruity, were it to adopt articles intended directly to impugn tJiose principles. If, therefore. Prof Stuart, or any other gentleman, in the course of his ollicial duties, chooses to survey the field of one of the great ecclesiastical controversies, and give the results of his examination in the form of dispassionate and scientific dis- cussion, there would seem to be nothing inappropriate in making the Repository the medium of communicating his views to the public. If in doing this, the writer has committed mistakes which require to be publicly corrected, it would of course be right and proper that these should be pointed out in the same work. But it does seem to me a matter of question, whether the most liberal candor, or love of justice, could re- quire the admission of a formal examination and reply, which, from its very nature, must be in a measure polemic and per- sonal. It is easy to test this (juestion by a vice versa view of the case. Were a similar journal connected with your Semi- nary at Newton, the public would of right expect from it a calm and scientific support of the distinguishing principles of your church ; but had such an article appeared in it, and the essay of Prof. Stuart been offered in repl}', would candor or justice have required its admission? Although, therefore, I cannot but express my hearty good will towards a full and free discussion, on your part, of the subject of Baptism ; yet you will perceive that I have doubts on the general question as to the jDropriety of its appearing in the Repository. Still, if under the circumstances you see fit to favour me with the perusal of your manuscript, 1 will act in the case according to my best judgment, and as I shall feel to be most in accordance with the great interests which we both are labouring to promote. I need hai'dly say how much gratification it would afford me, if you, and the other gendemen at Newton would occasion- ally give me the aid of your laboure in behalf of the Repository. There are very many topics of deep and common interest, where neither our views nor our feelings can be otherwise than 1* VI PREFACE. in unison. To me it would ever be matter of delight, to aid in making these prominent, both among ourselves and throughout our respective churches. With great and sincere respect, I am, dear sir, yours, &c. Edward Robinson. Rev. Prof. Ripley, Thcol. Sem. Newton. The hope of obtaining a place in the Repos- itory was abandoned ; and at my request, per- mission was afterwards given to make public the preceding correspondence, if I should deem it proper. I then concluded to alter my plan, by adapt- ing my little work to others besides learned readers, and by making it so far complete in itself, that it might be fully understood without recurring to the original article. This circum- stance, together with the pressure of my official duties, will account for its not appearing so soon as it may have been expected. I have felt the delicacy of my undertaking. My aversion to appear before the public as a writer, particularly on a controverted subject, ^vas much increased by the relation which I formerly sustained to the author, whose work I was to examine. At the same time yielding to tlie call which was made for my services, I was encouraged by tlie thought that I should be less PREFACE exposed to the danger of eherishing unhallowed feeling, and of employing unkind language, than if the A\ riter had no speeial claims upon my regard ; while, on the other hand, a sense of my accountableness to our common JMaster, and a conviction of truth, would, I hoped, lead me to employ language not destitute of gravity and force. I trust, I have not erred in stating my convictions too strongly, nor in pointing out too forcibly what I deem the erroneous representa- tions of Professor Stuart. I have endeavored to avoid all appearance of arrogant assumption, on the one hand ; I have also labored, on the other, to avoid every feeling of unworthy sub- missiveness. Should any of my readers think it impossible, that a man of Professor Stuart's erudition should have justly laid himself open to so many cor- rections, as the following pages exhibit, I have only to request, that they look not at any man's assertion of opinions, but at the arguments pro- duced. And here, lest I should seem to under- value the labors in general, of one who emi- nently deserves well of the Christian public, I would make a respectful and grateful mention of the helps for fundamental instruction with which he has favored theological students ; of his several valuable essays ; and of his Com- Vlll PREFACE. mentaries on the Epistles to the Hebrews and to the Romans. Works of such general excel- lence cannot fail to secure for their author the esteem of a discerning community. I have in- deed, in the following pages, fully expressed my dissent from the views which he has advanced, in his Commentary, on Romans 6 : 3, 4. But his remarks on these verses do not exhibit his usual strength. That he should fall into errors when writing on baptism, is not surprising. It not unfrequently happens, that men of distinguished ability seem, when contending against the obvi- ously scriptural view of this subject, to be shorn of their strength. Many persons are unwilling to listen to a dis- cussion concerning baptism. Besides other rea- sons, they profess to consider it a dispute about a mere mode or form. I do not regard it in this light. If I did, I should think my time and labor very, poorly bestowed. The controversy 'respecting baptism, in all its parts, is more im- portant than many imagine. The alterations which men have made in respect to this ordi- nance, have had a very unhappy influence on the cause of Christ. It is, therefore, a worthy service, to attempt the removal of these altera- tions and the restoring of its primitive simplicitv to one of the institutes of our Lord. The 1 PREFACE. IX union of real Christians in feeling and action is deeply involved in right views of this sub- ject. Roman Catholic errors could be more successfully combatted, if the unscriptural prac- tices in respect to baptism, which prevail in many Protestant communities, should be aban- doned. For it is well known, that Papists have parried the force of arguments which Protestants have brought against their errors, by inquiring. What authority have you for in- fant baptism ? When I see the attachment of many -to infant baptism, and the kind of defence by which they support it, I am not at all sur- prised at the pertinacious adherence of Roman Catholics to practices which depend on the au- thority of the church. The renouncing of un- scriptural practices, and the maintaining of only those practices which the Scripture sanctions respecting baptism, on the part of those who are engaged in Christian missions, would also prevent future generations of the now unevangelized parts of the earth from being afflicted with those numerous and often unkind controversies which have flowed, either directly or indirectly, from errors on this subject. The following fact is enough to show that the heathen nations, which are now visited by Christian missionaries, are exposed to the evils PREFACE which have resulted from errors respecting bap- tism ; and that the light, which controversy has elicited on this subject, may for a long time be withheld from the nations that shall become acquainted with the gospel. At the American Mission press, in Bombay, there was reprinted in 1 832, with notes and an appendix, '- A Sermon on the Baptizing of Infants," by Stephen Marshall, B. D. of the Westminster Assembly of Divines ; preached nearly two hun- dred years ago, "in the Abbey-Church at West- minster, at the morning lecture appointed by the Honorable House of Commons." iVnd in the Oriental Christian Spectator, a periodical issued from the same press, there is a controversy on this part of Christian duty. Let Christians recede from what the Bible does not authorize, and the happy results, above named, might be hoped for. In this day of Christian enterprise, when the servants of Christ are carrying the gospel to all nations, how mournful is the reflection, that together with the gospel, many are carrying and are sowing the seeds of future discord. Christ indeed is preach- ed, clearly for the most part, and successfully; and therein we must all heartily rejoice. But how nuich better were it, if that joy were un- mingled. The instructers of young mmisters 1 PREFACE. XI and of missionaries ought to bear this in mind; and they ought to beware, lest they encourage the spread, among heathen nations, of practices which have not tlie Saviour's sanction ; but which, like certain other ancient traditions, make void the word of God. H. J. E. Newto.v, (Mass.) Dec. 10, 1833, CONTENTS SECTION FIRST. Classical Usage of ^arcrl'Zio \haptizo] 13 SECTION SECOND. Septuagint and Apocryphal Usage 21 SECTION THIRD. New Testament Usage, when not applied to the Rite of Baptism 38 SECTION FOURTH. Does BuTiTil^M [hajitizo} imply that the Rite was by Immersion ? §1. General usage of the word in the New Testament, as applied to this Rite 55 §2. Circumstances attending Baptism 62 §3. Jewish Proselyte-Baptism 105 §4. Baptism in the early Christian Churches 110 §5. Is the Mode essential to the Rite ? 114 SECTION FIFTH. MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS. Pharisaic Righteousness 135 Language not sufficiently guarded 136 Tendency of Leading Principles 1 38 Influence on the Philological Study of the Bible 138 Importance of this Examination. — Infant Baptism 141 Acts 19 : 1— G 144 The Letter from " An Invisible Hand." — Restricted Com- munion 147 EXAMINATION H- The article on the Mode of Baptism, in the Biblical Repository lor April 1S33, is in its author's usual style of research and apparent confidence in tlie strength of his positions. It is an interesting document, and is wor- thy of very serious attention. With sincere respect for its author, as one of my theological instructers, and a benefactor to all who love sacred learning, I purpose to present a condensed view of the article, and to examine its leading parts. In the subsequent pages, the same order of topics will be preserved, which is followed in the article under examination, and much of its language will also be retained. SECTION FIRST. " JTorm and Classical use of the icord Samiiio,''^ [baptizo\ "The original etymological root of .^(X7ttI':o) [baptizo], {iunro) [bapto], as also of the nouns and adjectives" kin- dred with them, *' appears plainly to be the monosyllable jj4jp^* [Bap]. " The leading and original meaning of" this monosyllable "seems to have been dippings plunging, immcrging, soaking, or drenching, in some liquid 14 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. substance. As kindred to this meaning, and closely unit- ed with it, the idea of dyeings coloring, tinging, seems also to have been often associated with the original root, and to have passed into many of its derivates."* " The two ideas of immersion and of dyeing or coloring lie at the basis of the words derived from BATI [bap], in most of their forms ; although, in a i^t^w cases, usage has con- fined some particular words among these derivates solely to one class of meanings; for example, ^acpsvg, a dyer, ^ucpslov, a dyer^s shop, ^uTcncrig, immersion, submersion, washing, ifcc." t The precise difference between the words Sanio) [bap- to] and ^u7TTi:o) [baptizo] is, that "while they both agree in one common and original meaning, namely, that of immersion oy plunging, ''^\ usage has employed ^(jctitm [bap- to] to express the idea of dyeing, coloring, as well as the idea of dipping or plunging ; while t?arrr/l'o> [baptizo] is not employed in the additional signification of dyeing or coloring.^ It has sometimes been said, that Sarciiib) differs from SuniM^ in being a frequentative form of the latter, that is, in denoting repetition of tlie action which it indicates ; on the other hand, it would seem to have been once a " common criticism" that Sumi^o) has a diminutive sense. Both of these opinions are justly regarded by the author of the article now under consideration as untenable. || The two words ^x'xtitm and ^^urrT(':io are examined, as they are so intimately related in meaning. I proceed to mention the several meanings which Prof. Stuart ascribes to these two words, as used by ancient classical authors. " What are the classical tucanings of riumot and SanrlZcoV^ * P. 2!)1. t P. 292. t P. 2!>2. § Pp. 2l»2, 293. |1 Pp. 21)4—297. CLASSICAL USAGE. 15 1. Both of these words "menu to dip, plunge, ovimmcrge into any thing liquid. All Icxicogrnphers and critics of any note are agreed in this." * This meaning is sustained by references to Homer, Pindar, Aristotle, Aristophanes, Heraclides P(»nticus, Herodotus, Aratus, Xenophon, Plutarch, Lucian, Diodo- rus Sicuhis, Plato, Epictetus, Hippocrates, Strabo, Po- lybius, Josephus. From the numerous tt{// means to plunge or thrust into any thing that is solid, but permeable ; to plunge in so as to cover or enclose the thing plunged." t This meaning is sustained by references to Lycophron, Philippus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Euripides. One example may serve as a specimen. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom. V. 1.5. says ; The one thrust i^^uilKtc) his spear betiveen the other*s ribs, icho at the same instant [thrust his] into his bclli/.^^f " 3. The verb §u7in» only is employed, in order ta convey the meaning, to dip out, to dip up, by plunging a vessel into a liquid and drawing it up."§ References are here made to Euripides, Theocritus, Hermolaus, Lycophron, Aristotle, Callimachus, Nicander. "4. The verb .^urrroi only, (and its derivatives in point of form,) signifies to tinge, di/e, or fo/or."|| As in Ho- mer, Aristophanes, Aristotle, Lucian, Herodotus, Plu- tarch, Diodorus Siculus, INIarcus Antoninus, Plato, Hel- ladius, Josephus. "Aristophanes, Plut. Act. H. Sc. 5, Do not adorn yourself with garments of variegated appearance, colored * Pp. 208—300. t P. 300. I P. 301. § P. 301. j] P. 301. CLASSICAL USAGE. 17 (*?u,Tro}»' adj.) at a great eipcnsc. In Avos, }). 5'26, the poet speaks oi hqvi; ^amdg, a colored bird. In Acharn. Act. I. Sc. I, lie makes one of his bullies say : Lest I TiSGKi/ouwith a Sardinian hue, ol ^Cupot ^uuuu l^undituxxor, i. e. beat you until you are all besmeared with blood ; in other words, until you become of a red color."* "5. The word ^unii^ot means to overwhelm, literally and figuratively in a variety of ways."t As in Aristotle, Evenus, Ileliodorus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Plato, Lu- cian, Josephus, Philo Judaeus, Diodorus Siculus, Justin Martyr, Plutarch, Chrysostom. " Aristotle, de Mirabil. Ausc. speaks of a saying among the Phenicians, that there were certain places beyond the pillars of Hercules, ivhich when it is ebb-tide, are not overflow^ed (//^ SunTl'Cead-ui^, but at full-tide arc overjloioed [xaTux).v:,^ad-ca'j ; which word is here used, as an equivalent for ^^umCleaO-ui.^^ " Plato, Conviv. p. 17G, / myself am one of those who were drenched or overwhelmed (^e^unTiaiuivojp'^ yester- day, viz. with wine. In another place : Having over- whelmed {^BujiTluuGa^ Alexander with much iciney "Diodorus Siculus, Tom. I. p. 107, Most of the land animals that are intercepted by the river [Nile], perish, being overwhelmed (Sum(';oiitevu) • here used in the lit- eral sense. Tom. VII. p. 191, llie river, borne along by a more violent current, overwhelmed (i^dnn'^e) many ; the literal signification. Tom. I. p. 129, And because they [the nobles] have a supply by these means [presents], they do not overwhelm their subjects loith taxes. Figu- rative."! " 6. BtjLTXTbi is also employed in the sense to smear, to bathe, by the application of liquid to the surface, etc."§ *P. 302. f P. 303. X Pp. 303, 304. § P. 305. 2* 18 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. References are here made to Sophocles, iEschylus, and Aristophanes. The mention of liquid being applied tpHhe surface, which might seem to be a shade of differ- ence from the preceding significations, is sufficiently ex- plained by tlie examples adduced. " Sophocles, Ajax v. 95, e^aipag el, thou hast well bath- ed or SMEARED till/ sword with the Grecian army, viz. by plunging it into the Grecian soldiers." " .^schylus, Prometh. v. 861, For the wife has deprived each husband of life, bathing [^(kipaau) the sword by slaughter ; where bathing the sword means, to make it reek with blood, by plunging it into human bodies." In tlie third example, Aristophanes represents " an old comic player of Athens" as "smearing himself i^SanTouEi'oc) with frog-colored paints ;" * a poetic expres- sion, doubtless, indicating profuseness, and to the reader who enters into the spirit of the writer, presenting the old comic player as thoroughly besmeared as if he had dipped himself into the coloring liquid. As illustrating this sixth signification, there is an ex-; tract from Dionysius of Halicarnassus,t in which occurs a participle not of the word §6L7tTu, but of (5«7rT/^u>. As • it is not easy to abbreviate it, I will quote it verbatim. " Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Vit. Homeri, p. 297, cited by Gale, p. 123, comments on the expression of Homer in II. XVI. 333, where the poet represents Ajax as killing Cleobulus, and says : He struck him across the neck, with his heavy swordj and the whole sword became warm with blood. Upon this Dionysius remarks : That the sword was so bathed (^SanrKr&ivTo;:) with blood that it became heated by it. This is capable of being rendered, so dipped in blood; and so Gale renders it, p. 123. But * P. 305. t P. 305. CLASSICAL USAGE. 10 if this shade of meaning was designed to he conveyed hy Dionysius, would he not have written: ^wmia^ivjog ovxoig elg TO uJua lov ^Iqov; x. t. X. ? However I do not consider the example as altogether certain, hut adduce it as a probable one." The passage seems to me attended with no difficulty. To a reader who is acquainted with Greek, I cannot perform a more acceptable service than by transcribing the whole sentence of Dionysius, as quoted by Gale- He is commenting on Homer, II. XVI. 333, JJccy d'{)7TeOeQuui'd)j ^Iqog uluaii And the whole sword was warmed with blood. He thus writes ; Huv d' {)nedeQ^udvdT] ^l(fog a2jtiuTi. xut yao 8v JOvTO) ■rcaqi-/^^ juel'^opu ejLKpaaiv, w, BuTXTiadivTog ovroi ToD ^[(fovg, &g re S-eguavdr]Pui. That is ; ** In this expres- sion he exhibits very great emphasis, as much as to say, the sword was so dipped, as even to become heated." Is the least violence, I ask, done to this passage by con- sidering elg TO uiuu as understood after ovtoj ? I need scarcely hint, how often writers omit what the mind of the reader will naturally and almost necessarily supply. Homer had used a very strong expression ; his critical commentator, animated with the spirit of the author and participating in his feelings, uses another strong expres- sion in order to make Homer's thought perfectly ob- vious. Let us sympathise with these two writers ; let us place ourselves in the situation of a susceptible and feel- ing mind, endeavoring to exhibit and to illustrate the force of the poet's expression ; and we cannot consider it as inappropriate to say, respecting the sword which had become heated by the blood of a slaughtered foe, that the sword was so dipped it became heated. And should the reader stop to think, dipped into what ? how instantaneous and irresistible the reply, into the blood, 20 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. tig TO al/uu. The absence of these words does not mate- rially aflfect the sentence ; and the meaning, dipped, is not forced, nor inappropriate. Perhaps a more suit- able meaning, however, would be that which is furnish- ed under the preceding number ; namely, ovei'tvhelmed, or overfloioed. The sentence would then stand thus ; " the sioord was so overflowed [with blood], as even to be- come heated. The probability that BaTuiadiviog here shows that (ianii'QM [baptizo] means " to smear, to bathe, by the ap- plication of liquid to the surface, etc.," is very small. Does such a meaning, ascribed to ^uniiQw, cast light on Homer's language ? Or was not that word employed by the commentator, because in its natural and ordinary signification it would suggest to the mind a profusion of blood by which the murderous weapon was so envelop- ed, that it actually became warm to the hand which was wielding it ? *' 7. A shade of meaning kindred to the above, viz. to wash, i. e. to cleanse by the use of water, is sometimes attached to the word Bumo), in the classics." "Aristophanes, in Eccles. F'irst they wash [^utttovgi) the wool in warm water, according to the old custom. The lexicographers Suidas and Phavorinus, interpret the word fiujiTouat here by Trkvt'ovai, they wash, or wash out ; and Stephens says (ad voc. nlvvo)), that §umb) [bapto] is peculiarly spoken of garments, as Aoi'w is of the body, and vimot of the hands and feet."* Of course then the radical idea of (^uTrojis retained when it signifies to wash; and when thus employed, it signifies a washing with which dipping was connected. Such are the classical meanings of ^(^tttoj [bapto] and • P. 305. USAGE OF THE SEPT U AGIN T. 21 ^a7TTl':o) [baptizo], as furnished and arranged by Prof. Stuart. Every one can see how conformable these meanings are to the radical idea of plunffing^ dippings soaking. The signification to dye, to color, to tinge (as- cribed to S(x7XTbi), may to some appear a departure from this radical idea ; but it arises unquestionably from that radical idea, inasmuch as articles to be colored are dipped into the coloring matter. And after the word came to be used in this signification, it was very natural that it should be employed to express coloring performed in any manner, especially if it was an extensive coloring. It is also worthy to be remarked, that of all these seven meanings only two are illustrated by passages containing the word '^u7tTl':to [baptizo], namely, numbers 1 and 5. To this remark, number 6 furnishes an ap- parent exception, one of whose illustrations contains the word ; yet the word in this illustration is not only acknowledged to be "capable of being rendered f/j^^/jef/," but without doubt it means as much as a copious covering. Confining our view then to SicttI'^oj, the following are its only meanings as used by classical writers ; 1. To dip, plunge, or immergc into any thing liquid. 2. To overwhelm, literally and figuratively. SECTION SECOND. " Use of ^SuTtTO) and §anTiC,M in the Septuagint and the Apocrypha.'''' •* 1. The verb (iumo) signifies to plunge, immerse, dip in.''^ " Lev. 11 : 32, Every vessel [that is unclean], shall he PLUNGED [^oKfr^aexai) into water; Heb. K3n, shall be 22 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. brought or introduced. 4 : 6. And the priest shall dip (Sdipsi) his finger into the blood ; Heb. Sdw. *' Joshua 3 : 15. The feet of the priests . . . icere dipped {e3(x(friaap) into a part of the water of the Jordan ; Heb. " Ruth 2 : 14, A7id thou shalt dip (Suipeig) thy morsel in vinegar, [ev tcJ o^ei, ]*P.'n3) ; Heb. verb S^^." " In like manner ^umiQM [baptizo] takes the same signification. 2 K. 5 : 14, And Naaman went down, and PLUNGED HIMSELF (ii^uTtTlaaio) scveii times into the river Jordan; Heb. h^lD. The prophet Elisha had said: lovaat eTTTdytg tv rep 'logduvj], WASH THYSELF seven times in the Jordan, 2 K. 5 : 10."* This direction of the prophet, Naaman comjjlied witli by repairing to the Jordan and dipping himself in it seven times. *' 2. To smear over, or moisten by dipping in; in which sense I find ^utztco only employed." To sustain this meaning, the following passages are referred to. "Lev. 4: 17. A?id the priest shall smear OVER or MOISTEN [S6.ipei) his finger, urro tov a't/nawg, hy, or with the blood of the bullock ; Heb. CD -in jp •* * S^pi. " Lev. 14 : 16, And he [the priest] shall smear over (.5c<:j//f i) his right finger with the oil, and rov ilulov ; Heb. " Ex. 12 : 22, And moistening or smearing it [the bundle of hyssop] icith the blood [BuipuvTeg dno tov ai>«TOc)." t In these several cases, there was doubtless a dipping into the blood, and into the oil, even if the idea of smearing was intended to be expressed. But the signi- fication here ascribed to §&.7iibi, namely, to smear over, is not satisfactorily sustained by the examples adduced. '^ Pp. 30C, 307. t P. 307. USAGE OF THE SEPTUAGINT. 23 The proper radical meaning, to dip, may Iicre be re- tained. The Septuagiiit, in the first two passages, gives a literal rendering of the Hebrew expression ; and the Hebrew preposition |P, for which the Greek unu is here used, is often employed to express a partitive meaning; that is, it shows that a part of whatever is named was employed. This meaning is rightly express- ed in our English version of Lev. 4 : 17, Ajid the priest shall dip his finger in some of the blood. That the preposition jrp is thus employed, needs not be largely proved. Gesenius, in his Hebrew Lexicon, observes, " Before jn, we must often supply the word some ; Lev. 5 : 9. niDirp some of the blood. Ex. 17 : 5, hVi'yif\ 'Jp/IP some of the elders of IsraeV Michaelis, in his edition of the Hebrew Bible, has this remark on the words nD"nn |p in Lev. 4 : 17 ; "Into a part of the blood; literally, some of the blood. ]? is often thus used."* Augusti and Dc Wette in their German translation of the Bible, a translation deservedly held in high estima- tion, though they have not given a literal version of the passages appealed to by Prof. Stuart, yet felt in no wise "constrained" to depart from the radical meaning of the verb. Thus, Lev. 4 : 17 they lender, And the priest shall DIP his finger into the blood; and 14: 16, And the priest shall dip his right finger into the oil.f It deserves also to be mentioned that the very same act, which is expressed in Lev. 4:17 by the words i^^l! j? "'^^Di, is, in verse 6th, expressed by the words *In partem BSLUgmnia. 1. aliqvid de sanguine. Sic jc saepc ponitur. t Lev. 4 : 17, Und der Priester soil seine Finger in das Blut tauchen. 14 : IG, Und der Priester soil seinen rechten Finger in das Oel tauchen. S4 CHRlSTIANBAPTISM. 0^5 • • 'h^l^y ; that is, in English, vs. 17, And he shall dip . . . into some of the blood, is expressed in vs. 6, thus ; And he shall dip . . . into the blood. The only difference in the two cases is, the 17th verse expresses more spe- cifically (into some, or into apart, of the blood), what the 6th verse expresses less specifically (into the blood). Let lis now apply this principle to the two passages adduced. Lev. 4: 17 will then read, as in our English version, And the priest shall dip his finger in [into] some, or a part, of the blood : 14 : 16 will read* thus, And the priest shall dip his right finger into the part of the oil that is in his left hand. Thus this principle in the He- brew language respecting jp, so repeatedly developing itself, is in this manner strictly regarded, and the verb retains its proper radical meaning. Guided by this examination of Hebrew use, we at once see in what manner to render the Greek of the Septua- gint. For the Septuagint is, in these verses, literally conformed to the Hebrew ; it presents, so to speak, only a Hebrew expression in Greek words. The Septuagint then is here to be translated not by Greek rules, but by Hebrew rules. Indeed, if we should attempt to translate the Greek version of these passages according to the principles of the Greek language, I apprehend, we should find difficulties almost, if not quite, inexj)lica- ble ; I apprehend we should search in vain for authorities that would warrant the employing of the English word bi/ or ioith, as equivalent to tlie Greek una, when connect- ed with an active verb like fiunTO). The preceding remarks remove all difficulty from the third passage, Ex. 12 : 22, m hicli Prof Stuart thus ren- ders ; ^^ And MOISTENING or SMEARING it [the bundle of hyssop] with the blood (riuij'urrf; u.io tov «7//uro,)." The Hebrew has in this passage, n^? uDri'^^P^ ; and the Sep- USAGE OF THE SEPTUAGINT. 25 tuagiiit, if it had correctly and literally rendered this passage, would have employed, not ^diipuvtsg (knd toD u7a," there is only one example, and this a doubtful one, as " the reading is various and contested." t It is Ezek. 23: 15. Some editions of the Septnagint read Tidgav ^amal, dyed, or colored turbans; while the Ro- man edition reads TTuguSanra, tinctured, colored, varic gated icitli colors. "5. To wash, cleanse hy icater ; where §ami:^o) is used."| To sustain this meaning, two passages are adduced from the Apocrypha. " Thus it is said of Judith, in c. 12 : 7, that she went out by night, into the valley of Bethulia, and washed herself [Ir^uTniieTo) in the camp, at the fountain of water." "In Sirach, 31 : 25, we find the expression (^unTi';6fi6i'og uTTo vEv.Qov^ lie wlio is CLEANSED from a dead [carcase] ajid touclieth it again, what does he projit hy his washing [rco XovTQ(o avTOv) 1 The phrase ^unri'Qoaevog dcnb vexgov may be easily explained, by comparing such passages as are to be found in Lev. 11 : 25. 28. 31. 39, 40. Num. 19 : 18, etc. by which it appears, that a person who had touched a dead body was ceremonially defiled, and must wash his clothes and his person in order to become clean." Of these passages, I observe, it is by no means clear that the radical meaning of SuTtziCci) [baptizo] ought to be left out of sight, so that the word should be trans- lated by the general term ivash, or cleanse, without any allusion to the specific kind, or extent, of the washing. Are there any circumstances which entirely forbid us to believe that a bathing" of the whole person is here intcnd- * r. 307. 1 r. 307. I P. 308, USAGE OF THE A P O C R Y T H A . '21 ed ? If the circumstances of the two cases clearly show without doubt, that an entire bathing was not per- formed, or could not be performed, then we must assume a modified meaning of the word. 15ut if there be no necessity for departing from the radical and ordinary meaning, tlien we are not at liberty to i)ut another con- struction upon the word. Let us examine the passages. The first is Judith, c. 12 : 7 ; thus expressed in our English version, " She . . . went out in the night into the valley of Bethulia and washed herself in a fountain of w ater by the camp." In- stead of m afuuntaiii of wata\ a more correct translation would be at the fountain of water. What hinders us now from believing that there was an entire immersion, or bathing of her whole person ? Prof. Stuart observes, " The example of Judith shows very clearly, that washing of the person may be designated by Samiio) ; for into the fountain in the midst of the camp, it is not probable that she plunged.^''* Perhaps not; but though she did not plunge, she might yet have immersed herself. Is plunging the only mode in which an immersion can be performed ? Besides, the verse correctly rendered, and rendered too by Prof. Stuart a few lines preceding this sentence, does not assert that the action, whatever it was, was perform- ed in the fountain^ but at the fountain^ [tTxl ttj^ ttz/j'tjc). There surely may have been conveniencies for bathing the whole person " at the fountain," in the immediate vicinity of it, and conveniencies which were supplied with water from the fountain. If such accommodations were not provided for the use of the army, yet it should be remembered that there were in the immediate vicinity of Bethulia, where the army was encamped, several * P. :ius. 28 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. fountains belonging to the city ; and that the one here spoken of, was a peculiarly important one, from which "all the inhabitants of Bethulia" obtained their water; (c. 7:7. 12 comp. with 13 : 10). Is it unlikely that a Jewish city, thus furnished with natural supplies of water, would also be furnished at the fountain, or fountains, with artificial accommodations for bathing ? Granting, however, the probability of this, it may be asked, is it probable that a female, a Jewish female, would bathe, or immerse herself, " in the midst of the camp" — a camp, too, belonging to an army of heathens ? Perhaps not. But then it is nowhere, in the book of Judith, inti- mated that the action was performed "in the midst of the camp." All parts of a camp are not equally ex- posed ; and the place to which she resorted seems to have been chosen, because, among other reasons, it was somewhat retired. She went to that place habitually for special prayer and purification ; and the bathing or immersion, was a religious service (11 : 17. 12 : 9. 12 : 7. 13 : 10). The place, though within the precincts of the camp, yet might have been far from the midst of it; this c. 13: 10, 11, seems clearly to intimate. Besides, this religious ceremony was performed in the night ; and she was doubtless accompanied by the maid servant whom she took with her on her adventurous expedition (10 : 5^ 10). She is represented as remarkable for her piety and her confidence in the divine protection ; and besides, Holoferncs, the general of the army, had taken her under his special protection, and had given express orders that no one should interfere with her movements, (12: 6, 7). There is nothing, then, in the circumstances of this case which forbids us to believe that Judith ditl actually immerse, or bathe, her whole person. The ceremony UJiAGE OF THE APOCRYPHA. 29 could be performed with perfect safety, and without any sacrifice of delicacy. If the writer intended to convey the thought that she did thus immerse herself, the laii guage he has employed was adapted to convey thai thought. It is certainly, then, the dictate of propriety to assign to the word, in this place, its ordinary meaning, rather than by the unfounded apprehension of impossi- bility or indelicacy, to determine that it cannot have that meaning.* And why, if it were necessary, may she not have en- tered into the water covered with a suitable garment 1 Maimonides, as quoted by Lightfoot on Matt. 3 : 0, ob- serves, '* If any should enter into the water with their clothes on, yet their washing holds good ; because the water would pass through their clothes, and their gar- ments would not hinder it." I proceed to the second passage produced to sustain the meaning, to wash, to cleanse hy toatcr^ ascribed to §u7ni:h) [baptizo] in the Apocrypha. It is Sirach 31 : 25 [English version, Ecclesiasticus 34 : 25], thus trans- lated in the common version, "//e that washeth himself after the touching of a dead body, if he touch it again, ichat availcth his toashing." In the article under consid- eration, it is thus rendered; Me icho is cleansed * That Judith did actually bathe herself in the water, was the opinion of Spencer, as expressed in his elaborate work on the Ritual Laws of the Hebrews. He says : " That the Jews also [i. e. as well as the Gentiles] when about to perform their vows, sometimes cleansed the whole body in a bath, I gather from the history of Judith who, when she had resolved to pray, is said to have bap' tized herself in a fountain of icater." De Leg. Heb. Rit. p 789. Judaeos etiam,vota facturos, quandoque totum corpus lavacro pur- gasse, ex historia Juditha colligo, quse, cum precari statuisset, aquoi foTvle seipsam haptizasse dicitur. 3* 30 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. [;^(x^Ti'r6uepo^] from a dead [carcase] and toucheth it again, what docs lie profit hy his washing 1 We have now to inquire, whether the washing, the cleansing, here spoken of, was of such a kind as clearly to show that there was not an immersion, or a total bathing, of the person. If there be no satisfactory evidence that an entire bathing was not usually per- formed on the occasion mentioned in the passage, and if, on the other hand, there be only a small proba- bility that an entire bathing was performed, we surely have not sufficient authority for diverting the word ^anit'Cu) from its customary meaning, and for refusing to it any recognition of the manner, or the extent, of the washing. Let us see how the case stands. That SuTtTiio), as here employed, does not recognize any specification as to manner or extent, but that it simply means to wash, to cleanse hy water, Prof. Stuart considers clear from the directions given in the Mosaic law, respecting those who liad contracted defilement by the touch of a dead body."* These directions are found in Lev. 11 : 25. 28. 31. 39, 40. Num. 19 : 18, 19. The substance of them is, that the de- filed person must wash his clothes and himself in order to become clean. The texts quoted from Leviticus speak only of the washing of the clothes ; the passage from the book of Numbers describes all the parts of the ceremony, and is therefore to be particularly considered. It stands thus in our version ; Num. 19 : IG. 18, 19. And ichosocvcr toucheth ...a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days. And a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the wafer and sj)rinkle it iqwn the tent and upon cdl the vessels, and upon the persons that i\ 30d. I" SAGE OF THE APOCRYPHA. 31 were there, anrl upon him that touchid a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or ci grave : And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third daij, and on the seventh day : and on the seventh day he shal^ purify himself, and wash his clothes, and iiathe himself in water, and shall be clean at even. Is our version incorrect in saying, he shall bathe him- self IN WATER, as the concluding part of the ceremony? No. The Hebrew word thus translated (^nn) signifies bathing, as well as a less extensive washing. It is used in Ex. 2 : 5, where Pharaoh's daughter is said to have gone down to the river Nile to wash, that is, to bathe. It is also used in reference to cleansing for the leprosy ; Lev. 14 : 8, 9, And he that is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, and shave off all his hair, and wash himself in WATER, that he may be clean . . . But it shall be on the seventh day that he shall shave cdl his hair off his head, and his beard and his eyebrows, even all his hair he shall shave off; and he shall wash his clothes, also he shall wash his FLESH IN WATER, and he shall be clean. That the word fiesh, as here employed, is equivalent to body, will not, probably, be questioned. Scarcely a doubt can be en- tertained, in view of these verses, that the leprous man, in whose case there was to be so much particularity, did actually bathe his whole person as the concluding part of the ceremony by which purification was obtained. This same Hebrew word is also used in Lev. 15 : 5 — 18, in which verses such cases of uncleanness are mentioned as would lead one naturally to expect that an entire bathing should be performed. In the 13th verse of this 15th chapter, it is said, he shall bathe his flesh in run- ning water; and in the IGth verse, he shcdl wash [bathe yn'^] ALL HIS flesh IN WATER. The history of Naaman, the leper, sheds light upon the meaning of this word, 32 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. when used in reference to cleansing. The prophet (2 K. 5 : 10 — 14) directed him, go and wash []*nn] in Jordan seven times. What did Naaman understand the prophet as enjoining in this direction ? Let the 14th verse sjieak. Then went he down and dipped himself [^SP'I] seven times in Jordan. It may here be mentioned that the German transla- tion of the Bible by Angiisti and De Wette, employs the word hathe in Num. 19 : 19, and in all the other places mentioned above in which the same Hebrew word occurs. Thus, Ex. 2 : 5, Then came doivn the daughter of Pharaoh to BATHE in the stream.* So of the rest. An attentive consideration of what has now been brought forward will lead, not to a small probability, but to say the least, to the highest degree of probability, that when in Num. 19 : 19, the person defiled by the touch of a dead body is required to wash, or bathe, it was actually a bathing that was enjoined, and not a partial washing. This conclusion is in perfect accordance with the requi- sition that his clothes must be thoroughly washed. If his clothes were so defiled by the touch of a dead body that they must be thoroughly washed before they could be ceremonially clean, is it not likely that his person was required to be thoroughly washed ? Consider, also, that according to Lev. 11 : 32, if a dead animal should fall upon "any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, wherein any work is done, it must be put into water ... so it shall be cleansed." Was it not then in ])erfect accordance with the Mosaic precepts, that the human person defiled by the touch of a dead body, should undergo a complete bathing ? I add, once more, that the very language of the pas- •* Um ini Stromc zu baden. USAGE OF THE APOCRYPHA. 33 sage under consideration coincides with this view. The word which is rendered washing in this verse, is more specific in sip:nitication than our EngUsh word washings and ought rather to be rendered katiiixg. Tlie verb from wliich this word is derived, (Aoi'ov), designates a general washings or bathing, of the person ; while to express a mere partial washing, as of the hands, or face, or feet, a different verb [vItitoj) is employed. The difference be- tween these two Greek words is happily exemplified in the gospel of John, 13 : 10 ; a correct translation of which is, He that has been bathed (Aolo), needcth not save to wash [rlrtno) his fect, which might have become soiled in walk- ing from the bath. By bearing in mind this more specific sense of the word rendered washing, that is, bathing, the correspondence between the two parts of the verse is very conspicuous ; He that has immersed himself in order to be cleansed from the defilement occasioned by the touch of a dead body, and toucheth it again, what availeth his bathing ? And here it is suitable to mention what Lightfoot on Matt. 3 : 6, produces from Maimonides ; "Wheresoever in the law, washing of the body or garments is mention- ed, it means nothing else, than the washing of the whole body. For if any wash himself all over, except the very top of his little finger, he is still in his uncleanness." Lightfoot, on Mark 7 : 4, produces also from another Jewish writer a sentence, which shows that pollution oc- casioned by the touch of the dead, was so great that the person " must plunge his whole body." But enough. My remarks on Sirach 31 : 25 [English ver. 34 : 25], I bring to a close by saying, that even if the evidence, adduced to show the meaning of this pas- sage, did not exist, yet the method by which Prof. Stuart would show that Sumi'^o) here means simply to cleanse by 34 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. water, is liable to objection. For it proceeds on the principle, that the Jews in the later periods of their his- tory paid a strict regard, in their ceremonies, to what Moses had enjoined. But is this true ? Did they not adopt a multitude of traditions ; and by some of their traditions did they not even transgress the command- ments of God ? Even if Moses had not required them, in such a case as is mentioned in Sirach, to bathe their whole persons, this would not prove, that they did not, in subsequent ages, add to his requisitions on this point, as they did on other points. We may in truth say, that even if Moses did not intend there should be a total ab- lution in the case adduced, the word Samli^oi employed to express this ablution in subsequent times, might still retain its radical power, and might indicate what addi- tion the later Jews made to the original law. This word, I say, might still be purposely used in its radical signification ; and instead of the law of Moses modifying its meaning, it might show how the Jews modified the law. We might stand on such ground, and be sustained by the Jewish history. But in the present case, there is no need of taking this ground ; for I trust, the evidence here produced is not only abundant, but is also appro- priate and sufficient to show, that in the earlier periods of the Jewish history, Moses was understood as requir- ing those, who had become defiled by the touch of a dead body, to bathe their persons as the concluding ceremony of the purification. 1 cannot then regard the statement as sufficiently sus- tained, that SuTiriio) in the Septuagint and the Apocry- pha means simply to wash, to cleanse hy ipatrr, without containing any reference to the manner, or the extent of the washing. The proofs that it has such a meaning- are inadequate. The instances produced furni.^h no ii USAGE OF THE SEPTUAGINT. 35 satisfactory reason lor tlius abandoning the radical meaning of the word. They may be adduced to show that du7iTi:oi has tlie meaning to wash, or cleanse, by bath- ing in water. I have thus arrived at the last meaning alleged in this section. " 6. To moisten, wet, bedew ; where (iumM is used." " Thus in Dan. 4 : 30 [Eng. version 4 : 33], it is said, that Nebuchadnezzar was driven from among men, and made to eat grass like the ox, and that his body was MOISTENED, WET [iHuqi]) with the deio of heaven. "Dan. 5:21, His body was moistened [iSdffTj) with the dew of heaven.^''* The Chaldee word, to w^hich (^ctrrrw corresponds in these passages, means "like the Greek §u7no), both to dip and to tinge or color.^^f The Greek word then is a fair representative of the Chaldee ; and any remarks to be made upon it require no special modification on account of its beinor a translation of an orio^inal. Is the English word moisten or ivet, or bedew, an ade- quate representative of the Greek word? The circum- stances of the case may furnish a reply to this question. They show how very extensive was this moistening or wetting; and how very appropriately the word j^a.-rrw is used in these places. For Nebuchadnezzar had been, for nights in succession, till seve7i times had passed over him, COVERED with dew ; he had been, as it were, wet all over with it ; as we say in familiar conversation, he had been icithoiit a dry spot. Driven from human habitations, and dwelling with the beasts of the field, till his hairs were grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' claws, thus abiding in the open air all night, exposed to P. 308. t P. 30a. 36 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. the copious dews of an oriental climate, and destitute of clothing, what could be more natural than to speak of him as having been immersed in, or covered with, the dew of heaven ? In relating so signal, so unusual an event, the word, formed from a root whose " leading and original meaning" is '•'■ dipping, plunging, immerging, soaking, or drenching, in some liquid substance," would readily present itself to the writer's mind ; nor with the full knowledge of its proper meaning, would he have any doubt that every reader would rightly understand it. The Scriptures are not " coldly correct and critically dull ;" the language of common life breathes through all their pages. And who, I ask, in relating this singular event, or narrating it with his pen, would hesitate a mo- ment to say, the unhappy monarch was drenched with the dew of heaven? And what critic in commenting upon this expression, would be thought to have done justice to it, by saying, the word drench means to moisten, or bedeiv, or loet ? To say that the word ^(xnuo in the passages produced from Daniel, is only equivalent to moisten, or hedeiv, or zvet, seems to me an error some- what akin to his, who should say that in this passage of Milton, A cold shuddering dew Dips me all o'er,* the word dips is adequately explained by ascribing to it the meaning to moisten. And though a dictionary should mention the word moisten or hcdcic, as one of the mean- ings of the verb dip, on account of this passage of Mil- ton, yet who would feel that the word was properly ex- plained, or that the passage was properly explained Comus. USAGE OF THE SEPTUAGINT. 37 without a reference to the prim.-uy, original meaning of the word dip 1 I consider, then, the word ^u-iroi as liyperhohcally used in the hook of Daniel; and as naturally suggested hy the circumstance, that the whole surface of Nebu- chadnezzar's body was exposed to the dew, and became covered with it ; so that much the same effect was pro- duced, as if his body had been immersed in it. These passages are easily explained without ascribing to Sunrot the meaning ^0 moisten; and therefore they do not require this additional item in the significations of the word. A summary of the results to which the examination in this section conducts, may be thus expressed : Of the six meanings ascribed, by Prof. Stuart, to SCirtTO) and SutttIjo in the Septuagint and the Apocrypha, no dependence can be placed on number 4, because the example produced is a doubtful one ; number 2 is in- correct, as it arises from not sufficiently regarding the Hebrew construction; number 6 is inapplicable, as it merely exhibits a hyperbolical use of the word ; number 5 is defective, as no good reason can be produc- ed to show that the washing, the cleansing, was not performed by a total bathing of the person, and good reasons can be produced to show, that an entire bathing was performed. The remaining significations, number 1, to plunge, immerse, dip in, and number 3, to ovenchelm, are unquestionable. Of these six meanings, three are illustrated by passa- ges containing the word :;i(i7rrl':o)'^ namely; 1, to plunge, immerse, dip in ; 3, to overichelm ; 5, to wash, cleanse hy water. To this fifth mc:aning there should have been annexed, according to the preceding examination, a no- tice that the washing, or cleansing, was performed by a bathing or an immersing, of the person. 4 38 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. The meanings, then, of (ianjilM in the Septuagint and the Apocrypha, may be thus stated ; 1. To plunge^ immerse, dip in. 2. To overwhelm. 3. To wash, or cleanse, hy bathing the person in water. SECTION THIRD. ** Meaning of the words ^dntM, BamiCM, and their deriv- atives in the New Testament, tohen not applied to the rite of Baptism.'''' Two meanings are here ascribed to ^(xtttcd; 1, *^to dip;''^ as in Luke 16:24, That he may dip {Sj is sufficiently obvious. The observances here mentioned have been handed down among the Jews from age to age ; and it is im- possible to fix the precise point in their history at which they commenced. Certain it is, they shed light on such passages as the one under consideration ; and could as appropriate illustrations be produced, in respect to many other passages of Scripture, on various topics, the Chris- tian world would feel itself under great obligations. The preceding copious examination helps us, of course, rightly to understand the quotation from Luke 11 : 38, which is next brought forward to sustain the meaning to wash, ascribed to Sc(7ttI':o) ; But the Pharisee, seeing him, wondered that he had notjirst washed himself {iSunriod I/) before dinner: Common version; And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not Jirst washed before dinner ; that he had not first immersed, that is, himself, or his hands. By the preceding part of the chapter it appears, tliat our Lord and his host had been exposed to a great mixture of company, and therefore needed, in the judgment of the Pharisee, the more for- mal and thorough sort of washing". On this passage too, Lightfoot observes, *' there is nD^V ri'^'t^A ' n washing of the hands,' and there is a;!; i^^'^P a ' dipping of the hands.' This clause we are upon, refers to this latter. The Pharisee wonders, that Christ had not washed his 48 CHRISTIAN BAPTIS3f. hands ; nay, that he had not dipped them all over in the water, when he was newly come, i^ ayoqo)r, \er. 29, from the people that were gathered thick together^ To sustain the meaning to wash., three other passages are produced, by Prof. Stuart, which contain the sub- stantive derived from the verb SunrltM. *' 3Iark 7 : 4, The washings {(ianjiufwvg ) of cups and potSf and brazen vessels, and couches [xXivo)i'). ♦* Mark 7 : 8, The washings {[SuTrTiGjuovg) of pots and cups. " Heb. 9 : 10, Onlt/ in meats and drinks, and divers washings {^UTlTKJiJOlgy^* That the word rendered washings in these passages ought, so far as philology is concerned, to be rendered IMMERSIONS, would be a plain inference from the pre- ceding investigations. And even though a difficulty should seem to arise from the nature of some of the things mentioned by Mark, we ought, before we decide that the word must have another meaning, to inquire whether the supposed difficulties really existed in prac- tice among the Jews. It is by no means satisfactory to refer to customs among ourselves, as suggesting difficul- ties in respect to what the Jews are said to have done, and especially, what they are said to have done by the influence of a misguided religious scrupulosity ; for it was from religious, though mistaken, considerations, that they practised these observances. Nor were such observances entirely without foundation in the statutes of Moses. In Lev. 11 : 32, it is directed, that any ves- sel upon whicli tlic dead body of an unclean animal had fallen, "whatsoever vessel it be, wherein any work is * F. 310. G E N E R A I. i: S A (; E () F T HE N E \V T E S T A M E N T. 49 done, it must be put into watcr.,^'' in order to he cleansed. The only exception was in respect to eartlien vessels, which, being thus polluted, were to be l)roken in pieces {v. 315). Now, how credible it is, and how accordant with the language of Mark, that the superstitious spirit of the Jews, in subsecpient times, extended this requisition to other cases besides that of pollution by the touch of the dead ; so that even on ordinary occasions, when they thought religion required the articles to be cleansed, the cleansing must bo performed by immersing them in water. And who can wonder, if this same spirit" led them carefully to cleanse by immersion even the couches on which they reclined at meals 1 for it is these, probably, which are meant by the word translated tables in our version. It would certainly accord well with their su- perstitious disposition. And so far as the writings of dis- tinguished men among the Jews enable us to form a judg- ment, those writings contribute altogether to the belief, that there was actually performed an immersion of these articles, when they needed special purifying. The Jew- ish rules, which Dr. Gill quotes in his commentary on Mark 7 : 4, are precise in requiring such articles to be cleansed by being covered in water ; and the regulations are exceedingly strict in regard to this washing, so that should there be any thing adhering to these articles, such as pitch, Avhich might prevent the water from touching the wood in a particular spot, the washing would not be duly performed. The same Jewish authority re- quires even beds to be cleansed by immersion, when they had become defiled. And what should hinder us from employing the word immersions in Heb. 10: 9? Immersions were practised by the Jews in accordance with the Mosaic ritual ; and 5 50 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. why may we not consider the apostle, when naming the immersions, as taking a part, for the whole, of the legal purifications, and consequently as not departing from the specific, original meaning of the word he has employed? 2. The second meaning ascribed, in this section, to the verb ^anriCM and to the noun derived from it, is a figurative meaning, " which deserves a particular con- sideration." * The following passages are adduced as illustrating this meaning. " Luke 12 : 50, / have a baptism to he baptized loith, and how am I straitened until it be accom- plished! That is, I am about to be overwhelmed with sufi*erings, and I am greatly distressed with the prospect of them."* Here the proper, radical meaning of the word is sufficiently developed. So in " Mark 10 : 3S, 39, Are ye able to drink of the cup that 1 must drink, and to be baptized ivith the baptisin with ichich I am baptized? .... The sense is evidently the same as that given above, viz. ' Can ye indeed take upon you to undergo, patiently and submissively, suffer- ings like to mine — sufi*erings of an overwhelming and dreadful nature?'"* Another example of this figurative meaning. Prof. Stuart finds in 1 Cor. 15 : 29. Else lohat shall they do who are baptized /or the dead? That is (though a dif- ferent interpretation of the passage may be defended), "if there be, as some affirm, no resurrection to life, then what becomes of all our multiplied toils and sufferings, which we undergo with reference to a future state and to that world unto which the dead go? Of wlmt avail is it to endure overwhelming sorrows, if there be no re- surrection of the dead ?'** * P. 310. GENERAL USAGE OF THE N E W T i: S T A M 1-: N T. 51 ♦' 3. Tliere is ixnoxher Jiguratiiic use of ,>«. if /,'(.», allied in some respects to the precedino^ one, but distinguished from it in tlie mode of its application. I mean that usage of the word, wliieh emphns it to designate the idea of copious affusion or effusion, in a figurative manner. The basis of this usage is very plainly to be found in the de- signation by 3u7iTi;o) of tiie idea of overwhelming, i. e. of surrounding on all sides with fluid." " Matt. 3 : 11. He shall baptize {^u7tTlaet)i/ou with the Holy Ghost and with fire ; i. e. he will make a copious effusion of his Spirit upon a part of you ; and another part, viz. the finally unbelieving and impenitent, he will surround with flames, or plunge into the flames."* Examples of the same meaning are Luke 3 : 16; Mark 1:8; John 1 : 33; Acts 1 : 5; 11 : 17. By the lan- guage of these passages, especially as fully expressed in Matt. 3 : 11, and explained in Matt. 3 : 12, it is perfectly obvious how naturally and forcibly f?«7TrCo> [baptizo] ex- presses the idea of overwhelming, of surrounding. He will baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire ; that is, some of you he will surround with the Holy Spirit's influences ; and some of you, the unbelieving and im- penitent, he will surround with flames. That such is the meaning of the passage, is plain from the 12th verse of the same chapter ; and with this meaning the other passages agree, in which baptizing with the Holy Spirit is mentioned. The explanation which refers the bap- tizing with fire to the descent of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, and which Prof. Stuart hints at as ^'' perhaps^^* being the right one, does not sufficiently re- gard the subsequent explanatory verse. A passage very similar to those we are now consider- *P. 31]. 52 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. ing is " 1 Cor. 12 : 13. For hy one Spirit have we been baptized into one body ; i. e. by the copious efltusion of one and the same Spirit, have we been made members of one and the same church."* In other words, The same Spirit has baptized us all, so that we have all been made members of the same body ; that is, we have all most copiously participated in the same Spirit's influ- ences ; an idea very naturally flowing from the radical meaning of ;-^«rrr/>.f I cannot but remark here, how strongly these figura- tive uses of the word SutxtI'Zl'), especially in Luke 12 : 50, and Matt. 3:11, show what was the prevalent and pop- ular meaning of the Avord — the meaning, which would first occur to a reader or hearer. If the word baptize in Greek corresponded, as to its prevalent and popular mean- ii]g, with our woi'diphmge, or immcrse^Xhen the expressions in the above-named passages can be adequately explained. 15ut if the word baptize in Greek, in its common and ])revalent meaning, was equivalent to the English word ?^«.?/i without having annexed to it any notion of manner or copiousness, or if it meant tcash as really and as fre- (juently as it meant plunge, then such a figurative use would have been unnatural. The examination of passages produced in this third section has led to the result, that the word [^urtrr:oi, as * P. 312. t In such passages, roforence is made to the fihundnnt communi- cations of the Spirit ; an idea very happily conveyed by the use of the word baptize. The manner of the communication is not regard- ed ; only the copiousness. As I shall not have occasion to recur to this class of passages, I will now observe, though it is not altogeth- er in place, that hence, so far as the tidminiatration is concerned, no argument can be drawn against immersion as being the only baptism, from the fact that the Spirit is elsewhere said to be pour- ed out. SU.MMAUV (IK MKANINr. S. ;>.» used in the New Tcstanicnt witliout reference to llic rite of I)aj)tisni, does not depart from its prevalent niean- in«r- Its si<(nifications, as thus nsed, are tlic followinir: 1. To r/r((nsr bif iin)ii(rsin', or by a Dative without any preposition, is not in their use perfectly and uniform- ly obvious, so as to establish a principle in the language. Even the examples produced by Prof. Stuart,* in which ^^unru) is followed by a Genitive case, with a preposition or without one, do not direct the mind to the means, (the ocean, or a stream, for instance, with which any thing is bathed), so far as to ])revent the mind from noticing the profuse quantity of the means. Thus, in the example from Aratus, Phaenom. v. 951, bathes herself noiuuoio, WITH the river, * P. 31(3. USAGE OF T ir E NEW TESTAMENT. 59 The examples of Sitml'^o) and Sunnn followed by a Dative,* with or without a preposition, show that tlie distinction, if ever made, was not universally regarded. The expression, ^^ Dipping it in winr,{h' olrot) thy drink it,^' Aristotle, Hist. Anim. VIII. 29, does not essentially differ from the expression, Dipping it into wine^ {itg diroy). In the example from Aristophanes, *' Thei/ dip the wool -d^eQuco in warm ivater, the Dative is used without a preposition. But may not this use be explained by considering the preposition, ^'', as understood before the Dative 1 Thus this example would resemble the prece- ding one. Nor is the mind so much directed to the ma- terial, namely ivarm water, as to lose sight of the profuse- ness and thoroughness of the washing, or dipping. So with the other examples. 4. Even were the distinction in classic use fairly sus- tained, Prof. Stuart has himself said in another part of his article! (whether with perfect propriety or not, I need not here examine), " Classical usage can never be very certain in respect to the meaning of a word in the New Testament. Who does not know, that a multitude of Greek words here receive their colouring and particu- lar meanings from the Hebrew, and not from the Greek classics 1" In regard to the expression in Mark 1 : 9, l^amlcTdT] . . . ii; Tor 'logddi'rii', urns baptized into, or in, the Jordan, which seems to have suggested this discussion, I am not at all anxious to prove, that the preposition iic, here employed, does add material strength to an argument in favor of immersion. The use of h;, in itself consid- ered, that is, without considering the proper force of §a7tii^o), might be explained by a reference to other pas- * P. 31G. t P. 382. 60 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. sages which show that Mark did not always nicely dis- tjriminate between the two prepositions, hg and iv. The use of this preposition, in the present instance, is indeed in perfect accordance witluhe proper meaning of j^wm/tw; so that the preposition might naturally be suggested by the verb. Just as in English, it would be perfectly natural to say, he was immersed or clipped into the river ; while yet it is equally common to say he loas immersed^ or dip- ped, IN the river. Again, if controversy were kept out of sight, and regard were paid simply to facts in the usage of language, not one scholar in a thousand would hesi- tate to render tig as here situated, by in or into. Still the expression, used by Mark, is not materially different from the expression ev tw " logdui')]'^ just as, in English, there is no material difference between the expression, he teas immersed into the Jordan, and the expression, he was immersed in the Jordan. It is, after all, the meaning of the verb which must guide us ; and this, I trust, has been shown to be sufficiently specific and definite. After this discussion, which is both a needless and an unsuccessful one, Prof. Stuart declares himself " philo- logically compelled" to conclude, " that the probabil- ity that 8rt7TTl';o) implies immersion, is very considerable, and on the whole a predominant one ; but it does not still amount to certainty. Both the classic use and that of the Septuagint shew," he says, ♦' that toashing and co- pious affusion are sometimes signified by this word. Consequently, the rite of baptism may have been per- formed in one of these ways, although it is designated by the word (^«rrr/;'w."* This statement, however ample its acknowledgments may appear to some, requires alteration. For among •* P. 318. GENERAL USAGE OF THE N E W T E S TA M E N T. I all the examples adduced by its autlior from classic wri- ters to illustrate the meaning of §(tnric,u}y and among all the sigiiificatioMS furnished by him, I have searched in vain for tiie signification washing and copious affusion.^ Tlie examples from the Septuagint and the Apocrypha adduced to sustain the meaning to wash, do i)y no means support that meaning, while the meaning of copious af- fusion does not occur among the alleged Septuagint uses of this word. Prof. Stuart had, probably, in his mind, while writing the sentence above quoted, the significa- tions, " to smear over or moisten by dipping in," and, '* to moisten, wet, bedew,'''' ascribed by him to Sujijoi [bapto] in the Septuagint ; and perhaps he intended these to be con- sidered as equivalent to the signification, cc|/9/ow5 affusion. On these alleged significations I have already sufficiently remarked in the preceding section. That " the rite of baptism may have been performed" by washing or co- pious allusion, is not then sustained by actual usage. And even i^, in some instances, the word might be rendered ivash, it would no more be a necessary con- sequence that baptize and wash are synonymous, than it would be a necessary consequence that immerse and wash are synonymous, because we can speak of a thing as washed which has been immersed. Prof. Stuart concludes this topic with the acknowl- edgment (an acknowledgment, which ought to have been * I confine this remark to i^aTtT^^w [baptizo], for this is the word now under consideration. The only apparent exception to the re- mark is, the instance which occurs under number 6, of meanings in classical use. But that is only an apparent exception. The meaning to xcash is indeed ascribed to Hamdi [bapto] : but the idea of dipping is unquestionably connected with this meaning. Sec number 7, of meanings in classical u>3v , 6 62 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. expressed in stronger terms), " On the whole, however, the probability seems to be in favor of the idea of im- mersion, when we argue simply from the force of the words or expressions in themselves considered."* In view of all the preceding philological investigations, and with regard solely to philological necessity, 1 may rather ask. Does the force of the word ^(x7ttI':o), in itself consid- ered, permit us to depart from the idea of immersion ? § 2. " Circumstances attencling Baptism^ *' Do the circumstances ivhich attend the administration of the rite of haptism, as related in the Neio Testament^ cast any light upon the manner of the rite itself 7'*^ Two passages are here introduced, on which depend- ence is sometimes placed as being decidedly favorable to the practice of immersion ; namely. Matt. 3 : 16, And Jesus, when he ivas haptized, went up straightway out of the water; and Mark 1 : 10, And straightway coming up out of the water. " The question has been raised," Prof. Stuart says, " whether this means ' Went up out of the water of the river,' i. e. rose up after being plunged into the river, and came out of the water."t That it does not mean the rising up from undernecUh the water after having been im- mersed into it, lie shows by three considerations. *' 1. The rite of baptism was completed, before John [Jesus] went up from the water." 2. " The verb" used by the Evangelists (uru^alvLo) " will hardly permit such an in- terpretation." The proper verb to express the rising up from under the water, and the "one continually em- ployed by the ecclesiastical fathers, in order to desig- nate emerging from the water" is uradho^ "which means to come up out of,''"' " or to emerge fromJ'"' 3. " The pre- 318. t r. 310. C I R C U M S T A N C K S ; MATT. 1 : 16. G3 position," employed by the Evangelists, "will not allow such a construction."* It is then stated as " a clear case, that Jesus retired from the water of the river, by going up its banks. Nothing more can properly be deduced from it."* Prof. vStuart seems not to have correctly apprehended the precise bearing of these verses upon the question in liand. The expressions, went up out of the water, and coming up out of the loater, or as the preposition might be rendered \from the water,' are not understood by those in opposition to whom he wrote, as referring at all to the action of arhing from underneath the surface of the water ; but to what took place after Jesus had thus arisen, namely, his retiring to the bank from the spot in the river where he was baptized; that is, his coming out of, or from, the water. This would, of course, be a coming up, an ascending, from a lower place to a higher. This, I presume, is the meaning generally ascribed to these expressions ; not that, against which the arguments above stated are directed. This meaning also agrees with common usage in speech, and is not contrary to the original text. Whether the expressions, disconnect- ed from the train of discourse, might not be otherwise understood, is a question of little moment. Nor will I undertake to say, that this is incontrovertibly their meaning. Suffice it to say, that this meaning violates no principle in language, and is not at all forced ; and that these verses are altogether favorable to the belief that an immersion was performed, because, in addition to the meaning of the word §unii;o), the persons men- tioned resorted to a river in order that baptism might be administered. On this last point, I am happy in being 64 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. able to employ the language of Prof. Stuart. When speaking of baptism performed *' at or in some stream," he asks, " What other good reason for this can be given, excepting that immersion was practised?"* The next passage, on which any comments are made, under the head of Circumstances attending Baptism, is John 3 : 23, And John also was haptizing in Enon near to Sali?n, because there was much water there : and they came and were baptized. " The question is," Prof. Stuart says, " Whether John baptized at Enon near Salim, because the waters were there abundant and deep, so as to afford conve- nient means of immersion ; or whether the writer means merely to say, that John made choice of Enon, because tliere was an abundant supply of water there for the ac- commodation of those who visited him, for the sake of being baptized and of hearing the powerful addresses which he made to the Jews.t ... I cannot avoid the belief," he concludes, "that vdaTu txoU.u. [much water, or many waters] is designed, as Beza says, to designate many streams or rivulets. John chose a place abounding in these, when he removed from the banks of the Jordan, in order that the multitudes who flocked to him might be accommodated. ":[; The impression which this verse naturally makes on a reader is, that John repaired to Enon near to Salim, because it aft'orded facilities for baptizing. This obvi- ous meaning of tlie verse is displaced by several writers, and the Evangelist is supposed by them to mean, that John repaired to Enon because the abundant supply of water found there would be very favora])le for accom- modating his hearers during their attendance upon his *r.a^>7. fP. 3'21. tP. 324. circumstances; john 3:2 3. 65 preaching. In otlier words, it was not so nuich for tlie convenience of baptizing the proper subjects of baptism, as it was for accommodating the people and their beasts. To tills opinion Prof. iStuart assents, as is above stated, and he beUeves that the words, much water [literally, mnvy icaters'] were intended to signify many streams or rivulets. The authority of Beza, " one of the most acute judges of Greek idiom,"* is introduced as sustaining this meaning of the phrase. It is, perhaps, to be lamented, that sacred geography furnishes no testimony in regard to Enon near to Salim. The precise situation of these places is now unknown. But without making any conjectures as to the circumstan- ces of John's hearers, or as to the length of time which in- dividuals and companies might have spent in their at- tendance upon him, and without dwelling on the ge- ographical improbability that in Palestine or its im- mediate vicinity, there were many streams so near to each other as this interpretation would imply, the verse itself is sufficiently plain to an unbiassed reader. If the Evangelist meant to say, that John went to this place because it was a remarkably favorable place for baptiz- ing the converts, how could he more plainly have ex- pressed himself? An attempt is made to show from philological consid- erations, that the words translated much water designate, in accordance with Beza's opinion, mani/ streams, or rivulets. Hence the conclusion is drawn, that " John chose a place abounding in these ... in order that the multitudes who flocked to him might be accommodated." If it must be so then, be it so, that instead of the words much 2oater, there should be the words mani/ streams. * P. 323. 6* 66 CHRISTIANBAPTISM. How does this affect the statement of the Evangelist? John icns baptizing in Enon near to Salim, because there were many streams there; and the people came and were baptized. Streams and rivulets are certainly very suita- ble for the administration of baptism. But the philological investigation, by which Prof. Stuart arrives at the conclusion that vdara nolla [many waters] meixns 7nani/ strcatJis, is altogether unsatisfactory. It is by no means an appropriate one. He examines the meaning of w()w9, [literally rendered ivater], and finds reason to believe that it sometimes means a river, or stream, as well as water in general ; lie also shows that the plural vdura [waters] means rivers or streams. Then " the natural and primary meaning of nolvg [ttoXIu] is inani/ in opposition to few.''^^ The result, then, would seem to be, that i)()«ra nolXa [many waters] means many streams or rivulets. Now this may seem plausible ; but after all, it is in- correct. All the premises separately taken, are doubt- less true ; but the conclusion is not true, because the manner of investigation is not adapted to the case in hand. It is the compound term, or the phrase, v5aTu noXXu [many waters], that ought to be examined, in order to discover whether it should be rendered, as Beza directs, many streams. There needs be no discussion about the meaning of the word vduTu [waters] separately taken, or of no'/.hx [many] separately taken. It is the phrase, which philology should investigate. Now all the numerous passages which Prof. Stuart brings for- ward to illustrate the idiom of the language, are really inappropriate, with the exception only of Rev. 1 : 15. 14 : 2. 17 : 1, 15. 19 : 0. All the rest might have been *P. 324. circumstances; john 3:2 3. 67 spared. It may also be mentioned, that Matt. 17 : 15, to which reference is made* as containing the word ?(5«r«, does not contain it. This ovcrsiglit, however, may perhaps be accounted for, from the circumstance tliat tlie parallel passage in Mark does contain the word. As to the explication of the phrase vdura ttoU.u [many waters or much water], there are two considerations to which regard should be paid. I. It is a phrase peculiar, in the New Testament, to John ; and it occurs sufficiently often in his writings to enable one to form a correct opinion of its meaning. We need not then go beyond the writings of Joiin in the New Testament to obtain the materials of information. Examine Rev. 1 : 15. 14 : 2. 19 : 6. It is perfectly ob- vious, that, in these passages, the sacred writer had in mind an abundant mass of water, agitated by storm and roaring as the voice of thunder. But, it is said, the "waves of the sea are successive, and (so to speak) dif- ferent and broken masses of water ; not one continuous mass, deep and abundant .... It is the movement, the division, the succession, and the motion which form the ground of this idea." t Is this, I ask, a natural and probable representation ? Who can believe, that the sacred writer indulged in such a refining of thought ? It is not the language of a metaphysical writer, but of one whose loftiness of conception and ardor of thought could not be detained by such minute refining. It was an abundant mass of water " into" thundering " tempest wrought," that the writer employed to express what he had heard. The same phrase occurs in Rev. 17 ! 1, 15. Here, too, the idea of abundant water happily agrees with the * P. 322. 1 P. 322. 68 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. context. The idea of streams and rivers is utterly inap- propriate. The city of Rome is here spoken of, with special reference to its widely extended dominion, and its connection with all the kingdoms of the then known world. In order to place before his readers Rome thus connected with all nations, and sending through them all a corrupting and destructive influence, the writer de- scribes it as a wealtliy and luxurious city, situated upon, or near the sea, and possessing every facility for com- mercial intercourse. The city, thus situated, is represent- ed to the reader, according to frequent Scriptural usage, as a female. Not that Rome actually was in the imme- diate vicinity of any great body of water ; it is the image, a flourishing city favorably situated for intercourse with the nations, to wliich we must direct our attention. And in order to convey to the mind an idea of a magnificent and luxurious city spreading its ruinous influence through the know^n world, what image so appropriate, as that of a great commercial mart which would attract the kings of the earth and the inhabiters of the earth ? In this view, the many waters as meaning a sea are remarkably suitable. Whether the image presented to the mind, if many waters mean many streams or rivers^ be a natural and appropriate one, may be determined by embodying before the mind's eye the representation thus furnished, namely, a woman sitting on " many streams or rivers of water."* In all the places then of the New Testament, which furnish examples of this phrase, many rivukts would not answer the writer's purpose as a translation of the phrase ; but obviously he had in mind abundant masses of water. * r. 3:22. circumstances; john 3:2 3. 69 I might here take leave of tlie phrase ; but there is a second corisitleration in regard to it which I will pre- sent from a desire that a full view of this case may be exhibited. 2. The style of .Tohn is peculiarly Hebraistic ; and the phrase rt^«T« noXXa [manyVaters] is to be ranked among his Hebraisms. The usage of the Septuagint, then, and the corresponding phrase in Hebrew, will contribute to a satisfactory explanation. In the Hebrew Bible, the word translated water is not used in the singular num- ber ; a literal translation of the word would be always waters, and when the idea of abundant water, or of large masses of water, is to be expressed, the adjective em- ployed corresponds to the noun in being of the plural number. The phrase tr)"'3'^ o;:? [many waters] is of frequent occurrence, and is literally translated in the Septuagint by the phrase vduru rtoXXu [many ivaters]. This Greek phrase is accordingly found in various passages of the Septuagint version. An examination of the Sep- tuagint with reference to this phrase, furnishes the fol- lowing results. In 2 Sam. 22 : 17. Ps. 18 : 16. Ps. 29 : 3. 32 : 6. 77 : 19. 93 : 4. 107 : 23. 144 : 7, the phrase oc- curs, and in not one of these places does the idea of " many rivulets" correspond to the connection ; but clearly the idea is expressed of ahxindant water, and in all, except Ps. 29 : 3, is the idea also contained of over- fioicing water. In Jer. 51 : 13 [Sep. 28 : 13, Heb. 51 : 50], it again occurs where it manifestly means the Eu- phrates together, probably, with the lakes and canals formed from the Euphrates in the vicinity of Babylon. Such is the Septuagint use of this phrase; a use to which the Evangelist was accustomed, and by which he was guided. There is, then, only this one instance, in Jeremiah, in which there is even a remote resemblance 70 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. to Beza's rendering of tlie phrase. Remote this may well be called, even if it were not the Euphrates by it- self considered, rather than as connected with the lakes and canals, that was occupying the writer's mind. There is one passage, which might suggest to some the idea that there were, properly speaking, rivers in the immediate vicinity of Babylon. It is Ps. 137 : 1, By the rivers of Babylon, there loe sat down. To those who are acquainted with the geography of that region, this presents no difficulty. By the word rivers, the ca- nals fed by the Euphrates are meant. The general usage of the Septuagint is manifest. 1 need not say, to what conclusion this usage compels us in translating the phrase vdura nokhx [many ivaters], as used by a writer so Hebraistic as John. 3Iuch or abun- dant water J is a faithful translation ; while the phrase many riuukts, or streams^ would do violence to general usage. This conclusion is confirmed by the fact, that, for the most part, in the usage of the Septuagint, the phrase vduTu 7ioX}.u [many waters] and the phrase vdb)Q rtokv [much water] are not materially different from each other. In the following passages, Is. 17 : 12, 13. 23 : 3. 28 : 2. Ezek. 1 : 24. 26 : 19. 27 : 26. Sol. Song 8 : 7, the phrase occurs in the singular number [much water], although the corresponding Hebrew phrase is in the plural ; so that the same Hebrew phrase may be rendered either by the singular number, or by the plural. That is to say, in the usage of the Septuagint, much water and many waters are equivalent expressions. Nor in the passages quot- ed above, is there any perccjitible reason why the sin- gular is preferred. For in those passages, it is the abundant, the overwhelming, the roaring water, or waters, or masses of water, to wbich allusion is made ; and CIRCUMSTANCKS; JOHN 3:2 3. 71 which are ccrtiiiiily expressed in other phices hy the phiral phrase. Somewliat similar to this frecpieiit usage of the Sep- tuagint, there is an instance in the New Testament. In this instance, the adjective does not occur ; still it fur- nishes evidence, that the j)liiral vduru [waters] and the singular v^oiq [water] might he used interchangeably. Compare Matt. 17 : 15 with Mark 9 : 22. The two Evan- gelists are here relating the same transaction, and they mention the same circumstances. xMatthew, however, employs the word water in the singular uumhcr, while Mark uses the plural. The English version translates literally, thus ; Matthew says, Ofttimes he fallcth into the Jirc and oft into the water, vdoo ; Mark says, Oft- times it hath cast him into the fire and into the waters, vduxu. Doubtless, both Matthew and Mark meant the same thing. As shedding at least a ray of light on this subject, I wish to present, in connection, two passages from the Old Testament. Jer. 41 : 12 [Sept. 48 : 12], They found him [Ishmael] hy the great waters that are in Giheon ; great waters, ii3'3l JZ3;d the same words which are so frequently translated many waters. What is meant by this expression in Jeremiah ? What were the great waters in Gibeon.'' Compare 2 Sam. 2 : 12, 13, 14. And Abncr, the son of AW, and the servants of Ish-hosheth the son of Saul, loent out from Mahanaijn to Giheon. And Joah the son of Zcruiah, and the servants of David, went out, and met together by the pool of gib- eox ; and they sat down, the one on the one side of the pool, and the other on the other side of the pool. And Abner said to Joab, Let the young men now arise, and flay before us. And Joab said. Let them arise. It is cer- tainly a very natural inquiry. Are not the great, or the 72 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. MANY WATERS, oi', as the Scptuagint here translates, the MUCH WATER, mentioned in Jeremiah, the same as the POOL mentioned in 2 Samuel ? Without rejjlying myself to this inquiry, I quote the following sentences from Cal- met's Dictionary of the Bible, recently revised and edited by Prof. Robinson, of the Andover Theological Seminary. See under the word Gibeon. " It is said, (2 Sam. 2 : 13) that there was a pool in Gibeon. Wheth- er it were of any considerable extent, does not appear from this passage ; but there is little doubt that it is the same as the * great waters that are in Gibeon,' Jer. 41 : 12." Here then the phrase nu'S"^ ^^'.^^ to which vduia noll& [many icaters] literally corresponds, indicates a body of water sufficiently large indeed for two hostile companies to be on opposite sides without encountering each other, and yet sufficiently small to admit of persons speaking to each other from the opposite sides. What now is the result of this protracted investiga- tion ? Briefly this. In the New Testament use of the phrase, laying aside, for the present, the passage in the Gospel of John, ahimdant water is expressed, not streams or rivulets. In the Septuagint use of the phrase, it is not streams or rivulets that are indicated. With these statements before us, can we reasonably doubt as to the meaning of the phrase in the Gospel of John ? If phi- lology is to decide the question, does it not furnish ample evidence, that the phrase does not mean many rivulets, or streams ; but that it rather means a considerable body of water? A pliilological investigation, properly conduct- ed, is fatal to Beza's rendering of the phrase. I undertook this investigation, however, not because I thought it would decide the question why John resorted to the place mentioned, but to satisfy my curiosity and to let others know what are the facts. Nothing material is AT'THORITY OF BEZA. 73 gained, as to the question which some, in my opinion very needlessly, raise. If there were many streams at that place, it would be a very convenient place for bap- tizing, as well as for accommodating the hearers and tlieir animals. If there were at that place, as philology teaches, a considerable body of water, that too would be very suitable for baptizing, and perhaps quite as suitable for the other purposes. On this question^ then, let the sacred writer himself speak ; and let com- mon sense exercise its plain honesty in understanding the very simple and intelligible declaration : John was bap- tizing in Enon near to Salini, because there ivas much water there ; and they [the people] came and were baptized. One word more. Beza is referred to, as a person of much authority and as having pronounced that the phrase in question means many rivulets or streams. Now Beza arrived at his conclusion, so far as appears from this article, in the same way essentially as did the author of the article. He referred to Matt. 3 ; 16, in which place the word water plainly means the river Jordan ; the con- sequence, it would seem, was then drawn, that the word vdtcTu [icaters'] means rivers, streams. On the inappro- priateness of this mode of investigation in the present in- stance, I have sufficiently remarked. Beza is also mentioned as " one of the most acute judges of Greek idiom ;" and consequently his decision would seem to be of great moment. Now I abhor the disposition that would, for any purposes, detract from any man's just reputation : I also count it wrong to strengthen a weak cause by an appeal to names, especially when any ex- ceptions can be taken as to the qualifications of the man, to whose aiithority the appeal is made. But un- willing as I am to draw any man's " frailties from their dread abode," it is certainly the dictate of justice and of 7 74 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. candor, that readers should have knowledge respecting the men who are held up as oracles. " Beza," then, *' with natural talents considerably above the middle rate, had a good deal of learning, and understood well both Greek and Latin ; but he neither knew He- brew (though he had the assistance of some who knew it), nor does he seem to have been much conversant; in the translation of the Seventy [the Septuagint]. Hence it has happened, that his critical acuteness is not always so well directed as it might have been. The significa- tions of words and idioms are often determined by him from classical authority, which might with greater ease and more precision have been ascertained by the usage of the sacred writers and their ancient interpreters."* Whether in explaining the phrase vdara noll. 84 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death ? We have then been buried with him by baptism into his death ; that, as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glorious power of the Father, so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been allied to him in the likeness of his death, so shall we be also in the likeness of his resurrection ; knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, so that we should no longer be in subjection to sin ; for one who is dead is freed from sin. But if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall live with him ; knowing that Christ, having been raised up from the dead, dieth no more ; death hath no more do- minion over him. For in that he died, he died in respect to sin once for all ; but in that he liveth, he liveth in respect to God. Thus also consider ye yourselves dead indeed in respect to sin, but alive in respect to God, through Christ Jesus. The expressions, baptized into Jesus Christy and bap- tized into his death, require explanation. These phrases are more usually considered as meaning, baptized into an acknowledgment of Jesus Christ, with an implication of subjection or discipleship to him ;* and, baptized into an acknowledgment of his death. The commentary propo- ses a somewhat different explanation : thus ; " As many of us as have been baptized into Jesus Christ;" that is, " as many of us as have become devoted to Christ by baptism;" "or taken upon as a peculiar relation to him by being baptized."t We have been baptized into his death; "that is, we have, as it were, been made par- takers of his death by baptism," " we have engaged to die unto sin, as he died for it ; we have a communion or participation in death to sin."| I prefer the more usual and more .simple explanation. The expression baptized into death, or into his death [elg Tov ■d-ijiy(noy'\, may be comjiared with the expression which occurs in Matt. 3 : 11, / baptize you iinto repent- ^ P. 327. t P. 32t<. t P. 328. I ROM A Ns, 6 : 3 , '1 . 85 ance {fl; //fr/^rof«)], that is, into rcpmtanre. Tlic mean- ing of tliis declaration I understand to be this, I baptize you into an acknoiclcclgment of repentance ; so that by this baptism you acknowledge yourselves to be in a state of re- pentance ; in other words, by submitting to tliis baptism you profess repentance and bind yourselves to a life of amendment. So, to be baptized into the death of Christ, is to be baptized into an acknoicledgment of his death and into an acknowledgment of the obligations resulting from that death. I subjoin, for the sake of clearness, the following free and paraphrastic translation. What shall we say then ? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound ? By no means. How shall we who have become dead in respect to sin, live any longer subject to it ? Do ye not know, that so many of us as have been baptized into an acknowledgment of Jesus Christ, were baptized into an acknowledgment of his death, or have by our baptism engaged to die unto sin, as he died for sin ? By baptism, then, which acknowledges his death, we have been buried, as he was buried ; that, as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glorious power of the Father, so we also having been raised up from our burial, should lead a new life. For if we have become like Christ as to his death, that is, if, as he died /or sin, we have died to sin; we shall be also like him as to his resurrection; that is, as he arose to a new and heavenly life, so shall we lead a new and holy life. This obviously follows from what we know ; namely, that as Christ was crucified, so our inward carnal man has been subjected to a moral crucifixion for the de- struction of our sinful propensities, so that we might no more be in subjection to sin. For a person, who has departed this life, who is dead, is freed from the temptations and sins of the present life. Now if we have died to sin, as Christ died for sin, we believe that as he arose to a new life, we shall also lead a new life ; knowing that Christ, having been raised up from the dead, dieth no more; death hath no longer dominion over him. For in that he died, he died on account of sin once for all, so as to destroy its power; but in that he liveth, he liveth in respect to God, so as to advance hia 8 86 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. glory. In like manner also consider ye yourselves dead in respect to sin, but alive in respect to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord . The design of the apostle in these verses was, to meet an objection which might be raised against the state- ments of the preceding chapter. In that chapter, he had largely shown that the grace of God vastly super- abounds over the sins of men ; and that the abounding of sin had proved an occasion of the superabounding of divine grace. If this be the case, some one might say, may we not still go on to sin, so that God's grace may- still more abundantly be exhibited ? The apostle's reply is very simple. It consists of two parts ; 1. The inter- nal character of Christians forbids such an objection ; they are dead to the injlucnce of sin. 2. Their external profession of Christianity opposes it; by their very bap- tism they have, as being dead to sin, symbolically been bu- ried and raised up again, thus making an acknowledg- ment, that, as Christ was buried and rose again to a heavenly life, so they, as his followers, having by bap- tism been buried and raised again, were bound to lead a new, a spiritual life. It is contended, that the burying, mentioned by the apostle, is not an external one, but an internal, a moral burying; and that this phrase, we are buried, is used only to express more strongly the idea of having become dead. This opinion seems effectually o])posed by the circumstance, that the burying is performed by baptism^ an external rite. The prepot:ition, wliich is here em- ployed in the original, leads us to this view. It is 8iu Tov fi(t7TTl(Tjii(cTo; BY boptism that we are buried, not at our baptism. It is not, that baptism merely furnished a suitable occasion for showing our being wholly dis- inclined to sin, so that, when we j)rofessed Christianity, we might be said to be buried in respect to sin ; but ROMANS, G : 3 , 4 . 87 baptism is here represented as the very thing, the very instrument, or, more proper! v, the very act, by which, or, BY MEANS OF which, >v c were buried. Tlie apostle seems to present two thinj^s, a death and a burial, which are clearly kept distinct ; and the burial is an external thinji^, consisting in tlie fact, that we have been baptized into an acknowledgment of Christ's death. To continue in sin would, then, be inconsistent with our character and our religious profession. It does not seem an ade- quate representation of the apostle's language to say, that having become dead to sin, we have completed this work of moral dying by publicly professing Christianity and promising at baptism to renounce sin ; so that by our consummating the work of dying we may consider ourselves as buried. He seems to say, that besides hav- ing become dead to sin, we have also been buried by baptism into an acknowledgment of Christ's death. This very obvious view is too much disregarded. If the apostle had simply said, we are dead to sin and are buried in respect to it, or we are dead and buried in respect to sin, his language would require a different interpretation. But the apostle himself explains what he means by burying, when he adds, hy baptism, diu rov ^amla/uuTo;. It is with much pleasure I here avail my- self of the language of my respected colleague, Prof Chase, in a note attached to his sermon on the Design of Baptism. " Buried with him by baptism. The language is figu- rative. The word au^erucfijuev means ' we were interred, or covered up in a grave, or laid in a tomb,^ or buried with Christ. How? By baptism, the apostle adds; and this addition modifies the figure, and makes the sense as clear as it is possible for express words to make it. In, or by baptism, then, Paul and the Christians 88 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. whom he addresses were hurled. To be crucified to the world, or dead to sin, is the character of the Christian ; but to be buried with Christ by baptism, is the appoint- ed emblematical profession of that character. The apostle does not teach that believers are crucified with Christ, or are dead with Christ, or possess a mortified temper, hy baptism. To have such a state of soul, to be dead in respect to sin, is one thing ; and to be buried with Christ by baptism^ is quite a difterent thing ; for this is external, whereas the other is internal. The one is a sign ; the otlier, the thing signified. It is only by confounding what the apostle has kept distinct, that there can be any mistake concerning this passage."* But let us examine in detail the arguments by which Prof. Stuart would show, that the burying here men- tioned, has no necessary reference to the immersion of the early Christians. "' It is important to bear in mind, that the burying is performed by baptism, and thus refers to an external act. This thought will remove the obscurity which Scott's commentary throws around this passage. In attempting to show that the words, we art buried icilh him by baptism, do not require immersion as necessary to bap- tism, he says, ' wc are also said to be crucified with Christ, and circumcised with him.' Mr. Scott, I apprehend, has fallen into an error as to the last expression, ' circumcised with him,' that is, Christ. I have searched in vain for this expression in the Scrip- tures. As to the expression, ' we are crucified with Christ,' it is substantially correct. But the verse in the Epistle to the Romans, now under consideration, does not contain the simple expression, ' we are buried with him ;' but, * we are buried with him by baptism/ Now to make the other passage parallel with this it ought to be, not simply, ' crucified with Christ;' but, • put to death with Christ by crucifixion.' A comparison of" these forms of expression clearly shows, that something peculiarly significant was intended by em- ploying the phrase ' buried with him by baptism.' ROMANS, 6:3, 4. 89 Tlie first argument is, ' tliat in the verse before us there is a plain antithesis; one so plain tliat it is impos- sible to overlook it. Tf now uvti ru IIOS i: I,YT P: -B A PTl SM . IOj v^ 'S. Jcifiish Prosrfi/fc-Baptism. It Ikis I)C(M1 customary with Pcdobaptist writers, to (•(iniiect the subject of Jewish pro.selyte-baptism with tlic t^ubject of Christian baptism. It came to be a practice amuiijr the Jews (thout,^h not required by tlie laws of Mo- ses), that when a Gentile fully embraced their religion, besides being circumcised, he immersed hiniself; a cer- emony deemed necessary for complete purification. As the ceremony, here named, was confessedly an im- mersion of the whole person, and might thus be consid- ered as strengthening the argument for immersion as essential to Christian baptism. Prof. Stuart discusses anew, as his third particular inquiry, the long agitated question, whether Jewish proselyte-baptism was prac- tised before the time of John the Baptist, or whether it commenced after his time, ^yhatever may be the fact, as to the time Avhen Jewish proselyte-baptism was in- troduced, that is, whether it was introduced before the time of John the Baptist, or shortly after, its bearing on the question now under discussion is the same. For if it commenced previously to the time of John, it would, as being confessedly immersion, be altogether favorable to the belief that such too was the manner of John and of the apostles. And if it commenced not long after the time of John, and was adopted by the Rabbins in imitation of his baptism, as Dr. Owen and Carpzov be- lieved, and as Prof. Stuart thinks is not improbable,* still it would, as being confessedly immersion, be favora- ble to the same belief It is, then, of no importance so far as the present subject is concerned, in what manner the question, as to the date of Jewish proselyte-baptism, is determined. * P. 354. 106 CHRISTIAN BAPI'ISM. After a protracted discussion Prof. Stuart conclude?, " that we have sufficient evidence of the fact, that such baptism was practised at, or not long after, the time when the second temple loas destroy ed^ * The origin of proselyte-baptism among the Jews is involved in much darkness. Probability on this topic- it may be a high degree of probability — is all we can hope to attain. If historical evidence carries us back as far as the time when the second temple was destroy- ed, A. D. 70, and there fails us, yet the circumstances of the Jesvish nation would render it unlikely, that the rite had been recently adopted. The opinion, " that the Rabbins introduced proselyte-baptism in imitation of the popular baptism of John," t is liable to objection ; the Jews would hardly adopt a distinguishing rite of a teacher, or a sect, towards whom they bore ill will. " The learned controversies respecting Jewish prose- lyte-baptism have been ably examined by the late Dr. E. G. Bengel, Professor and Superintendent of the Theological Seminary at Tubingen ; and it is probable, that the middle course which he has adopted, will com- mend itself, for the most part, to the approbation of the candid and intelligent. He says, ' Only we may sup- pose this as probable, that it [proselyte-baptism] first came into use gradually, when men had generally be- gun to increase the religious ceremonies prescribed in the Mosaic law by many traditional additions ; therefore in the period after the return of the nation from the Babylonish exile ; that accordingly it may be considered so far a Pharisaical addition, as the adding of new observances to what was prescribed in the written law, belongs especially to the character of the Pharisees : * P. 352. t P. 354. JEWISH P R S E L V T E - B A P T I S M . 1 Ot althou^li this addition, perhaps, may luive been intro- duced before a Pliarisean sect had become so formed as to be opposed to other i)arties . ... It was reckoned in the same class with all those other lustrations to ivhich they were accustomed It was not regarded as a principal things nor as an essentially necessary part of proselyte consecration But the entirely changed condition to which the Jews found tliemselves reduced by the over- throw of their state and of their temple,' (A. D. 70) ' led at length, as it seems, to new and finally more fixed de- crees and regulations on this subject.' See his Exam- ination Ueber das Alter der Judischen Proselyten taufe. p. 115."* If this account of Jewish proselyte-baptism, as exist- ing previously to the time of John, be said to favor the opinion that John drew his baptism from an existing practice among the Jews, and thus to oppose the Sa- viour's implication, that the baptism of John was from heaven. Matt. 21 : 24 — 27 ; the answer is easy. John did not practise baptism, as Jewish proselyte-baptism, or as a species of that baptism ; he was understood as administering this rite on very different principles and for very diff'erent purposes from those, to which the Jews had reference. He baptized the Jews themselves, in connection with their professed repentance, and with reference to the Messiah, and was thus forming, from among the Jews, a sort of new religious community. What though as to the mere fact of immersion^ his practice corresponded to what they had previously seen ? There were so many points of difference be- tween his baptism and that with which they had been * Prof. Chase's sermon on the Design of Baptism; Appendix, Note A. 1 08 C II R I S T I A X B A P T i S M . acquainted, that they woulil be in tio danger of reonard- ing it as a continuation, or as a mere modification, of tlieir baptism ; nor would they necessarily regard him as drawing" his idea of baptism from what the Rabbins liad countenanced or enjfjined. His baptism was by a Sj)ccial divine api)ointment, and migiit be so Jiccountcd, lliough in one respect it corresponded to theirs, v, hich could boast no better origin than as being a superstitions appendage to the Mosaic law. It may also be objected, that the existence of proselyte- l)aptism before the time of John is inconsistent with the question, put to him by the messengers whom the Phari- sees sent, as recorded in John 1 ; 25, " Why baptizest thou, then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?"* But, it may be asked in reply, what was more natural, than that w^hen the rulers saw a man of distinguished holiness, thus baptizing Jews, and forming a sort of religious community out of the nation which regarded itself as a holy people, what was more natural, than that they should suspect he was either the Messiah himself, or one specially commissioned as his servant ? They had a right to expect, that when the Messiah should appear, he would institute new laws, and in va- rious ways assert his own authority. What these new- laws would be, and what would be the ways in which he would assert his authority, had not been revealed to them. Here was a man establishing new practices with reference to the Jews themselves, and \ery extensively influencing the people ; a man too, whom they could not but reverence for the sanctity of his life. H7/y nxr- TizEST thou thru, if thou he not the Christ, nor Elias, nor that prophet, would be a very natural inquiry, even though * P. 353. I JEWISH P R O S F: L Y T E - n A P T I S M . 109 proselytc-baj)tisin had been practised, and even though they had never before tliouglit that the Messiah, when he shouhl appear, would baptize his disciples. That they had so definite notions about the Messiah's office, as to think beforehand that he would institute the ordinance of baptism, remains to be shown. That the passages mentioned by Prof. Stuart,* Isa. 12 : 3. 44 : :{. Ezek. 86 : 25. Zech. 13 : 1, as those from which the .Tews might have formed such an opinion, give no just foundation for such an opinion, a bare inspection of them is enough to show. So far then, as probability and tlic earliest notices of baptism in the New Testament are concerned, I see no vahd objection to the supposition that Jewish pvoselyte-baptism was practised before the time of John the Baptist ; only, if it did exist, it must be regarded as an unwarranted, superstitious addition to the Mosaic statutes. I know what use has been made by Pedobaptist wri- ters, of the possible, or probable, or as they have often regarded it, certain fact that proselyte-baptism w^as per- formed among the Jewsbefure the Christian era; name- ly, that it has been used as a starting point in the de- fence of infant baptism. And I know that some Bap- tist writers, as well as some distinguished Pedobaptists, have denied the early practice of proselyte-baptism among the Jews. But neither of these things ought to blind us to the light of evidence or of probability ; and still further, if any Christians choose thus intimately to connect their proof of what they practise as a divine ordinance with the superstitious practices of the Jews, practices, too, the antiquity of which is so much a matter 10 Ho CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. of disputation, on themselves be the responsibility of de- serting the plain, beaten path of Holy Scripture. § 4. "J/or/e of Baptism in (he carhj Chrisfimi ClmrchesJ'^ "We come now to inquire, What was the mode of Bap- tism practised hy the chiirchrs in the early ages of Chris- tianity^ and AFTER the times of the Apostles.'^ That it was imijiersion, Prof. 8tuart renders clear by a sutficieiit number of extracts from early v. riters. These extracts are made from the Pastor of Hermasr one of ihe earliest uninspired remains after the times of the apostles, from Justin Martyr, who flourished in thr second century, Tertulhan who died A. D. 220, Chry- sostom, Ambrose, Augnstine, Dionysius Areopagita, Gregorj^ Nyssen, Damascenus, and several other?^. After exhibiting these testimonies, he thus proceeds ; " But enough. ^ It is,' says August! (Denkv/. VII. p> 216), * a tliing made out,' viz. the ancient practice of immersion. So indeed all the writers wiio have thor- oughly investigated this subject, conclude. I know of no one usage of ancient times, v/hich seems to be more clearly and certainly made out. I cannot see how it i* possible for any candid man who examines the subject, to deny this."* There is also presented another extract from the same work of Augusti, in which is stated the result to which F. Brenner, a Roman Catholic writer, came in view of historical Aicts ; namely, "Thirteen hundred years v. a.* baptism generally and ordinarily performed by the im- mersion of a man under water ; and only in extraordi- nary cases, was sprinkling or affusion permitted. These I * P. 359. HISTORIC V I. \- I K W . Ill latter nietlKuls of baptism were called in (jiieilioii, ami <'veii prohibited.'"* Ai^aiii ; " III the work of John I'loyor on Cold Ijatliinji. p. 50, it is ineiitionod, tbat the English church practised immrrsion down to the beginning of the seventeenth cen- tury ; when a change to the method of sprinkling grad- ually took place. As a confirmation of this, it may be mentioned, that the first Liturgy in 1547 enjoins a ti'ine immersion, in case the child is not sickly : Augnsti, ut i?upra, p. 229.'-^ The oriental church, too, that is, the Greek church, It is mentioned, has always continued to preserve im- mersion <' even down to the present time."t That such was the practice in the early churches. Prof. Stuart considers as decided also by the fact, that during a certain period, persons in order to be baptized were divested of all their garments and were baptized in a state of complete nakedness ; | a practice, not to be traced, of course, to the New Testament, and not men- tioned by the earliest writers, but originating, with many other perversions and corruptions, in ignorance, or su- perstition, or some strange waywardness which would not be content with an adherence to the simple guidance of God's word. To this same prolific source, doubtless, nnist trinr immersion be traced; that is, the immersing of the candidate three times. From this general practice, " there were cases of ex- ception allowed, now and then." " Persons in extreme sickness or danger were allowed baptism by afiusion ;"<5> for at a very early period, baptism came to be regarded as essential to salvation, so that it was considered un- safe to go into eternity without it. " ]>ut all such cases » P. 3G1. t P. 360. X P. 359. § P, 350 112 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. were manifestly regarded as exceptions to the common usage of the church."* There is a remark made by Prof. Stuart in this con- nection, which requires a slight notice. Augustine is quoted as saying, "After you professed your belief, three times did we submerge (demersimus) your heads in the sacred fountain." It is then added, " Was it the head only? Or did he mean to include with it the whole body? Every now and then passages of this na- ture occur, which lead one to suspect that total immer- sion was not uniform in the early church." f That Au- gustine did not mean the head only, but included with it the whole body, few, I presume, can feel themselves entitled to doubt. Should there be any doubt, it would entirely depart after reading, on the same page on which Augustine is quoted, an extract from Chrysostom : " We, as in a sepulchre, immersing [yMTudvdpuoy^ our heads in water, the old man is buried, and sinking dozen (^xuTudi); y.uTO)), the lohole is concealed at once ; then as we emerge, the new man again rises." " In what manner, then," Prof. Stuart asks, " did the churches of Christ from a very early period, to say the least, understand the word SaTtTl^o) [baptizo], in the New Testament ? Plainly, they construed it as meaning im- mcrsion. They sometimes even went so far as to forbid any other method of administering the ordinance, cased of necessity and mercy only excepted." | "We are left in no doul^t," he continues, " as to the more gene- rally received usage of the Christian Church, down to a period several centuries after the apostolic age."| And, "that the Greek fathers, and the Latin ones who were familiar with the Greek [language], understood the usual * P. 359. t F 35«. J P. 3G2. I SYRIAC VERSION'. 113 import of the word (^anTlioi, would hardly seem to be capable of a denial."* This topic closes by mentioning the manner in which tiie ancient Syriac version of the New Testament, called the Peshito, translates the word ^utxtI'Qok The Peshito is the oldest, and is " one of the most faithful and authen- tic of all the ancient versions " of the New Testament. In this version, Su7tT(';o) is translated by a word which, in the opinion of Prof. Stuart, appears to express the idea, to stand, to confirm, to establish ; while yet the Syriac lann^uage has a word which signifies to plunge, to immerse. The conclusion which he thinks almost inevitable from this is, that the Syriac " translator did not deem it im- portant to designate any particular" manner of the bap- tismal rite ; but that " baptism, in the language of the Peshito, is simply the rite of confirmation, while the man- ner of this is apparently left without being at all ex- pressed." t In regard to this usage of the Syriac translation, I have two remarks to make, which may, at least, show, that we are not authorized to draw from it an opinion unfavorable to the conclusion, which the original lan- guage of the New Testament leads us to adopt. 1. In all languages, there are anomalies in the meanings of some words, of which no satisfactory account can be given. 2. This same Syriac word is employed in pas- sages, in which, beyond all doubt, the idea of over- whelming is expressed ; namely, Luke 12 : 50. Mark 10 : 38, 39. It may be a satisfaction to the reader, if I add the remark which Michaelis, in his edition of Castel's Syriac Lexicon, has made respecting this word. After ascrib- ' P. 3G2. t P. 363 10* 114 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. ing to it the raeaniiig, ablutus est, baptizatus est, he di- rects the reader to the following note : " In this signifi- cation of baptizing, not a few compare [the word] with the Hebrew I'^V he stood; so that, to stand maybe to stand in the river, and in it to he immersed. To me," he proceeds, " it seems more probable, that it is plainly different fr. m id;', and that by some change of letters it originated from" [an Arabic word which may be expres- sed by the following Hebrew letters, ri"2>', and which sig- nifies] " ^a submerge, to immerse.* ^ 5. " Importance of the 3Iade of BajjtismJ'^ So far as philology and history are concerned, thin discussion might probably be here terminated. I truit it is now plain, that no unexceptionable reason has been adduced for departing from the appropriate meaning of §a7XTi'c,M [baptizo], when it is used in reference to the Christian ordinance. But however plain this matter may be, when viewed simply in the light of phih.logy and of history, are Christians now bonnd to preserve the origivMl rite ? To this point Prof. Stuart next leads us, as " our main question." The question is thus stated, " Is any particular mode of applying water in Baptism, essential to the performance of this rite ? " t * In hac baptizandi significatione confcrunt haud pauci cum Hc- braico T0J» strlit, ita lit, stare sit stare in Jlvminc, illogue mergi Mihi verisimiliiis, divcrsum plane ab TOr, litcraruinque aliqua permutatione ortum ex i X _ ^ C" fn :D T 1 suhmerslace of that which has been instituted. It may, also, be far more important than at first appears, to ad- here strictly to the performance of the act which the in- stitutor of the rite established. Errors in religion fre- q«i!ently enter by slow and imperceptible degrees ; and wrong views and wrong practices concerning the ordi- nances of the gospel, have been not the least fruitful sources of delusion and destruction. The history of baptism afibrds abundant evidence of this, and reads us a very impressive lesson on the danger of departing from the path which our Lord has marked out. Plad there been a strict and a simple adherence to what the Lord appointed, we never should have heard of unction as an appendage to baptism ; or of trine immersion ; or of its being required, that persons, when complying with this rite, should be divested of their apparel ; to say nothing of the fatal delusion, which arose from the sup- posed saving eflicacy of baptism. •2. In regard to the second reason; nanulv, "no in- * ?p. 3G4, 305. 378. ADHERENCE TO THE PRIMITIVK RITE. 117 junction is any wlierc given in the New Testament, re- apecting; the manner in wliich this rite shall he perform- ed ;" there is no need of such an injunction as is hero contemplated. For, (to use language which Prof. Stu- art represents another as emph)ying), " the manner of tlie rite is involved in the word itself which is used to designate it."* Prof. Stuart endeavors to destroy the force of this reply, by saying that it would prove too much. TJiis he attempts to ilhistrate by what he calls a case "of a par- allel nature .... the Lord's Supper. The original in- stitution of this rite took place at the last passover which Jesus and his disciples celebrated in Jerusalem. Ther were assembled in an upper room ; Luke 22 : 12. They reclined upon the usual sofa or triclinium, on which the ancients reposed at their meals ; John 13 : 23, 25. It was night when they kept the feast, John 13 : 30. They kept it with unleavened bread, for no other was found in the houses of the Jews, at the feast of the passover, Ex. 12 : 19. The wine which they drank was that of Palestine, probably red wine. It was kept in leathern bottles, it was served in peculiar vessels. The bread was made in a certain particular fashion. The clothes of the guests were of a certain form. In a word, all the circumstances of the occasion were, in some respect or other, dilTerent from those which now accompany the administration of the Lord's Supper, Yet Jesus gave command respecting this ordinance in the following manner : Tins do, in remembrance of me; Luke 22 : 19, 20. 1 Cor. 1 1 : 24, 25." " I ask now," continues Prof. Stuart, " all the advo- cates for the literal sense of Su-ttCco), who urge upon th^ ♦ P. 305. 118 ClIllISTIAN BAPTISM. churches tlie original mode of this rite [baptism], why they do not urge upon them in the same manner and for the same reason, the literal doing of what Christ com- manded as to the sacrament ?"* However convincing this may appear to some, I ap- prehend there is some looseness in the reasoning. This representation does not furnish a parallel case. Seve- ral circumstances are here mentioned which attended the institution of the Lord's Supper. But the ques- tion about baptism has no respect to the circumstances attending it. It has respect to the thing itself. Now Jesus gave no precepts about the circumstances of bap- tism ; and he gave none about the circumstances of the Lord's Supper. He commanded to baptize ; this com- mand ought to be obeyed. He commanded to partake of bread and wine in remembrance of him ; this com- nmnd ought to be obeyed. Let any one examine Luke t2'2 : 19, 20, and ask, what did the Lord mean when he said, This do? Every mind at once replies, that he jjaid nothing, and that he meant nothing, about preserve mg wine in leathern bottles, about reclining on a triclini- um, &c. He enjoined upon his disciples, to eat bread and to drink wine in remembrance of him. But should any persons do something else with the bread and wine, than to eat and drink, or should they employ other sub- >tances, or should they employ these, yet not in rcniem- brance of Christ, there would be a departure from his command. So in regard to baptism. The Lord has commanded to baptize ; but he has given no command about the circumstances of time, and place, and dress, and pos- ture, and accompanying prayers and praises. These arc * Pp. 365, 366. .VI) li K IIKNC K TO THK P II I M 1 T I V K UITK. 110 circiniKStaiices uhich affect not the command itself. The two case?, then, as j>resented by Prof. Stuart, are by no means parallel : one regards the thing itself; the other, solely the circumstances of the thinf^. A parallel case would he, a departure from the thin*; comnirindcd in each ordinance. AViiat is the thinj^ com- manded in each ? We are recpiired to be baptized ; and we are required to partake of bread and of wine. Now if a person declines to be baptized, and contents him- self with some uiicommanded ceremony that had been performed upon him in infancy or at any age, and that does not answer to the design of baptism, can he com- pare his failure to the conduct of a person who doe?* partake of bread and wine out of regard to the Lord'j* authority ? What though he does partake of these em- blems in circumstances widely different from those, in which the ordinance was at first establisiied and com- manded ? The Lord gave not even a shadow of a com- mand respecting these circumstances; and these cir- cumstances comnmnicate no part of the moral instruc- tion to be conveyed. It is not right, then, to represent a Baptist as saying in regard to the Lord's Supper, " I obey the substantial part of the command, viz. to partake of bread and wine in grateful remembrance of Christ ; and this is all which the nature of the case seems to require." * This is not only the substantial part of the command ; it is so far as the language can be understood, the command itself, the whole of the command. And to represent these ac- companying circumstances as at all entering into tire Saviour's original command, and to represent as parallel the ACTION, whatever it be, expressed by the word bap- * P. 3()G. J 90 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. tize, and the circumstances in which another action was commanded, really pours no light on the matter under discussion. These circumstances in regard to the Lord's Supper, are properly parallel to circumstances in regard to baptism ; namely, its being administered in the day, or in the night ; in the Jordan, or in any other river ; in a pond or a baptistery; and a baptistery either under cover, or in tlie open air ; its being administered to persons kneel- ing, or standing ; the candidate's being placed under the water with his head bowing forwards, or in an op- posite direction. These circumstances afl'ect not the rite itself; nor do the mere circumstances which accompany the Lord's Supper affect that rite. Let it he proved that immersion is only a circumstance of baptism, and the reasoning which I have now exposed would hold good ; but let it not be taken for granted, that immersion is a mere cir- cumstance of the command to baptize. A cliange of the elements appointed for the Lord's Supper is mentioned above, as a departure from the Saviour's command. The intimation, made by Prof. Stuart, that a truly spiritual mind would judge different- ly,* and would not be strenuous in regard to external observances, needs to be carefully considered before it is acted on. If this be so, what may not a spiritual mind do in regard to religious observances? and what may it not neglect ? and what alterations may it not in- troduce 1 The religion which our omniscient Creator has established, is adapted for just such beings as men nre ; beings, capable of deriving great ])rolit from a few simple symbols, and needing such symbols as, in their P. 307 I ADHERENCE TO THE PRIMITIVE RITE. ]J1 very natiiie, are suited to convey the instruction wliicli the Saviour intended. lie knew wliat particular rites arc most appropriate ; and the ministers of reli- gion best show their regard for the authority of the Head of the church, and for the moral welfare of men, if not their spirituality, by a careful compliance with what di- vine authority has established. If providential circum- stances render it impracticable for a person to attend upon certain religious observances, his obligation to at- tend upon them ceases for the time being ; nor is he called upon, under the show of obedience, to substitute some- thing else in their place. The Lord chooses mercy, and not sacrifice. And, in my apprehension, he shows a more truly spiritual mind, who feels himself exempted from obligation, because divine providence has put insu- perable obstacles in his way ; than he who feels that, though he cannot strictly obey the command, he yet must do something, and therefore substitutes an unre- quired service, a mere ' bodily exercise' which certainly • profiteth but little.' In the latter case, there seems to bo at least a remnant of servile, self-righteous attach- ment to outward performances. But if something be thus substituted, let it be called by its right name, a sub- stitute for what has been appointed ; and let not a per- son, because he may possess a spiritual mind, feel him- self at liberty to establish what the Lord has not requir- ed, or to alter, at his own will, what the Lord has re- quired. The history of religious ordinances, and of re- ligion, as affected by those ordinances, is of so sombre a character that we ought carefully to guard against departures from divine appointment, even though a spir- itual mind might suggest the departures. In regard to the particular case supposed by Prof. Stuart, and mentioned by him as one about the propriety 11 122 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. of which no doubt ought to be feh, namely, the Iceland- ers', during a year of great distress, employing fish and water,* instead of bread and wine, in a professed cele- bration of the Lord's Supper, I doubt not that I express the spontaneous feeling of many truly spiritual Chris- tians, by saying, the mind instinctively, as it were, turns away from such a representation. There ought to be no surprise, if such a celebration should be regarded in almost any other light, than in that of a profitable re- ligious ordinance. At best it could be called only a substitute. Besides, what may be expedient in a case of uncommon exigency, furnishes no rule for guidance in ordinary circumstances. The Lord, too, may accept the sincere desires and the pious emotions which may accompany erroneous practices, while yet he may re- gard the practices, as they really are, erroneous, and in many instances leading, sooner or later, to dangerous results. But why so strict ? Because the ordinances of the gospel are full of meaning ; and acts, diftering from those primitive ordinances, do not convey all the in- tended meaning. In respect to baptism, moral pu- rification is indeed a part of the meaning which it was intended to express; the proof of this is, in my judgment, and as is well shown by Prof. Stuart, abun- dant in the word of God. 1 see not how any, as Prof. Stuart intimates that some do,t can believe baptism to be " merely a type or emblem of the death of Christ ;" or the " two rites under the new dispensation " to be " both significant of only one and the same thing." In- deed, I never knew any who thus taug])t respecting the ordinance of baptism. * P. 3G7. t P. 370. ADHERENCE TO THE PRIMITIVE RITE. 123 It is most readily granted, that if purification be the only thing represented by baptism, then there is by no means so much need of opposing a departure from im- mersion. But something else is also intended to be represented, which renders immersion necessary ; and as the purification represented in baptism, is purification obtained through the death and resurrection of Christ, it is surely not surprising that the apostle should teach, that in baptism there is a recognition of this deatb and resurrection, and of our obligation to die unto sin, as Christ died for sin ; and to rise to a new and holy life, as Christ arose to a new and glorious life. Conceding, then, that sprinkling, or pouring, or wash- ing may have a significancy, it does not follow that it has all the significancy, which the baptismal rite was in- tended to possess. Let the rite be so performed, as to convey all the moral instruction which it was intended to convey. The rite has no " mystical power of itself to sanctify ; — it is a symbolical rite, significant of truth, i. e. of doctrine, or fact."* None of its significancy ought to be lost ; but in all its fullness, and all its appro- priateness, it ought to be observed, and made a source of salutary and heart-affecting instruction to its recipients. Immersion may indeed be practised without its real meaning's being always perceived and felt ; and without the life and power of religion, either in its administrators or in its subjects. But what then ? Does this argue, that a regard to immersion is either injurious, or even useless, to piety? Of what religious observance, and of the belief of what religious doctrine, may not as much be said 1 Does the case of the Oriental church, men- tioned by Prof Stuart as "the most vicious and ignorant * P. 376. 124 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. of all who bear the name of Christians" — " twice dead and" deserving " to be plucked up by the roots," * doef? the case of this church, which is zealously attached to immersion, prove the uselessness of adhering to the primitive rite? The causes of moral death in the Oriental church, that is among the modern Greeks, can be found elsewhere tlian in this matter. And who can doubt that that portion of Christendom would now have been in a far different state, if the ordinances, as Christ appointed them, had been strictly observed, and if no human additions and modifications had been appen- ded to the simplicity that is in Christ ? On the ground exhibited above, I acknowledge 1 do not feel at liberty to substitute any human device for what the Head of the church has established. But while, on this ground, I feel myself thus restricted, I do not regard it as a just consequence, that I am " not at liberty, without being justly exposed to the accusation of gross departure from Christianity, to depart from the modes and/brws of the apostolic church in any respect." Nor do I see the propriety of the following questions proposed by Prof. Stuart ; " I ask those who plead for literal conformity in mode to the ancient rite of baptism, how they dispose of the ordinance respecting the disci- ples' washing each other's feet, described at large in John, c. XII. and particularly enjoined in vs. 14, 15? Who has repealed the obligation to a literal conformity with this command ? You will say, It is the spirit, rather than the letter, which is here inculcated. I ac- cede. But what is the case in respect to baptism ? Will nothing but the letter do here 1 So you may think and reason ; but are you not entirely inconsistent with yourself?"* ADHERENCE TO THE PRIMITIVE RITE. 125 No; I reply. If our Lord did indeed enjoin this as an ordinance of his religion, to be perpetually observed, we ought not to neglect it. But did he enjoin this act as a standing observance of religion ; an ordinance, as really as that of baptism and that of the Lord's Supper? Or was this act of tiie Saviour solely and altogether in- tended to show the disciples the spirit which they should cherish, and to enjoin upon them a certain class of so" cial and relative duties, without enjoining any one ex- ternal act at all ? Does not the subsequent history of the apostles show this ? We violate no ordinance of our Lord, by not washing one another's feet ; we disobey no precept of his, by not washing one another's feet, provided we cherish the humility and the benevolence which he thus impressively inculcated. Not so in the injunction respecting baptism. There was an external act enjoined, a certain religious observance. And though a person should mortify his sinful propensities and pre- serve in his breast a remembrance of his cruci6ed and risen Lord, but yet comply not with the enjoined ob- servance of baptism and of the Lord's Supper, he would be living in disobedience to his Master. The two cases. then, are not parallel. Just so with the instructions by Paul to the Corin- thians respecting dress and hair,t produced by Prof Stuart as illustrating our liberty to depart from the apostolic practice of immersion ; and just so, it may be added, with the instructions to them respecting living in an unmarried state. If it can be shown, that these in- structions were not, most manifestly, intended as local and temporary, but were evidently intended to point out duties universally binding, we should be under obli- -P. :372. f r. 072 11^ 126 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. gations to comply with them. If the apostle's instruc- tions were urged upon these followers of the Saviour, as being the Saviow^s followers, and consequently applica- ble at all times, and in all places, then all the followers of Christ, as such, ought to obey them. But if they were addressed to Corinthian followers of Christ, as being inhabitants of CorirUh, at such a time, and in such and such circumstances, then they plainly, as precepts, make no claim upon our observance. But can baptism be spoken of in this manner — baptism, a public religious ordinance of universal and perpetual obligation? Can any one feel the same liberty in regard to baptism, that he may justly feel in regard to the apostle's instructions to the Corinthians on topics of local and temporary in- terest ? The cases are not parallel. It is asked, " Why should baptism be made symboli- cal of the death of Christ 1 All Jewish analogy is against it :"* inasmuch as all the ablutions of the ritual law were designed to signify purif cation. Tliis remark might be of force against one who should deny that purification is signified by baptism. But while pu- rification, confessedly, is signified, Jewish analogy is of no weight at all against the additional Christian significancy which is derived from the manner of em- ploying the purifying element ; namely, a burial in it. and an arising out of it, signifying our conformity to Christ in death to sin and rising to a new life. Jewish analogy touches not at all this additional significancy, nor are we at liberty to reject this additional significancy as being in our opinion needless, unless we can satisfac- torily show, that the apostle did not thus represent bap- tism. It is on his teaching, that the manner of the bap- tismal rite is regarded as significant. I ADHERENCE TO THE PRIMITIVE R I T f: . 1 '27 Tliat some churches began, at an early period, to de- part from apostolic usage, is indeed matter of history. The language of Cyprian (A. D. 240) quoted by Prof. Stuart is sufficient evidence of this; as arc the proofs produced by him from subsequent ages.* This depart- ure, however, may be traced to principles quite different from those which are now pleaded as justifying it. At a very early period, superstitious notions were cherished respecting the efficacy of baptism ; and as it was con- ceived to hold an indispensable connection with salva- tion, it was of course deemed desirable that its benefit? should be extensively enjoyed, and that none should pass into eternity without its salutary influence. Hence, for persons on sick beds, who had not been baptized, the semblance of baptism at least was sought, through the belief that, though there was some deficiency in the per- formance, yet, in the circumstances of the persons, the saving benefit of the ordinance would not be withheld. It was not then, in general, sjjtrifuaUf)/, it was not correct views of the gospel, that led to the change in the per- formance. It was superstition in regard to the ordi- nance. And as we know how grossly incorrect were the views of the churches respecting the value of exter- nal rites, it is not at all surprising, that during the dark ages and at an earlier period, there are many proofs of departure from the primitive practice. These instances of departure, however, are exceptions to the general practice ; exceptions, which owe their origin to super- stitious notions concerning the efficacy of baptism, and to a regard for convenience, and which therefore arc but poorly adapted to be ])recedents for our guidance P. 373—375. 128 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 3. As to the third allegation, that " personal safety and convenience often demand that immersion should be dispensed with ;" it probably needs only a slight notice. The difficulties supposed to be connected with the ancient rite are only imaginary ; and are of little power except in the hands of an adversary, to excite dread and disesteem against the ordinance. Among those who always practise immersion, the mention of such difficulties only provokes a smile ; and it serves to show how empty is mere theory, when contrasted with facts. Shall I be told that men have actually, by their prac- tice of immersion, contracted disorders and met with accidents which have terminated in death ? May I not also ask, did never a minister die in the pulpit ? Did never a man come to his dissolution, when on an errand of mercy ? We have no right to expect that God will work miracles to prevent the natural effects of presumption or of imprudence, even though committed in respect to the cause of Christ. But why enlarge on so plain a case ? Whatever bap- tism be (and I extend the remark to all outward reli- gious observances), when divine providence renders tiic administration of the ordinance impracticable, a truly spiritual mind will experience no distressing apprehen- sions of the displeasure of God for not observing the ordinance. " God is a spirit," and requires the heart; and when access to water is " dangerous or impos- sible," such a mind will conclude, that i)ersons need not, for the present, be baptized. For, as Prof. Stuart says, "no external ordinance is obligatory when it be- comes dangerous to health or life.''* IJaptism has no • r. 380. D I F F I C U L T 1 F: S OF IMMERSION. 129 inherent " power of itself to sanctify." " It was not in- stituted to injure, destroy, or even hazard life."* But while a person, possessing a truly spiritual mind, will thus conclude, he will not feel it necessary to substitute something in the place of what has been commanded, as though some external observances must, at all events, be performed. True spirituality will rest in the conclusion, that if there he a milling mind, it is accepted according to what a man hath; and that he does well, that it is in his heart to render obedience. Yet let circumstances change, let obstacles be removed, and let there be an opportunity for complying with an enjoined external duty, and even his spirituality would prompt him to embrace the opportunity ; and should he not embrace the opportunity, his spirituality could not long be en- joyed, and conscience would loudly accuse him of dis- obedience. The intimation that the use of baptisteries, as a method of surmounting, or avoiding, great inconveniences, is inconsistent with literal obedience to the command re- specting baptism, is quite unfounded. Jesus has en- joined baptism upon believers ; but he has given no injunction about the place, and other circumstances. The religious immersion of a believer in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is baptism, whether administered in a river, or a lake, formed by the Creator; or in a canal, or a body of water, which owes its present form and location to hu- man contrivance. And what matters it, as to the fact of baptism, and as to the moral instruction conveyed by it, whether this body of water be in the open air, or be under a roof ? There is no departure from the original * F. 3c0. 130 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. command ; there is no want of literal conformity to the original command ; for the original command touches none of these circumstances. Nor, on this same ground, is it warrantable to throw out the intimation, that consistency would require of the advocates of immersion, that persons about to be baptized should be ^^ naked as Adam and Eve before their falV* (I use here the very words of Prof. Stuart ; and I scarcely know how to express my sorrow, that he should urge a thought which is so needless, and so un- called for, and which is certainly more fitted, though, I fully believe, not intended, for exciting disesteem against his fellow Christians, than for sober argumentation.) Does this circumstance enter at all into the command ? Is this circumstance at all required by any scriptural statements concerning the significancy of baptism ? By no means. Prof. Stuart, though he urges this topic, merely says, " if you take your stand on the ancient prac- tice of the churches in the days of the early Christian fathers .... I have the like charge [i. e. charge of " a griev- ous departure from the command of Christ"] " to make against you."t But who ever charged any Christians with " departure from the command of Christ," on the ground that they were not conforming to " the ancient practice of the churches in the days of the early Chris- tian fathers ?" Besides, who are they that take their " stand on the ancient practice of the churches in the days of the early Christian fathers ?" Surely not those who refuse to sprinkling the name of baptism. They ask not, as a princij)al question. What did the early fathers teach ? What did the early fathers practise ? but. What saith the Scripture ? * P. 361. 1 P. 381. DIFFICULTIES OF IMMERSION. 131 Nor is there just ground for tlie remark by Prof. Stuart that " there is the same kind of evidence," that the primitive mode of baptism requires persons to be di- vested of all their garments, as proves to us "that im- mersion was the only apostolic mode of baptism : viz. the universal usage of the ancient churches."* Suppose for a moment, that all the records of the ancient church- es had been lost, and that in order to ascertain what baptism is, we were restricted to the New Testament, and to the still earlier sources of evidence respecting the meaning of words "^ Or suppose, (what is perpetually happening among newlj converted disciples of Jesus, in their conscientious desires to know what the Lord has enjoined upon his followers,) suppose we should confine ourselves, in the investigation of our duty respecting baptism, to the word of God. Need we, in such circum- stances be in doubt as to what we ought to do ? In the word of God, we have sufficient evidence, that immer- sion was the apostolic baptism ; while there is no satis- factory evidence, that any thing else was practised as baptism, and no satisfactory evidence that the word 3u7iTi;o) [baptize] ever loses sight of its meaning, to im- merse. Can such a remark be made respecting being divested of garments at baptism ? Can being divested oj garments be sustained by " the same kind of evidence," as the duty of immersion can ? If indeed it were " the universal usage of the ancient churches," by which the duty of immersion is proved, and if 07i that ground any persons practised it, they might perhaps be incumbered in their reasoning by the unworthy practice above refer- red to, and by many other practices attached by human device to the simple injunctions of Christ. But it can- V. 382 132 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. not be shown that such was "the universal usage of the" most " ancient churches ;" it was rather an innovation upon the most ancient practice. No intimation exists in the New Testament of such a practice, nor in the earliest Christian fathers. It is not, howev^er, the advocates of immersion^ on vv^hom such consequences, drawn from acting on such a ground, ought to be fastened. It ought to be more gen- erally known, and it ought to be most seriously and sol- emnly considered, that it is the advocates of infant sprinkling, who have exposed themselves to the more just charge of being incumbered with such consequen- ces. That practice, which they defend as a Christian ordinance, is a ceremony which has not a proper war- rant in the Bible, which is not defensible by just Scrip- tural argument; and the proof for which must be made out " in another way'''' than by the directions, and exam- ples, and plain intimations of Scripture. And wheth- er such a method of determining Christian duty be not incumbered with the consequence, that " there is the same kind of evidence" for certain other unscriptural ceremonies as there is for the sprinkling of infants, let consistency testify, let the defences of Roman Catholic errors testify. It is true, that in discussions respecting baptism, use is made of the fact, that tlie most ancient churches after the times of tlie apostles practised immersion ; but it is rather in the light of confirmation, than of direct proof, of our present duty. The practice of those ancient Christians in this respect, coincided with what, from other sources, we learn to be tlie meaning of the word which expresses the ordinance, and the practice of the apostles ; nor can their practice be well accounted for in any other way, than by their perceiving the real VARIATION FROM CLASSIC USE. 133 meaning of the word ;^ done in the days of Joliii the Baptist. A reader, not thinkin<^ of tlie controversy respectinji^ tlie verse, could hardly fail to understand it, as the languajre of Lidte the historian, relating that, after Paul iiad conversed with these men, 'they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus ;' and that he then laid his hands on them, with which action was connected the iinj)arting of the Holy Ghost. Prof. Stuart's reason, however, for the rebaptizing in this case, is not required either by the passage itself, or by the general tenor of the New Testament ; namely, because they had been baptized only into an initiatory or preparatory dispensation.* As to 'the rebaptizing in this case, I feel no difficulty. It was doubtless a special case. Baptism was required for them by Paul, not be- cause they had been baptized only unto John's baptism ; but, so far as we can judge from the account, because Paul perceived there had been a radical defect in the instruction they had received previously to being baptiz- ed. They had not so much as heard whether there was any Holy Ghost; and from the sketch of Paul's conver- sation with them respecting John's baptism, it is alto- gether probable that they had not, in connection with being baptized, been directed to the great object of evangelic faith. It is not said, they had been baptized by John ; nor is it probable that they did receive baptism from him; for, from the scriptural account of John's proceedings, it is manifest, he was in the habit of com- municating instruction respecting the Holy Ghost, and of informing '* the people that they should believe on Him which should come after hiin."t Their baptism, then, was an altogether ignorant and irregular transac- * P. 388. t Acts 19: 4. 13 146 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. tion ; it was, in truth, a miliity. And on this ground, doubtless, the apostle required them, having since be- come Christians, and having now been properly instruct- ed, to be ' baptized in tiie name of the Lord Jesus.' A similar view of this passage I find expressed by Kiia|)p, in his lectures on Christian Theology. He says, "The practice of the first Christian Cliurch confirms the point, tiiat the baptism of John was considered es- sentially the same with Christian Baptism. For those who acknowledged that they had professed, by the bap- tism of John, to believe in Jesus as the Christ, and who in consequence of this had become in fact his disciples and had believed in him, were not, in a single instance, baptized again into Christ ; because this was considered as having been already done. Hence we do not find, that any apostle, or any other disciple of Jesus, was the second time baptized ; not even that Apollos mentioned in Acts IS: 25, because he had before believed in Jesus as Christ, although lie had received only the baptism of John. "But all those disciples of John, who Iiad not before acknowledged this truth, and had received the baptism of John or his successors in an entirely difierent signi- fication, were propcily considered at the time of the Apostles as not being baptized, or as wrongly baptized ; and all such were therefore required to be baj)tized ex- pressly into Christ as the Messiah This was the case with those |)ersons whom Paul (ActsJO: 1 — 5.) permitted to be b;ii)tized at Ephesus, although tliry had already received the baptism of John, There is in this place, nothing that needs to be artificially explained. The meaning is ; ' That when tliey heard from l*a»d that it was e.-sential to baptism, that one should helieve in Jesus as the Lord and Christ (which they hitherto had A N O N Y M O I" S L E T T E R . 117 not done, since the disciples of John, who bnptized them, had said nothinj^ to them about it); they were then willing to suffer themselves to be solemnly obli- gated by baptism to the acknowledgment of Jesus.* This was the more necessary at that time, as many of the disciples of Joiin had entirely separated themselves from the Christians."* The Letter from "An Invisible Hand." — Restricted Communion. To a mere mention of my regret that the missionary brethren in Burinah should have thoufjlit it incnnibent on them, or even expedient, to inquire of Prof. Stuart, whether they should '■''transfer x\\e Greek word ^umiCo) into the Burman language, when it relates to the ordi- nance of baptism; or translate it by a word significant of immersion, or by a word of some other import, "f (which inquiry, he states, contributed its influence in calling forth his article,) I will add an expression of my regret, that any one slioujd have tliouglit it important or judicious to trouble him with such communications as the one written by "An Invisible Hand," and inserted, in a note, at the commencement of the article. Espe- cially do I regret, that tlie thought of more distinguished happiness in heaven to be enjoyed by those who are im- mersed, provided all other things are equal, was per- mitted to hold so prominent a place in the letter; for this is a subject of somewhat invidious bearing, and one, about which we may very easily incur the charge of at- tempting to be wise above what is written. This is a motive, too, which in the present world we are poorly able to appreciate. Without atten)ptiiig to balance be- * Vol. II. P. 515. t P. 288. 148 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. tween higher degrees and lower degrees of glory, larger measures and smaller measures of happiness, it ought to be our simple and undeviating aim to cultivate piety of heart, devotion to our Redeemer, and in true simplicity and godly sincerity to inquire, 'Lord, what wilt thou have me to do V With this habitual cherishing of inward piety, and this unmixed prosecution of external duty as our Lord has enjoined it in his word, we ought to consecrate ourselves, and patiently to commit ourselves, to Him who judgeth righteously, without a question respecting our own reward, or that of our brethren. After all, we .^hall, every one of us, have too much rea- son to say, ' We are unprofitable servants.' The best of men, and the best of Christian communities, even in their best estate, fall too far short of their duty, to allow the language of gratulation. The Lord forgive his peo- ple for being so unworthy servants. The Lord pour forth his Spirit more abundantly uj)on the churches, which p:ofess so much regard for his commands and his example. But while I speak thus, I must also say that Prof. Stuart's reply to his anonymous correspondent, is not adecjua'e and satisfactory. For, even granting that ex- ternal rites "are valuable only for the in.^truction which they convey,"* it ch-arly follows that we ought not to dimini.art from that partictilar outward act; and a solicitude about adhering to that act, does, on this grount!, no ujore involve a belief of mystical * r. :w6. ANONYMOUS LETTER. 149 power in the outward observance, tlian does a solicitude for maintaining any external appointment which divine authority has established, and which was intended to convey some definite religious instruction, and to make a certain religious impression. A person therefore, while contending for immersion, as baptism, in distinc- tion from all other practices, may be just as free from any Pharisaic notion of merit, or of mystical power in this observance as is any other man wlio teaches that the ancient rite need not be retained, but who, at the same time, does not feel at liberty to teach that what he calls the rite of baptism may be dispensed with. There is just as much leaven of Pharisaic righteousness in the latter case as in tlie former. Nor would consistency require the anonymous writer to go to the Jordan to be baptized ;* for the place is a mere uncommanded circumstance. A particular act has been instituted; no particular body of water has been appointed, in which that act is to be performed. The instance selected from 2 Chron. 30 : 18 — 20 t, to show that we ought not to be strenuous about external rites, is not happily chosen. For the course pursued on the occasion there mentioned, was most remarkably fitted to show the people that the requisitions of the Levitical law were not to be lightly esteemed. It was thought necessary to offer special prayer, that the devi- ation from the prescribed method of observing the Passover should be pardoned. The people " who had not cleansed themselves, yet who did eat the passover otherwise than it was written;" and for whom " Heze- kiah prayed, saying, The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God, the Lord God of his fathers, though he be not cleansed according to the * P. 3d0. t P. 389. 13* 150 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. purification of the sanctuary," the people, I say, who were personally interested in this affair, and all the Jews, could not, after this transaction, but have a very deep impression concerning the sanctity of the law. And if from this occurrence we are to draw instruction respecting communion in the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, 1 fear the lesson which it would teach would be more unwelcome than is the present practice of Baptist churches. Could it be otherwise than most unpleasant to all concerned, if month after month, and week after week, it should be deemed incumbent, at the close of the communion service, to offer special prayer that the Lord would pardon certain partakers of the ordinance who had sought him in a manner contrary to his ar- rangements ? I could wish that the essay which I have been ex- amining had contained no reference to communion in the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. But at its close, mention is made of the " brethren who bar up their communion table against all who have not been im- mersed."* The following sentence deserves notice. "It is indeed a serious responsibility that we take upon ourselves, when we say, in the midst of all the light which the nineteenth century sheds around us, *I allow you to be a true disciple of Jesus; I hope and believe you have been born of the Spir- it ; but I cannot sit down with you at the feast of Jesus' dying love, because water has not been applied to you in the same manner as it lias to me.' "t This is not a correct, nor a kind, statement of the case. I am constrained to say, (in sorrow that there is such an oc- casion to say it, and with a belief that the error of the representation was not perceived,) I am constrained to P. 389. t P. 390. COMMUNION. 151 aay that brotherly kindness and justice require a differ- ent statement. If immersion be only one mode of bap- tism, and if pouring, and sprinkling, and any application of water, be other modes of baptism ; if, in short, whatever be the mode in \ifchich water is used, still Christian bap- tism is performed, then the statement would approach to correctness. And if, in addition, it could be shown, that babes and acknowledged unbelievers, if immersed in water, or if water be poured upon them, or if water be sprinkled upon them, have received Christian baptism, then might the statement be correct. With Prof Stu- art's views of baptism, his remark is rightly framed ; but he certainly should consider, that his views of bap- tism are totally different from the views of those in reference to whom he framed the remark, and whom he represents as making the remark. Let his views of baptism be first clearly proved to be scriptural, as well as the views of those who practise restricted commu- nion, and then if they continue the practice of restricted communion, they will deserve the stigma, to which they have thus far undeservedly, and, I trust, patiently sub- mitted. Must it be again for the thousandth time repeated, that Baptists believe only the immersion of a professed believer in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to be Christian baptism ; and that they consider Christian baptism as divinely appointed to precede admission into the church and the partaking of the Lord's Supper ? And as a consequence, they be- lieve, that if they should encourage the coming to the Lord's Supper, of those whom they cannot but consider as unbaptized, they would be neglecting the authority of the Head of the church, and, so far as principle is con- cerned, would incur the responsibility of displacing a 152 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Christian ordinance. Much as they value the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, they cannot, with a good conscience, less esteem the ordinance of baptism ; but they feel bound by the authority of the King in Zion in respect to bap- tism, as well as in respect to the Lord's Supper. Let it be clearly proved, that the great body of Christ's followers have hitherto been in a mistake as to the fundamental principle, that baptism (whatever baptism be,) ought to precede admission into the church and to the Lord's Supper, and then there can be no just controversy among real Ciiristians in regard to admission to the Lord's table. But so long as those who regard sprink- ling as baptism, yet hold to the fundamental principle, that what is called baptism ought to be received pre- viously to observing the Lord's Supper, they surely ought not to censure Baptists for maintaining the same princi- ple, and for being consistent enough to act upon the principle, even in the face of opposition and unkindness from their Christian brethren.* Even " that distinguished man among" the Baptists, "whose sun has recently gone down, although its beams still illuminate the whole horizon, "t has left upon record the following sentences: " This author, " [tiie person against whom he was writing] " had informed us at the distance of a ^aw lines, that the Pedobaptists in general believe that none ouglit to come to tiie Lord's table who are not baptized. If this is correct, we may indeed easi- ly conceive of their being ofiended with us for deeming * For a comprehensive discussion of the subject of communion at the Lord's table, I refer the reader to the work entitled " Con- versations on Strict and Mixed Communion ; in which the princi- pal arguments in favor of the latter practice are stated, as nearly as possible, in the words of its most powerful advocate, the Rev. Robert Hall. By J. G. Fuller." t P. 390. COMMUNION. 153 them unbaptized ; but how our refusal to admit them to communion should become the sul)jcct of debate, is utterly mysterious."* Again: *' Their practice," [that of the Baptists,] " is the inf^illible consequence of the opinion generally entertained respecting communion, conjoined with tlieir peculiar views of the baptismal rite. The recollection of this may suffice to rebut the ridicule, and silence the clamor, of those who loudly condemn the Baptists for a proceeding which, were they but to change their opinion on the subject of bap- tism, their own principles would compel them to adopt. They both concur in a common principle, from which the practice deemed so oftensive is the necessary result. "t Let this matter then be placed on its proper ground ; namely. Baptists practise restricted communion because (in common with the great body of the Saviour's fol- lowers,) they consider the reception of baptism as re- quisite to admission to the Lord's table ; and because, (what is peculiar to them,) they consider those only as baptized who have been immersed on a profession of their faith. Instead of making this matter an occasion of heart-burning and unkind expression, let it be ac- knowledged, that, painful as the practice may be, (and to whom so painful as to the Baptists themselves ?) when feeling only, aside from principle, is concerned, it yet has the merit of consistency. It is a regard to consistency and to the Lord's appointment, that makes them willing to separate, in respect to communion in an external ordinance, from those whom they highly respect as partakers of the common salvation, and with whom they rejoice now to participate in true Christian * Works of Robert Hall, Gregory's edition ; New York. Vol. I. P. 402. t Ibid, Vol. II. P. 213. 154 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. communion, a communion of spirit, unspeakably more valuable than any external union, and which they hope to enjoy with them perfect, and unalloyed, and immor- tal in heaven. The Lord forbid that they should be " ready to break the church in pieces by contending for rites and forms."* The Lord, in the abundance of his compas- sion, forgive them, if this be their spirit, and bestow upon them a better mind. But if this be not their spirit, if they be actuated by a sincere desire to main- tain the authority of the Bible, to know and to obey their Saviour's will in regard to his own institutes, and to induce others to obey the Saviour's will ; if it be their sincere wish that all the Lord's people may be united in the bonds of Christian charity and Christian obedience; then, let not tlieir fellow Christians seem to bring an ac- cusation against them, but be gentle towards them, and patient. And let their fellow Christians repair, in sin- gleness of heart, to the Christian statute-book ; and, elevated by love to Ilim who died to redeem them, and who in deeply impressive circumstances said, ' If ye love me, keep my commandments,' let ihem seriously pon- der the question, how they can conscientiously persist in those practices which divide brethren, and respect- ing which they are not able justly to say, Thus saith THE VOLUMl^ OF INSPIRATION. * r. 3'jo. 1 I